Interpreting and Communicating the Results of Gender-Related Research

  • Peter Hegarty
  • Felicia Pratto


Evolutionary Psychology Norm Theory Category Norm Social Dominance Orientation Singular Pronoun 
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.


  1. Ader, D. N., & Johnson, S. B. (1994). Sample description, reporting, and analysis of sex in psychological research: A look at APA and APA division journals in 1990. American Psychologist, 49, 216–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, B. (2002). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. A., & Sechler, E. S. (1986). Effects of explanation and counterexplanation the development and use of social theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. APA Publication Manual Task Force. (1977). Guidelines for non-sexist language in APA journals: Publication Manual change sheet 2. American Psychologist, 32, 487–494.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, J. (2006). The importance of theory for evaluating evidence on sex differences. American Psychologist, 61, 638–639.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bangerter, A. (2000). Transformation between scientific and social representations of conception: The method of serial reproduction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 521–535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baranowski, M. (2002). Current use of the epicene pronoun in written English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6, 378–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barker, M. (2007). Heteronormativity and the exclusion of bisexuality in psychology. In V. Clarke & E. Peel (Eds.), Out in psychology: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer perspectives (pp. 86–118). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Bartlett, F.C. (1950). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Should we stop studying sex differences altogether? American Psychologist, 43, 1092–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belenky, 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: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  12. Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 42, 155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bem, S. L. (1995). Dismantling gender polarization and compulsory heterosexuality: Should we turn the volume up or down? Journal of Sex Research, 32, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bernal, J. D. (1971). Science in history: The scientific and industrial revolutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bevington, D. (Ed.). (2003). The complete works of Shakespeare (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  17. Black, K. N., & Stevenson, M. R. (1984). The relationship of self-reported sex-role characteristics and attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 83–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2002). Representational change and analogy: How analogical inferences alter target representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 672–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular ‘they,’ sex-indefinite ‘he,’ and ‘he or she.’ Language in Society, 4, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boysen, G. A., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization in response to learning abut biological explanations of homosexuality. Sex Roles,57, 755–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Braun, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2001a). “Snatch,” “hole,” or “honey-pot”? Semantic categories and the problem of nonspecificity in female genital slang. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 146–158.Google Scholar
  22. Braun, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2001b). Telling it straight? Dictionary definitions of women’s genitals. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 214–232.Google Scholar
  23. Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing feminist psychology. In E. Burman (Ed.), Deconstructing feminist psychology (pp. 1–29). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Burman, E. (2007). Between Orientalism and normalization: Cross-cultural lessons from Japan for the history of psychology. History of Psychology, 10, 179–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Buss, D. M., & Malamuth, N. M. (1996). Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits ofsex.” New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Cameron, D. (Ed.). (1990). The feminist critique of language: A reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Cassidy, A. (2007). The (sexual) politics of evolution: Popular controversy in the late 20th century United Kingdom. History of Psychology, 10, 199–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Chase, C. (1998). Hermaphrodites with attitude: Mapping the emergence of intersex political activism. GLQ, 4, 189–211.Google Scholar
  33. Clark, H. H. (1969). Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 76, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cole, E. R., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Invidious comparisons: Imagining a psychology of race and gender beyond differences. Political Psychology, 22, 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Conrad, P., & Markens, S. (2001). Constructing the ‘gay gene’ in the news: Optimism and skepticism in the American and British press. Health, 5, 373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Constantinople, A. (1973) Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Crawford, M., & Marecek, J. (1989). Psychology reconstructs the female: 1968–1988. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 504–553). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Danziger, K. (2006). Universalism and indigenization in the history of modern psychology. In A. C. Brock (Ed.), Internationalizing the history of psychology (pp. 208–255). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science, 314, 435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Davies, A. P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). An evolutionary psychological perspective on gender similarities and differences. American Psychologist, 61, 640–641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An integrative model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. deBeauvoir, S. (1949). The second sex. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  44. Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Diamond, M. (1999). Pediatric management of ambiguous and traumatized genitalia. Journal of Urology, 162, 1021–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, H. K. (1997). Sex reassignment at birth: A long term review and clinical implications. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 150, 298–304.Google Scholar
  47. Dreger, A. D. (Ed.). (1999). Intersex in the age of ethics. Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  48. Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2003). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? An analysis of attitudes, beliefs, and emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 451–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Epstein, S. (2007). Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Falomar-Pichastor, J. M., & Mugny, G. (2009). “I’m not gay… I’m a real man!” Heterosexual men’s gender self-esteem and sexual prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1233–1243.Google Scholar
  55. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993, March/April). The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. Sciences, 20–25.Google Scholar
  56. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  57. Fedigan, L. M. (1986). The changing role of women in models of human evolution. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Freud, S. (1925/1961). Some psychical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. In E. Jones (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. XIX, pp. 241–258). London: Hogarth.Google Scholar
  59. Foster, R. A., & Keating, J. P. (1992). Measuring androcentrism in the Western God-concept. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualite: Volume 1 – La volonte de savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  61. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  62. Gannon, L., Luchetta, T., Rhodes, K., Pardie, L., & Segrist, D. (1992). Sex bias in psychological research: Progress or complacency? American Psychologist, 47, 389–396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Giacomini, M., Rozee-Koker, P., & Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell, F. (1986). Gender bias in human anatomy textbook illustrations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Gjerde, P. F. (2004). Culture, power, and experience: Toward a person-centered cultural psychology. Human Development, 47, 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 92–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). Can Florida be the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17, 935–938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Greenwald, A. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Hamilton, M. C. (1991). Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood: People = male, male = people. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Maracek, J. (1990). Gender and the meaning of difference: Postmodernism and psychology. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Maracek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 22–64). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Hegarty, P. (2001). ‘Real science,’ deception experiments, and the gender of my lab coat: Toward a new laboratory manual for lesbian and gay psychology. International Journal of Critical Psychology, 1, 91–108.Google Scholar
  79. Hegarty, P. (2003). ‘More feminine than 999 men out of 1,000:’ The construction of sex roles in psychology. In T. Lester (Ed.), Gender nonconformity, race, and sexuality: Charting the connections (pp. 62–83) Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  80. Hegarty, P. (2006). Undoing androcentric explanations of gender differences: Explaining ‘the effect to be predicted.’ Sex Roles, 55, 861–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology, 10, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Hegarty, P., Buechel, C., & Ungar, S. (2006). Androcentric preferences for visuospatial representations of gender differences. In D. Barker-Plummer, R. Cox, & N. Swoboda (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference: 4th International Conference, Diagrams 2006 (pp. 263–266). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  83. Hegarty, P., & Chryssochoou, X. (2005). Why ‘our’ policies set the standard more than ‘theirs’: Category norms and generalization between European Union countries. Social Cognition, 23, 491–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Hegarty, P., & Coyle, A. (2005). Special feature on ‘Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?’ by Anne Constantinople (1973). Feminism & Psychology, 15, 379–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Hegarty, P., & Golden, A. M. (2008). Attributions about the controllability of stigmatized traits: Antecedents or justifications of prejudice? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1023–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Hegarty, P., Lemieux, A., & McQueen, G. (2008). Graphing the order of the sexes:Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  87. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001a). Sexual orientation beliefs: Their relationshipto anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist arguments. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 121–135.Google Scholar
  88. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001b). The effects of category norms and stereotypes on explanations of intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 723–735.Google Scholar
  89. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2004). The differences that norms make: Empiricism, social constructionism, and the meaning of group differences. Sex Roles, 50, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A., & Lombardi, W. J. (1985). Nature of priming effects on categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Hill, J. (1998). Language, race, and White public space. American Anthropologist, 100, 680–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 237–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Hitchcock, A. [Director]. (1959). North by northwest. Metro Goldwyn MayerGoogle Scholar
  96. Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Holmes, M. (1998). In (to) visibility: Intersexuality in the field of queer. In D. Atkins (Ed.), Looking queer (pp. 221–225). Philadelphia: Haworth.Google Scholar
  98. Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Hyde, J. S. (1994). Should psychologists study gender differences? Yes, with some guidelines. Feminism & Psychology, 4, 507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Hyde, J. S. (2006). Gender similarities still rule. American Psychologist, 61, 641–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Hyde, J. S., & Plant, E. A. (1995). Magnitude of psychological gender differences: Another side of the story. American Psychologist, 50, 159–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Jacklin, C. N. (1981). Methodological issues in the study of sex-related differences. Developmental Review, 1, 266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Jayaratne, T. E., Ybarra, O., Sheldon, J. P., Brown, T. N., Feldbaum, M., Pfeffer, C. A., et al. (2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: Their relationship toward Blacks and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Jordan, N. [Director]. (1992). The crying game. British Screen ProductionsGoogle Scholar
  107. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Kanazawa, S. (1992). Outcome or expectancy? Antecedents of spontaneous causal attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 659–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Keller, E. F. (1992). Secrets of life/secrets of death: Essays on language, gender, and science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  111. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Kessler, S. (1998). Lessons from the intersexed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Kessler, S. J. (1990). The medical construction of gender: Case management of intersexed infants. Signs, 16, 3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Kessler, S. J., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  115. Kitzinger, C. (1994). Should psychologists study sex differences? Feminism & Psychology, 4, 501–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Kitzinger, C. (1996). The token lesbian chapter. In S. Wilkinson (Ed.), Feminist social psychologies: International perspectives (pp. 119–144). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Kitzinger, C. (2005). The myth of the two biological sexes. Psychologist, 17, 451–454.Google Scholar
  118. Lambdin, J., Greer, K. M., Jibotian, K. S., Wood, K. R., & Hamilton, M. C. (2003). The animal=male hypothesis: Children’s and adults’ beliefs about the sex of non sex-specific stuffed animals. Sex Roles, 48, 471–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., & Brown-Collins, A. (1992). Cultural diversity and methodology in feminist psychology: Critique, proposal and empirical example. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  121. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Leary, D. E. (1990). Psyche’s muse: The role of metaphor in the history of psychology. In D. E. Leary (Ed.), Metaphors in the history of psychology (pp. 1–78). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Lee, P. A., Houk, C. P., Ahmed, F., & Hughes, I. A. (2006). Concensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Pediatrics, 118, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  125. Lippa, R. A. (2006). The gender reality hypothesis. American Psychologist, 61, 639–640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Ithaca, NY: Crossing Press.Google Scholar
  127. Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. (1974) The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  128. Mackenzie, B. D., & Mackenzie, S. L. (1974). The case for a revised systematic approach to the history of psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 10, 324–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs, 16, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Martyna, W. (1980). Beyond the “he/man” approach: The case for nonsexist language. Signs, 5, 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Maurer, B. (1995). Complex subjects: Offshore finance, complexity theory, and the dispersion of the modern. Socialist Review, 25, 114–145.Google Scholar
  132. McCaughy, M. (2008). The caveman mystique: Pop-darwinism and the debates over sex, violence, and science. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  133. McHugh, M., Koeske, R. D., & Frieze, I. H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting non-sexist psychological research. American Psychologist, 41, 879–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Medin, D. L., & Waxman, S. (2007). Interpreting asymmetries of projection in children’s inductive reasoning. In A. Feeney & E. Heit (Eds.), Inductive reasoning: Experimental, developmental, and computational approaches (pp. 55–80). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Mednick, M. T. (1989). On the politics of psychological constructs: Stop the bandwagon, I want to get off. American Psychologist, 44, 1118–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1997). The construction of social norms and standards. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Ed.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 799–829). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  137. Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Buck, M. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 5–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Miller, J. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961– 978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Moghaddam, F. M., & Lee, N. (2007). Double reification: The process or reifying psychology in the three worlds. In A. C. Brock (Ed.), Internationalizing the history of psychology (pp. 208–255). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  140. Money, J. (1955a). An examination of some basic sexual concepts: The evidence of human hermaphroditism. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, 97, 301–19.Google Scholar
  141. Money, J. (1955b). Sexual incongruities and psychopathology: The evidence of human hermaphroditism. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, 97, 43–57.Google Scholar
  142. Money, J., Hampson, J. G., & Hampson, J. L. (1955). Hermaphroditism: Recommendations concerning assignment of sex, change of sex, and psychologic management. Bulletin of Johns Hopkins Hospital, 97, 284–300.Google Scholar
  143. Moore, L. J. (2002). Extracting men from semen: Masculinity in scientific representations of sperm. Social Text, 20, 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Morawski, J. G. (1990). Toward the unimagined: Feminism and epistemology in psychology. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 150–183). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  145. Morland, I. (2009). Editorial: Lessons from the octopus. GLQ, 15, 191–197.Google Scholar
  146. Morrison, T. (1993). Playing in the dark: Whiteness and the literary imagination. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  147. Morton, T. A., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2006). We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affirming science. Political Psychology, 27, 823–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Moyer, R. (1997). Covering gender on memory’s front page: Men’s prominence and women’s prospects. Sex Roles, 37, 595–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Ng, S. H. (1990). Androcentric coding of man and his in memory by language users. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Oldham, J. D., & Kasser, T. (1999). Attitude change in response to information that male homosexuality has a biological basis. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 25, 121–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Oyama, S. (2000). The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution (2nd ed.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  152. Parlee, M. B. (1996). Situated knowledges of personal embodiment: Transgender activists’ and psychological theorists’ perspectives on ‘sex’ and ‘gender.’ Theory and Psychology, 6, 625–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 996–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Perrott, D. A., Gentner, D., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2005). Resistance is futile: The unwitting insertion of analogical inferences in memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 696–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. Peterson, S. B., & Kroner, T. (1992). Gender biases in textbooks for introductory psychology and human development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Phelan, S. (2001). Sexual strangers: Gays, lesbians, and dilemmas of citizenship. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  157. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  158. Piskur, J., & Degelman, D. (1992). Effect of reading a summary of research about biological bases of homosexual orientation on attitudes toward homosexuals. Psychological Reports, 71 1219–1225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Pols, H. (2007). Psychological knowledge in a colonial context: Theories on the nature of the ‘native mind’ in the former Dutch East Indies. History of Psychology, 10, 111–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling ‘how I know.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 607–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Pratarelli, M. E., & Donaldson, J. S. (1997). Immediate effects of written material on attitudes toward homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 81, 1411–1415.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 191–263). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  163. Pratto, F. (2002). Integrating experimental and social constructivist social psychology: Some of us are already doing it. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Pratto, F., & Hegarty, P. (2000). The political strategy of reproductive strategies. Psychological Science, 11, 57–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Pratto, F., Hegarty, P., & Korchmaros, J. (2007). Who gets stereotyped? How communication practices and category norms lead people to stereotype particular people and groups. In Y. Kashima, K. Fiedler, & P. Freytag (Eds.), Stereotype dynamics: Language-based approaches to stereotype formation, maintenance, and change (pp. 299–319). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  166. Pratto, F., Korchmaros, J. N., & Hegarty, P. (2007). When race and gender go without saying. Social Cognition, 25, 221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Prentice, D. A. (1994). Do language reforms change our way of thinking? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391.Google Scholar
  170. Reardon, P., & Prescott, S. (1977). Sex as reported in a recent sample of psychological research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Robinson, E., & Hegarty, P. (2005). Premise-based category norms and the explanation of age differences. New Review of Social Psychology, 4, 138–143.Google Scholar
  172. Rosch, E., & Mervis, G. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Rose, N. (1996). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  175. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Akimoto, S. A., & Biggs, E. (1993). Overestimating causality: Attributional effects of confirmatory processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 892–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Santos de Barona, M., & Reid, P. T. (1992). Ethnic issues in teaching the psychology of women. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2008). Then and now: Recruitment, definition, diversity, and positive attributes of same-sex populations. Developmental Psychology, 44, 135–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Scarr, S. (1988). Race and gender as psychological variables: Social and ethical issues. American Psychologist, 43, 56–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Schwabacher, S. (1972). Male vs. female representation in psychological research: An examination of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 1971. Journal Supplement Abstract Service, 2, 20–21.Google Scholar
  180. Sedgwick, E. K. (1991). How to bring your kids up gay: The war on effeminate boys. Social Text, 29, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Espinoza, P. (2004). Biased processing of stereotype-incongruency is greater for low than high status group targets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Shah, P., Freedman, E. G., & Verini, I. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 426–476). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Sheldon, J. P., Pfeffer, C. A., Jayaratne, T. E., Feldbaum, M., & Petty, E. M. (2007). Beliefs about the etiology of homosexuality and about the ramifications of discovering its possible genetic origin. Journal of Homosexuality, 52, 11–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Shields, S. (1982). The variability hypothesis: The history of a biological model of sex differences in intelligence. Signs, 7, 769–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  186. Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N., Tsakanikos, E. Witherby, S. A., Fraser, C. et al. (2006). Synaesthesia: The prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences. Perception, 35, 1024–1034.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 231–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, A. D., Archibald, A. B., & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57, 749–761.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Spence, J. T. (1985). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. Progress in Experimental Research in Personality, 13, 1–97.Google Scholar
  190. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 1–44.Google Scholar
  191. Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  192. Srull, T. K., Lichtenstein, M., & Rothbart, M. (1985). Associative storage and retrieval processes in person memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 316–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  194. Tetlock, P. E. (1991). An alternative metaphor in the study of judgment and choice: People as politicians. Theory and Psychology, 1, 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954/2005). The lord of the rings (50th ann. ed). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  196. Tversky, B. (2005). Functional significance of visuospatial representations. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 1–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34, 1085–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Warner, M. (1993). Introduction. In M. Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet (pp. vii–xxxi). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  199. Weatherall, A., & Walton, M. (1999). The metaphorical construction of sexual experience in a speech community of New Zealand university students. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Wetherell, M. (1997). Linguistic repertoires and literary criticism: New directions for a social psychology of gender. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davies (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 149–167). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  202. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals’ attributions for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Wilkinson, S. (1997). Feminist psychology. In D. Fox & I. Pritteltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 247–264). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  204. Woolsey, L. (1977). Psychology and the reconciliation of women’s double bind: To be feminine or to be fully human. Canadian Psychology, 18, 66–78.Google Scholar
  205. Zuriff, G. E. (2006). Judgments of similarity are psychological: The importance of importance. American Psychologist, 61, 641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Hegarty
    • 1
  • Felicia Pratto
    • 2
  1. 1.University of SurreyGuildfordEngland
  2. 2.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations