Complementary gender stereotypes and system justification: the moderating role of essentialist lay theories for group differences / Estereotipos de género complementarios y justificación del sistema: el papel moderador de las teorías populares esencialistas sobre las diferencias grupales

Pub Date : 2016-01-02 DOI:10.1080/02134748.2015.1101312
Tilemachos Iatridis, N. Stergiou
{"title":"Complementary gender stereotypes and system justification: the moderating role of essentialist lay theories for group differences / Estereotipos de género complementarios y justificación del sistema: el papel moderador de las teorías populares esencialistas sobre las diferencias grupales","authors":"Tilemachos Iatridis, N. Stergiou","doi":"10.1080/02134748.2015.1101312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Past research has established that complementary stereotypes of men and women serve to justify the gendered division of labour as well as the division of labour in society at large. This paper is concerned with the essentialist lay theories for the origin of group differences (i.e. belief in genetic determinism vs. belief in social determinism) which may moderate the justificatory effect of complementary gender stereotypes. We present data from an experimental study conducted in Greece, in which genetic vs. social deterministic lay theories for group differences and complementary vs. non-complementary accounts of gender differences were crossed. In these data, complementary accounts of gender increased participants’ justificatory responses only when a genetic deterministic context was made salient; on the contrary, the social deterministic context appeared to buffer the justificatory function of complementary accounts of gender. The results extend the literatures on the justificatory effects of complementary stereotypes as well as on essentialism, and point to the importance of the historical context in which particular ideas and lay theories for intergroup differences are embedded.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02134748.2015.1101312","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2015.1101312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Past research has established that complementary stereotypes of men and women serve to justify the gendered division of labour as well as the division of labour in society at large. This paper is concerned with the essentialist lay theories for the origin of group differences (i.e. belief in genetic determinism vs. belief in social determinism) which may moderate the justificatory effect of complementary gender stereotypes. We present data from an experimental study conducted in Greece, in which genetic vs. social deterministic lay theories for group differences and complementary vs. non-complementary accounts of gender differences were crossed. In these data, complementary accounts of gender increased participants’ justificatory responses only when a genetic deterministic context was made salient; on the contrary, the social deterministic context appeared to buffer the justificatory function of complementary accounts of gender. The results extend the literatures on the justificatory effects of complementary stereotypes as well as on essentialism, and point to the importance of the historical context in which particular ideas and lay theories for intergroup differences are embedded.
分享
查看原文
互补的性别刻板印象和系统正当性:群体差异本质主义理论的调节作用/互补的性别刻板印象和系统正当性:群体差异流行本质主义理论的调节作用
过去的研究已经证实,男性和女性的互补刻板印象有助于证明性别分工以及整个社会的劳动分工是合理的。本文关注群体差异起源的本质主义理论(即基因决定论与社会决定论),这些理论可能会调节互补性性别刻板印象的辩护效果。我们提出了在希腊进行的一项实验研究的数据,其中遗传与社会确定性的外行理论对群体差异和性别差异的互补与非互补的解释进行了交叉。在这些数据中,性别的补充说明增加了参与者的正当反应,只有当遗传确定性的背景是突出的;相反,社会决定论的背景似乎缓冲了性别补充解释的辩护功能。研究结果拓展了关于互补刻板印象的正当性效应和本质主义的文献,并指出了嵌入群体间差异的特定思想和理论的历史背景的重要性。
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
×
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