Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Undoing Androcentric Explanations of Gender Differences: Explaining ‘The Effect to be Predicted’

Abstract

Even if a social category contain women and men, men are often considered the default category members. Such androcentric thinking leads people to explain gender differences in such categories as being ‘about women’ rather than being ‘about men.’ In two experiments (N = 102) this bias was reversed within the category ‘voters.’ Participants generalized data about women voters to men and data about men voters to women, and explained the resulting gender differences. Explanations always focused on the group whose attributes were predicted, whether such predictions were unconstrained (Experiment 1) or constrained by forced-choice items (Experiment 2). People can reason about gender differences by taking women as the default gender, even within categories that are traditionally normed on men. Implications for the communication of gender differences and the bases of androcentric thinking are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    All post hoc tests reported here are Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05).

References

  1. Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Should we stop studying sex differences altogether? American Psychologist, 43, 1092–1095.

  2. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  3. Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515–520.

  4. Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S., & Vogel, S. R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 1–7.

  5. Clark, H. H. (1969). Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 76, 387–404.

  6. Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied equally to both men and women? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 457–462.

  7. Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785–799.

  8. Hamilton, M. C. (1991). Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood: People = male, male = people. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 393–402.

  9. Hare-Mustin, R. T., Marecek, J. (1990). Gender and the meaning of difference: Postmodernism and psychology. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 22–64). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  10. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology (in press).

  11. Hegarty, P., & Chryssochoou, X. (2005). Why ‘our’ policies set the standard more than ‘theirs’: Category norms and generalization between European Union countries. Social Cognition, 23, 491–528.

  12. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of category norms and stereotypes on explanations for inter-group differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 723–735.

  13. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2004). The differences that norms make: Empiricism, social constructionism and the interpretation of group differences. Sex Roles, 50, 445–453.

  14. Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children’s understandings of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697–706.

  15. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.

  16. Kitzinger, C. (Ed.). (1994). Should psychologists study sex differences? Feminism & Psychology, 4, 501–546.

  17. Martyna, W. (1980). Beyond the he/man approach. Signs, 5, 482–493.

  18. McGill, A. L. (1993). Selection of a causal background: Role of expectation versus feature mutability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 701–707.

  19. McHugh, M., Koeske, R. D., & Frieze, I. H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting non-sexist psychological research. American Psychologist, 41, 879–889.

  20. Mednick, M. T. (1989). On the politics of psychological constructs: Stop the bandwagon, I want to get off. American Psychologist, 44, 1118–1123.

  21. Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Buck, M. L. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 5–12.

  22. Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Bourhis, A. C. (2004). The reasonable woman standard: Effects on sexual harassment court decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 9–27.

  23. Rutte, C. G., Diekmann, K. A., Polzer, J. T., Crosby, F. J., & Messick, D. (1994). Organization of information and the detection of gender discrimination. Psychological Science, 5, 226–231.

  24. Scarr, S. (1988). Race and gender as psychological variables: Social and ethical issues. American Psychologist, 43, 56–59.

  25. Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 231–280.

  26. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.

  27. Stroessner, S. J. (1996). Social categorization by race or sex: Effects of perceived non-normalcy on response times. Social Cognition, 14, 247–276.

  28. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Walzdus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461–473.

  29. Zárate, M., & Smith, E. E. (1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 8, 161–185.

Download references

Acknowledgment

Thanks to Lynsey Mahoney for research assistance.

Author information

Correspondence to Peter Hegarty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hegarty, P. Undoing Androcentric Explanations of Gender Differences: Explaining ‘The Effect to be Predicted’. Sex Roles 55, 861–867 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9139-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Explanation
  • Category norm
  • Androcentrism
  • Prediction
  • Gender differences