Sex Roles

, Volume 68, Issue 9–10, pp 550–561 | Cite as

Something Old, Something New: Evidence of Self-Accommodation to Gendered Social Change

  • Amanda B. Diekman
  • Amanda M. Johnston
  • Allison L. Loescher
Original Article


Two studies examined how individuals adapt the self to social trends—in particular, when the social roles of the gender ingroup change, do people readily leave behind traditional roles in favor of nontraditional roles? We hypothesized that self-relevant cognitions and behaviors would accommodate to societal change, and we found that this accommodation took the shape of greater acceptance of nontraditional roles alongside continued acceptance of traditional roles. Experiment 1 included 112 undergraduates from the Midwestern U.S. who learned about social change or social stability by reading articles ostensibly published in a newspaper. Individuals who learned about social change for their gender ingroup, relative to those learning about social stability, projected greater personal success in careers, particularly for gender-nontraditional careers. Experiment 2 examined behavioral responses to social change in a sample of 198 female undergraduates from the Midwestern U.S. Participants learned about social change or social stability and then chose to view either a website focused on physical appearance (i.e., traditional choice) or leadership (i.e., nontraditional choice). Behavioral responses to social change reflected accommodation to the anticipated social structure: Individuals who learned about social change chose to view information about nontraditional rather than traditional roles. These studies provide initial experimental evidence investigating how individuals adapt the self to the social structure.


Social change Gender roles Social roles Career decisions Gender stereotypes 


  1. Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 768–776. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, E., & Diekman, A. (2010). What will I be? Exploring gender differences in near and distant possible selves. Sex Roles, 63, 568–579. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9827-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catalyst. (2012). Women in management in the United States, 1960-present. Retrieved from
  8. Center for American Women and Politics. (2009). Women in elective office 2009. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power (2nd ed). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, E. R., Zucker, A. N., & Duncan, L. E. (2001). Changing society, changing women (and men). In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 410–423). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. (2012). 20 leading occupations of employed women: 2010 annual averages. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. Retrieved from
  13. Diekman, A. B. (2007). Negotiating the double bind: Interpersonal and instrumental evaluations of dominance. Sex Roles, 22, 551–561. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9198-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  15. Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., & Johnston, A. M. (2010). Social structure. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 209–224). New York: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Ferreira, M. C. (2005). Dynamic stereotypes about women and men in Latin America and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 209–226. doi:10.1177/0022022104272902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369–383. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00312.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diekman, A. B., & Hirnisey, L. (2007). The effect of context on the silver ceiling: A role congruity perspective on prejudiced responses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1353–1366. doi:10.1177/0146167207303019.
  19. Diekman, A. B., & Murnen, S. K. (2004). Learning to be little women and little men: The inequitable gender equality of nonsexist children’s literature. Sex Roles, 50, 373–385. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000018892.26527.ea.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2003). The malleability of sex differences in response to changing social roles. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths (pp. 103–115). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19–35). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fullerton, H. N. (1999). Labor force participation: 75 years of change, 1950–98 and 1998–2025. Monthly Labor Review, 122, 3–12.Google Scholar
  29. Glick, P. (1991). Trait-based and sex-based discrimination in occupational prestige, occupational salary, and hiring. Sex Roles, 25, 351–378. doi:10.1007/BF00289761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., … Lopez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.Google Scholar
  33. Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & De Souza, M. A. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 292–297. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.Google Scholar
  35. Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hill, J., & Daniels, P. (2008). Life events and rites of passage: The customs and symbols of major life-cycle milestones, including cultural, secular, and religious traditions observed in the United States. Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics.Google Scholar
  38. Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322–328. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Judd, P. C., & Oswald, P. A. (1997). Employment desirability: The interactive effects of gender-typed profile, stimulus sex, and gender-typed occupation. Sex Roles, 37, 467–476. doi:10.1023/A:1025669801166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kite, M. E. (2001). Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be? In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 215–227). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, M. (2009). A latent semantic analysis of gender stereotype-consistency and narrowness in American English. Sex Roles, 60, 269–278. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9534-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levanon, A., England, P., & Allison, P. (2009). Occupational feminization and pay: Assessing causal dynamics using 1950–2000 U.S. census data. Social Forces, 88, 865–891. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lips, H. (2012). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations. Perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of human capital models. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z.
  45. Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mager, J., & Helgeson, J. G. (2011). Fifty years of advertising images: Some changing perspectives on role portrayals along with enduring consistencies. Sex Roles, 64, 238–252. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9782-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923–936. doi:10.1177/0146167210371949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). A test of objectification theory in adolescent girls. Sex Roles, 46, 343–349. doi:10.1023/A:1020232714705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J. M. (1989). Linking individual development and social changes. American Psychologist, 44, 30–42. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.1.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stewart, A. J., & McDermott, C. (2004). Gender in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 519–544. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52, 707–712. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. U.S. Department of Labor. (2009). Women in the labor force: A databook (2009 Edition). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  55. Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451. doi:10.1126/science.1198364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilde, A., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in dynamic stereotypes: A comparison between Germany and the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 188–196. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00181.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55-123). San Diego, CA: Elsevier/Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7.
  60. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81, 267–301. doi:10.3102/0034654311405999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda B. Diekman
    • 1
  • Amanda M. Johnston
    • 2
  • Allison L. Loescher
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Houston - Clear LakeHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Miami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations