Sex Roles

, Volume 75, Issue 7–8, pp 287–300 | Cite as

Mars, Venus, or Earth? Sexism and the Exaggeration of Psychological Gender Differences

  • Ethan Zell
  • Jason E. Strickhouser
  • Tyler N. Lane
  • Sabrina R. Teeter
Original Article

Abstract

Few studies have examined how people perceive psychological gender differences despite the practical importance of these perceptions for everyday life. In three studies, we examined whether there is a positive association between sexism and the tendency to exaggerate psychological gender differences. Study 1 demonstrated that the more strongly men endorsed hostile sexism and the more strongly women endorsed hostile or benevolent sexism, the larger they perceived gender differences to be across a broad range of psychological traits. Study 2 documented that the more strongly people endorsed hostile or benevolent sexism, the more likely they were to exaggerate the size of gender differences. In Studies 1 and 2, women perceived gender differences to be larger than did men, after accounting for sexism. Finally, Study 3 showed that increasing (decreasing) the perceived size of gender differences predicts corresponding increases (decreases) in sexism. These results support relevant theory, which argues that differentiation between genders underlies sexist ideologies, and they may inform future intervention studies that aim to reduce sexism by targeting exaggerated gender beliefs. Discussion highlights the proposed connection between sexism and the belief that “men are from Mars and women are from Venus”.

Keywords

Social perception Sex role attitudes Sexism Masculinity Femininity 

Supplementary material

11199_2016_622_MOESM1_ESM.doc (334 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 334 kb)

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, B. P. (1995). Gender stereotypes are not accurate: A replication of Martin (1987) using diagnostic vs. self-report and behavioral criteria. Sex Roles, 32, 583–600. doi:10.1007/BF01544213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. A., & Kellam, K. L. (1992). Belief perseverance, biased assimilation, and covariation detection: The effects of hypothetical social theories and new data. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 555–565. doi:10.1177/0146167292185005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber, N. (2016, January 4). Gender differences in sexuality crumbling. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.
  6. Becker, J. C., Zawadzki, M. J., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Confronting and reducing sexism: A call for research on intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 603–614. doi:10.1111/josi.12081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosson, J. K., & Michniewicz, K. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 425–442. doi:10.1037/a0033126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515–520. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00712.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Brescoll, V. L., Uhlmann, E. L., & Newman, G. E. (2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 891–908. doi:10.1037/a0034701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carothers, B. J., & Reis, H. T. (2013). Men and women are from earth: Examining the latent structure of gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 385–407. doi:10.1037/a0030437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423. doi:10.1177/0146167299025004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connelly, K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism appealing? Associations with system justification and life satisfaction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 432–443. doi:10.1177/0361684312456369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. doi:10.1037/a0021212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 5–17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 530–535. doi:10.1177/0361684311414832.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. In J. Dixon, M. Levine, J. Dixon, & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 70–88). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., & … López, 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.
  23. Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology, 46, 210–217. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, J. A., & Carter, J. D. (1999). Gender-stereotype accuracy as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 350–359. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2007). Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm. Emotion, 7, 438–446. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Halpern, D. F., Straight, C. A., & Stephenson, C. L. (2011). Beliefs about cognitive gender differences: Accurate for direction, underestimated for size. Sex Roles, 64, 336–347. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9891-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jussim, L., Cain, T. R., Crawford, J. T., Harber, K., & Cohen, F. (2009). The unbearable accuracy of stereotypes. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 199–227). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2010). Next gen ambivalent sexism: Converging correlates, causality in context, and converse causality, an introduction to the special issue. Sex Roles, 62, 395–404. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9747-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leslie, S., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347, 262–265. doi:10.1126/science.1261375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Löckenhoff, C. E., Chan, W., McCrae, R. R., De Fruyt, F., Jussim, L., De Bolle, M., & … Terracciano, A. (2014). Gender stereotypes of personality: Universal and accurate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 675–694. doi:10.1177/0022022113520075.
  39. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maestripieri, D. (2012, January 14). Gender differences in personality are larger than previously thought: New study confirms that men’s minds come from Mars and women’s from Venus. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com.
  41. Martin, C. L. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 489–499. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., & Colvin, C. R. (2003). Accurate intelligence assessments in social interactions: Mediators and gender effects. Journal of Personality, 71, 465–493. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7103008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Nater, C., & Zell, E. (2015). Accuracy of social perception: An integration and review of meta-analyses. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 481–494. doi:10.1111/spc3.12194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nguyen, H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334. doi:10.1037/a0012702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. North, M. S., Todorov, A., & Osherson, D. N. (2012). Accuracy of inferring self- and other-preferences from spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 227–233. doi:10.1007/s10919-012-0137-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reis, H. T., & Carothers, B. J. (2014). Black and white or shades of gray: Are gender differences categorical or dimensional? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 19–26. doi:10.1177/0963721413504105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2005). Brief report: Thin slices of racial bias. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 75–86. doi:10.1007/s10919-004-0890-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruben, M. A., & Hall, J. A. (2013). ‘I know your pain’: Proximal and distal predictors of pain detection accuracy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1346–1358. doi:10.1177/0146167213493188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sample, I. (2015, November 30). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus? New brain study says not. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com.
  52. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 921–948. doi:10.1037/a0035754.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 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. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stermer, S. P., & Burkley, M. (2012). Xbox or SeXbox? An examination of sexualized content in video games. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 525–535. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00442.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swim, J. K. (1994). Perceived versus meta-analytic effect sizes: An assessment of the accuracy of gender stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 21–36. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Tannen, D. (1991). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  60. Viegas, J. (2013, May 28). 10 gender differences backed up by science. Discovery News. Retrieved from http://news.discovery.com.
  61. Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (2010). Psychology of prejudice and discrimination (2nd ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  62. Woody, E. Z. (2011). An SEM perspective on evaluating mediation: What every clinical researcher needs to know. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 2, 210–251. doi:10.5127/jep.010410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. World Economic Forum. (2015). The global gender gap report (10th ed.). Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  64. Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70, 10–20. doi:10.1037/a0038208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206. doi:10.1086/651257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ethan Zell
    • 1
  • Jason E. Strickhouser
    • 1
  • Tyler N. Lane
    • 1
  • Sabrina R. Teeter
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWestern Carolina UniversityCullowheeUSA

Personalised recommendations