Sex, Gender, and Epistemology

  • Rhoda K. Unger


It has been argued by Buss (1975) and others that psychology as a discipline tends to alternate between two basic paradigms explaining the relationship between humans and their environment. These two basic conceptual paradigms are: (1) reality constructs the person, and (2) the person constructs reality. Paradigm (1) postulates a model of a reality that is stable, irreversible, and deterministic. It further postulates that this reality is discoverable through the proper application of scientific methodology and that individual differences are a result of the impingement of that reality on the developing organism. This deep structure underlies such diverse schools of thought as behaviorism, psychoanalysis, and sociobiology. These theoretical frameworks do not question that reality exists. They differ merely on the aspects of reality they stress as having the most impact on individual behavior.


Social Reality Social Constructionist Physical Attractiveness Experimental Social Psychology Feminist Scholar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, A.R. (1975). The emerging field of the sociology of psychological knowledge. American Psychologist, 30, 988–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buss, A.R. (1976). Galton and sex differences: An historical note. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 72, 283–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, C.J., Huston, A.C., & Holt, W. (1986). Modification of preschool sex-typed behaviors by participation in adult-structured activities. Sex Roles, 14, 603–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coan, R.W. (1979). Psychologists: Personal and theoretical pathways. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  6. Crosby, F.J. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Crosby, F.J., & Herek, G.M. (1986). Male sympathy and the situation of women: Does personal experience make a difference? Journal of Social Issues, 42, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dion, K.L. (1975). Women’s reaction to discrimination from members of the same or opposite sex. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 294–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dion, K.L., & Earn, B.M. (1975). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 944–950.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., & Fishbaugh, L. (1981). Sex differences in conformity: Surveillance by the group as a determinant of male nonconformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 384–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fine, M. (1983–1984). Coping with rape: Critical perspective on consciousness. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 3, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forward, J.R., & Williams, J.R. (1970). Internal-external control and black militancy. Journal of Social Issues, 26, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gergen, K.J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grady, K.E. (1977). The belief in sex differences. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  18. Hacker, H.M. (1951). Women as a minority group. Social Forces, 30, 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen, R.D. (1980). Commonsense attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 996–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, R.D., & O’Leary, V.E. (1985). Sex-determined attributions. In V.E. O’Leary, R.K. Unger, & B.S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 67–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Katz, P. A. (1986). Modification of children’s gender-stereotyped behavior: General issues and research considerations. Sex Roles, 14, 591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kidder, L.H., Belletirie, G., & Cohn, E.S. (1977). Secret ambitions and public performance: The effect of anonymity on reward allocations made by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kimbe, G.A. (1984). Psychology’s two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, D.J. (1980). Values of undergraduate students and faculty members on theoretical orientations in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 7, 236–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Konner, M. (1981). The tangled wing: Biological constraints on the human spirit. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  26. Laws, J.L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles, 1, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemay, M.F., & Unger, R.K. (1982). The perception of females and males: The relationship between physical attractiveness and gender. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  28. McGuire, W.J., McGuire, C.V., & Winton, W. (1979). Effects of household sex composition on the salience of one’s gender in the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.Google Scholar
  30. Pastore, N. (1949). The nature-nurture controversy. New York: King’s Cross Press.Google Scholar
  31. Piliavin, J.A., & Unger, R.K. (1985). The helpful but helpless female: Myth or reality. In V.E. O’Leary, R.K. Unger, & B.S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology(pp. 149–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Ricketts, M. (1986). Theoretical orientations and values of feminist psychologists. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Windsor.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenberg, R. (1982). Beyond separate spheres: Intellectual roots of modern feminism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenthal, N.B. (1984). Consciousness raising: From revolution to reevaluation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rublin, Z., & Peplau, A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanger, B.P., & Alker, H.A. (1972). Dimensions of internal-external locus of control and the women’s liberation movement. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Serbin, L.A., Connor, J.M., & Citron, C.C. (1978). Environmental control of independent and dependent behaviors in preschool boys and girls: A model for early independence training. Sex Roles, 4, 867–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sherif, C.W. (1982). Needed concepts in the study of gender identity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sherwood, J.J., & Nataupsky, M. (1968). Predicting the conclusions of Negro—White intelligence research from biographical characteristics of the investigator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 53–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shields, S.A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist, 30, 739–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skrypnek, B.J., & Snyder, M. (1982). On the self-perpetuating nature of stereotypes about women and men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Snyder, M., Tanke, E.D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Snyder, M., & Uranowitz, S.W. (1978). Reconstructing the past: Some cognitive consequences of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 941–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  45. Spence, J.T., & Sawin, L.L. (1985). Images of masculinity and femininity: A reconceptualization. In V.E. O’Leary, R.K. Unger, & B.S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 35–66) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, S.E., & Fiske, S.T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  47. Unger, R.K. (1981). Sex as a social reality: Field and laboratory research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Unger, R.K. (1983). Through the looking glass: No Wonderland yet! (The reciprocal relationship between methodology and models of reality.) Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Unger, R.K. (1984–1985). Explorations in feminist ideology: Surprising consistencies and unexamined conflicts. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 4, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Unger, R.K. (1985). Between the “no longer” and the “not yet”: Reflections on personal and social change. First Carolyn Wood Sherif Memorial Lecture. Presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  51. Unger, R.K. (1986). Looking toward the future by looking at the past: Social activism and social history. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Unger, R.K. (1988). Psychological, feminist, and personal epistemology: Transcending contradiction. In M. Gergen (Ed)., Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 124–141). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Unger, R.K., Draper, R.D., & Pendergrass, M.L. (1986). Personal epistemology and personal experience. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Unger, R.K., Hilderbrand, M., & Madar, T. (1982). Physical attractiveness and assumptions about social deviance: Some sex by sex comparisons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Unger, R.K., & Sussman, L.E. (1986). “I and thou”: Another barrier to societal change? Sex Roles, 14, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. von Baeyer, C.L., Sherk, D.L., & Zanna, M.P. (1981). Impression management in the job interview: When the female applicant meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wallston, B.S. (1981). What are the questions in psychology of women? A feminist approach to research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 597–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wallston, B.S., & Grady, K.E. (1985). Integrating the feminist critique and the crisis in social psychology: Another look at research methods. In V.E. O’Leary, R.K. Unger, & B.S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 7–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Wood, J.T., & Conrad, C. (1983). Paradox in the experience of professional women. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 305–322.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rhoda K. Unger

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations