Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 49, Issue 11–12, pp 693–699 | Cite as

Gender Differences in Ways of Knowing: The Context Dependence of the Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Survey

  • Michelle K. Ryan
  • Barbara David
Note

Abstract

In this article we challenge the notion of stable, gender-related differences in the way people acquire and process information, with men more likely to utilize separate knowing and women connected knowing. An alternative analysis highlights malleability and the importance of social context in determining knowing style. We examined the responses of 186 women and 81 men on the Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Survey (ATTLS; Galotti, Clinchy, Ainsworth, Lavin, & Mansfield, 1999) across 3 contexts. Results revealed that both men and women were more likely to use connected knowing in the context of similar in-groups compared to the context of dissimilar out-groups. Gender differences were only apparent where gender was made salient. Our data support an analysis of ways of knowing as flexible and context dependent and question the notion that knowing is intrinsically related to gender.

ways of knowing gender differences self-categorization theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Belenkly, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, J. E., & Lalonde, R. N. (2001). Social identification and gender-related ideology in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 59-77.Google Scholar
  4. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering; Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clinchy, B. M. (1989). The development of thoughtfulness in college women: Integrating reason and care. American Behavioural Scientist, 32, 647-657.Google Scholar
  6. Clinchy, B. M. (1996). Connected and separate knowing: Toward a marriage of two minds. In N. Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy, & M. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by Women's way of knowing (pp. 205-247). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Cross, S. E., & Madson L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.Google Scholar
  8. David, B., Grace, D., & Ryan, M. K. (in press). The gender wars: A self-categorization perspective on the development of gender identity. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self. Oxford: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  9. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behaviour. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389.Google Scholar
  10. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Fiske, A. P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S. T. (1991). Confusing one person with another: What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 656-674.Google Scholar
  12. Galotti, K. M., Clinchy, B. M., Ainsworth, K. H., Lavin, B., & Mansfield, A. F. (1999). A new way of assessing ways of knowing: The Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Survey (ATTLS). Sex Roles, 40, 745-766.Google Scholar
  13. Galotti, K. M., Drebus, D. W., & Reimer, R. L. (2001). Ways of knowing as learning styles: Learning MAGIC with a partner. Sex Roles, 44, 419-436.Google Scholar
  14. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Knight, K. H., Elfenbein, M. H., Capozzi, L., Eason, H. A., Bernardo, M. F., & Ferus, K. S. (2000). Relationship of connected and separate knowing to parental style and birth order. Sex Roles, 43, 229-240.Google Scholar
  17. Knight, K. H., Elfenbein, M. H., & Martin, M. B. (1997). Relationship of connected and separate knowing to the learning styles of KoIb, formal reasoning, and intelligence. Sex Roles, 37, 401-414.Google Scholar
  18. Knight, K. H., Elfenbein, M. H., & Messina, J. A. (1995). A preliminary scale to measure connected and separate knowing: The Knowing Styles Inventory. Sex Roles 33, 499-513.Google Scholar
  19. Maccoby, E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.Google Scholar
  20. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Ryan, M. K., & David, B. (2001, July). Moral reasoning: Gender, the self, and social context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Ryan, M. K., & David, B. (2002). A gendered self or a gendered context: A self-categorization approach to independence and interdependence. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  23. Ryan, M. K., David, B., & Reynolds, K. J. (2002). Who cares? The effect of context on self-concept and moral reasoning. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  24. Sherif, C. W. (1982). Needed concepts in the study of gender identity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 375-398.Google Scholar
  25. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group process: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  26. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.Google Scholar
  28. Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1999). Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective. In T. R. Tyler (Ed.), The psychology of the social self: Applied social research (pp. 11-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations