Words Like Weapons: Labeling Women As Emotional During a Disagreement Negatively Affects the Perceived Legitimacy of Their Arguments

IF 2.5 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
T. Frasca, Emily A. Leskinen, Leah R. Warner
{"title":"Words Like Weapons: Labeling Women As Emotional During a Disagreement Negatively Affects the Perceived Legitimacy of Their Arguments","authors":"T. Frasca, Emily A. Leskinen, Leah R. Warner","doi":"10.1177/03616843221123745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With one in eight Americans thinking women are too emotional to be in politics (Carnevale et al., 2019), being labeled as emotional during a disagreement may activate stereotypes about a woman's irrationality and affect how legitimate people perceive her arguments to be. We experimentally tested the effects of such labels. In Study 1 (N  =  86), participants who read a vignette where a woman (versus a man) was told to “calm down” during a disagreement, saw her argument as significantly less legitimate. Perceived emotionality mediated the relation between condition and perceived legitimacy. Study 2 replicated this finding (N  =  126) with different vignettes where the character was explicitly labeled as “emotional.” Using video vignettes in Study 3 (N  =  251), we failed to replicate the results observed in Studies 1 and 2. We hope practitioners use these studies to increase awareness of how stereotype-laden labels can delegitimize women's arguments, particularly when heard via writing (e.g., via email, text, or instant messaging) rather than when observed. This work may motivate observers to challenge the use of delegitimizing labels, so that women's claims can be judged based on the soundness of their arguments, rather than stereotypes about their ability to think rationally. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221123745","PeriodicalId":48275,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Women Quarterly","volume":"46 1","pages":"420 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Women Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221123745","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With one in eight Americans thinking women are too emotional to be in politics (Carnevale et al., 2019), being labeled as emotional during a disagreement may activate stereotypes about a woman's irrationality and affect how legitimate people perceive her arguments to be. We experimentally tested the effects of such labels. In Study 1 (N  =  86), participants who read a vignette where a woman (versus a man) was told to “calm down” during a disagreement, saw her argument as significantly less legitimate. Perceived emotionality mediated the relation between condition and perceived legitimacy. Study 2 replicated this finding (N  =  126) with different vignettes where the character was explicitly labeled as “emotional.” Using video vignettes in Study 3 (N  =  251), we failed to replicate the results observed in Studies 1 and 2. We hope practitioners use these studies to increase awareness of how stereotype-laden labels can delegitimize women's arguments, particularly when heard via writing (e.g., via email, text, or instant messaging) rather than when observed. This work may motivate observers to challenge the use of delegitimizing labels, so that women's claims can be judged based on the soundness of their arguments, rather than stereotypes about their ability to think rationally. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221123745
像武器一样的语言:在分歧中给女性贴上情绪化的标签会对她们的论点的合法性产生负面影响
八分之一的美国人认为女性过于情绪化而不能参与政治(Carnevale等人,2019年),在分歧中被贴上情绪化的标签可能会引发人们对女性非理性的刻板印象,并影响人们对她的论点的合法性的看法。我们通过实验测试了这些标签的效果。在研究1 (N = 86)中,参与者阅读了一篇小短文,其中一名女性(与一名男性相比)在发生分歧时被告知“冷静”,他们认为她的论点明显不那么合理。知觉情绪在状态与知觉合法性之间起中介作用。研究2用不同的小插图重复了这一发现(N = 126),其中角色被明确标记为“情绪化”。在研究3 (N = 251)中使用视频片段,我们未能重复研究1和2中观察到的结果。我们希望从业人员利用这些研究来提高人们的意识,即充满刻板印象的标签是如何使女性的论点失去合法性的,特别是当通过书面形式(例如,通过电子邮件、短信或即时消息)听到而不是观察到的时候。这项工作可能会激励观察人士挑战使用不合法的标签,这样女性的主张就可以根据她们的论点的合理性来判断,而不是基于对她们理性思考能力的刻板印象。本文的其他在线材料可在PWQ的网站http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221123745上获得
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) is a feminist, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that publishes empirical research, critical reviews and theoretical articles that advance a field of inquiry, teaching briefs, and invited book reviews related to the psychology of women and gender. Topics include (but are not limited to) feminist approaches, methodologies, and critiques; violence against women; body image and objectification; sexism, stereotyping, and discrimination; intersectionality of gender with other social locations (such as age, ability status, class, ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation); international concerns; lifespan development and change; physical and mental well being; therapeutic interventions; sexuality; social activism; and career development. This journal will be of interest to clinicians, faculty, and researchers in all psychology disciplines, as well as those interested in the sociology of gender, women’s studies, interpersonal violence, ethnic and multicultural studies, social advocates, policy makers, and teacher education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信