{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Words Like Weapons: Labeling Women As Emotional During a Disagreement Negatively Affects the Perceived Legitimacy of Their Arguments
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
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.