Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 121–130 | Cite as

An Investigation into the Relationship between the Gender Binary and Occupational Discrimination Using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure

  • Aoife CartwrightEmail author
  • Ian Hussey
  • Bryan Roche
  • Jenny Dunne
  • Carol Muphy
Original Article

Abstract

The social construction of gender-as-binary plays an important role within many contemporary theories of gender inequality. However, to date, the field of psychology has struggled with the operationalization and assessment of binarist ideologies. The current article proposes a technical framework for the analysis of the gender binary and assesses the suitability of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of binarist gender beliefs. Forty-seven undergraduate students (26 female; M age = 23.84) completed two IRAPs assessing the coordination of certain traits exclusively with women and others exclusively with men. Effects found on the IRAP were in the expected direction (i.e., relating men but not women with certain traits and women but not men with other traits). In addition, the traits ascribed to men within the IRAP were evaluated as more hirable by a large majority of participants (83%) on an explicit preference task. The results therefore support the arguments that, first, gender traits do seem to be framed oppositionally in language and, second, this binary may underpin existing gender hierarchies in certain contexts.

Keywords

Gender binarism Relational Frame Theory gender discrimination Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partly funded by a Maynooth University John and Pat Hume scholarship awarded to the first author for doctoral research conducted under the supervision of the third author.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This research was funded by a Maynooth University John and Pat Hume research scholarship awarded to the first author.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adams, M. & Coltrane, S. (2004). Boys and men in families: The domestic production of gender, power, and privilege. In R. Connell, J. Hearn & M. Kimmel (Eds.), The handbook of studies of men and masculinity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Stewart, I., & Boles, S. (2010). A sketch of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) and the Relational Elaboration and Coherence (REC) model. The Psychological Record, 60, 527–542.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00018.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, J., & Butler, M. E. (2002). Gender trouble: Tenth anniversary edition. Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, A., Roche, B., Gogarty, M., O’Reilly, A., & Stewart, I. (2016). Using a modified Function Acquisition Speed Test (FAST) for assessing implicit gender stereotypes. The Psychological Record. doi: 10.1007/s40732-016-0164-5. 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. Coltrane, S. & Adams, M. (2008). Gender and families (2nd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859. http://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Houwer, J., & Moors, A. (2010). Implicit measures: Similarities and differences. In B. Gawronski & K. B. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 176–193). New York, NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Drake, C. E., Kellum, K. K., Wilson, K. G., Luoma, J. B., Weinstein, J. H., & Adams, C. H. (2010). Examining the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: Four preliminary studies. The Psychological Record, 60, 81–100.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gelman, S. A. (2005). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Grey, I. M., & Barnes, D. (1996). Stimulus equivalence and attitudes. The Psychological Record, 46, 243–271.Google Scholar
  17. Griffin, C., & Phoenix, A. (1994). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Lessons from feminist psychology. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 287–298. doi: 10.1002/casp.2450040408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Habarth, J. M. (2015). Development of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale. Psychology and Sexuality, 6, 166–188. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2013.876444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Hooks, B. (1981). Ain’t I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hussey, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2015). From Relational Frame Theory to implicit attitudes and back again: clarifying the link between RFT and IRAP research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2, 11–15. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, A. G. (2005). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kessler, S., Ashenden, D. J., Connell, R. W., & Dowsett, G. W. (1985). Gender relations in secondary schooling. Sociology of Education, 58, 34–48. doi: 10.2307/2112539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kimmel, M. S. (2000). The gendered society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kimmel, M. S. (2007). The sexual self: The construction of sexual scripts. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kimmel, M. S. & Messner M. A. (2009). Men’s Lives (7th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  27. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642. doi: 10.1037/a0023557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 189–225). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Leaper, C., & Friedman, C. K. (2007). The socialization of gender. In J. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 561–587). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Moxon, P., Keenan, M., & Hine, L. (1993). Gender-role stereotyping and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 381–394.Google Scholar
  31. Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of spider fear. The Psychological Record, 62, 263–278.Google Scholar
  32. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Reilly, A., Roche, B., Ruiz, M., Tyndall, I., & Gavin, A. (2012). The Function Acquisition Speed Test (FAST): A behavior analytic implicit test for assessing stimulus relations. The Psychological Record, 62, 507–528.Google Scholar
  34. O’Reilly, A., Roche, B., & Cartwright, A. (2014). Function over form: A modern behaviour-analytic approach to implicit attitudes. In J. Zin (Ed.), Exploring implicit cognition: Learning, memory, and social-cognitive processes. Philadelphia, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  35. Orr, D., Taylor, D., Kahl, E., Earle, K., Rainwater, C., & McAlister, L. (Eds.). (2007). Feminist politics: Identity, difference, and agency. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  36. Phipps, A. (2007). Re-inscribing gender binaries: Deconstructing the dominant discourse around women’s equality in science, engineering, and technology. The Sociological Review, 55, 768–787. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00744.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rabelo, L. Z., Bortoloti, R., & Souza, D. H. (2014). Dolls are for girls and not for boys: Evaluating the appropriateness of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure for school-age children. The Psychological Record, 64, 71–77. doi: 10.1007/s40732-014-0006-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 4403–4408. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314788111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1998). The experimental analysis of human sexual arousal: Some recent developments. Behavior Analyst, 21, 37.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Stewart, I., & O’Hora, D. (2002). Relational Frame Theory: A new paradigm for the analysis of social behavior. Behavior Analyst, 25, 75–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Roche, B., & Dymond, S. (2013). Advances in Relational Frame Theory: Research and application. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Serano, J. (2009). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.Google Scholar
  44. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Watt, A., Keenan, M., Barnes, D., & Cairns, E. (1991). Social categorization and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 41, 33–50.Google Scholar
  46. Witt, S. D. (1997). Parental influence on children’s socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 32, 253–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, D. R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMaynooth UniversityKildareIreland
  2. 2.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations