Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Vive La Difference? Genetic Explanations for Perceived Gender Differences in Nurturance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Investigated genetic explanations for perceived gender differences in nurturance, a gender intensified prescriptive trait, compared to other gendered traits. Based on a nationally representative telephone survey of Black and White Americans (N = 1200), we found perceived gender differences in nurturance were more often attributed to genetics than perceived gender differences math ability or violence. Men were more likely than women to use genetics to explain perceived gender differences in nurturance, but not math or violence. Finally, respondents viewed perceived gender differences as more strongly genetic than individual differences for nurturance, but not math and violence, suggesting such beliefs have ideological roots. We discuss the potential of genetic explanations to reinforce stereotypes and to justify the social hierarchy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angier, N. (1995). Gene defect tied to violence in male mice. The New York Times, p. A16, November 23.

  • Auster, C., & Ohm, S. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeson, D., & Duster, T. (2002). African American perspectives on genetic testing. In J. S. Alper, et al. (Eds.), The double-edged helix: Social implications of genetics in a diverse society (pp. 151–174). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. (2006). The gender gap at school. The New York Times, June 11.

  • Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartmill, M. (1999). The status of the race concept in physical anthropology. American Anthropologist, 100, 651–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, P. (1997). Public eyes and private genes: Historical frames, news constructions, and social problems. Social Problems, 44, 139–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, P. (2002). Genetics and behavior in the news: Dilemmas of a rising paradigm. In A. Alper, et al. (Eds.), The double-edged helix: Social implications of genetics in a diverse society (pp. 58–79). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, I. W., Harper, E., & Loat, C. S. (2004). The genetic basis for sex differences in human behaviour: Role of the sex chromosomes. Annals of Human Genetics, 68, 269–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Demoulin, S., Leyens, J., & Yzerbyt, V. (2006). Lay theories of essentialism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, S. J., & Michaels, M. W. (2004). The mommy myth. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987) Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J., & Jacobs, J. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs, 11, 367–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emslie, C., Hunt, K., & Watt, G. (2003). A chip off the old block? Lay understandings of inheritance among men and women in mid-life. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, G. (1991). Gender stereotypes and power: Perceptions of the roles in violent marriages. Sex Roles, 24, 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, R. (2003). Childfree and feminine: Understanding the gender identity of voluntarily childless women. Gender & Society, 17, 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (2001). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278–306). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, C. (1992). Cover story: Sizing up the sexes. Time, 139, 42–52, January 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, J. L. (2001). The emperor’s new clothes: Biological theories of race at the millennium. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (1994). Ethnicity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study of item selection for the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 31, 241–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C., & Ellis, J. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J., Fennema, E., Ryan, M., & Frost, L. (1990). Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackman, M. (1996). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 with prejudice toward Blacks, and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, D. D., & Swanson, D. H. (2003). Invisible mothers: A content analysis of motherhood ideologies and myths in magazines. Sex Roles, 49, 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ view of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanie, A. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Sheldon, J. P., Kardia, S. L. R., & Petty, E. M. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 305–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. L., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (2004). God talk: Confusion between science and religion. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. S. (1995). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, K. (2005). Choosing childlessness: Weber’s typology of action and motives of the voluntarily childless. Sociological Inquiry, 75, 372–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. (2001). The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideology. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 257–277). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, S. R., Bee, H., Broverman, I. K., & Broverman, D. M. (1968). Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 287–295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50, 835–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schouten, M., & Looren deJong, H. (2001). Pluralism and heuristic identification: Some explorations in behavioral genetics. Theory & Psychology, 11, 796–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, B. A. (1992). Women, men and time: Gender differences in paid work, housework and leisure. New York: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, S. (1992). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. In J. S. Bohan (Ed.), Seldom seen, rarely heard: Women’s place in psychology (pp. 79–106). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J., & Buckner, C. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. (1999). Mapping gender: The multifactorial approach and the organization of gender-related attributes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 485–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (1994). Violence, genes, and prejudice. Discover, 15, 92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (2000). Cross-cultural views of women and men. In K. A. Keough & J. Garcia (Eds.), Social psychology of gender, race and ethnicity: Readings and projects (pp. 168–173). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In P. J. Oakes, R. Spears, N. Elleners, & S. A. Haslan (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20–50). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V., & Rogier, A. (2001). Blame it on the group: Entitativity, subjective essentialism, and social attribution. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 103–134). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V. Y., Rogier, A., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1089–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, T. S., Holm, K. E., & Haddock, S. A. (2001). A decade of advice for women and men in the best-selling self-help literature. Family Relations, 50, 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The contribution of the first two authors was shared equally and their authorship order was determined randomly. This study was funded by a grant to Toby Jayaratne from the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research Program at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NIH-grant #R01 HG01881), with additional support from the Institute for Research on Women and Gender, the Office of the Vice President for Research, and the Life Science, Values and Society Program at the University of Michigan. We thank Peter Hegarty and Ken Guire for their suggestions and comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Women’s Studies Program and Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 2136 Lane Hall, 204 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104-1290, USA

    Elizabeth R. Cole

  2. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 610 East University, Suite 1400, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1259, USA

    Toby Epstein Jayaratne

  3. Yale University, 3865 Union Street, North Chili, NY, 14514, USA

    Laura A. Cecchi

  4. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1203 Perry School Bldg, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1248, USA

    Merle Feldbaum

  5. Internal Medicine and Human Genetics and Medical School, University of Michigan, 5220 MSRB III, 1150 West Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-0640, USA

    Elizabeth M. Petty

Authors
  1. Elizabeth R. Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toby Epstein Jayaratne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura A. Cecchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Merle Feldbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth M. Petty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Elizabeth R. Cole or Toby Epstein Jayaratne.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Genetic Explanation Measures

Genetic Explanations for Individual Differences in Nurturance

Next, what about the difference between people who are very nurturing and caring with children and those who aren’t at all nurturing? Do you think their genes have anything to do with this difference? (IF YES): “In your opinion, how much of this difference is due to their genes? Would you say very little, some, a lot or just about all?”

Genetic Explanations for Individual Differences in Math Ability/Violence

What about the difference between people who are really good in math and those who aren’t at all good in math?

What about the difference between people who have a tendency to act violently and those who don’t have this tendency at all?

Genetic Explanations for Perceived Gender Differences in Nurturance

Now, I’d like to ask about some ways that men might tend to differ from women. People we’ve talked with have many different opinions about this, so we just want to know what you honestly think. First, some people think men tend to differ from women in how nurturing or caring they are with children. Although there are many reasons why they might differ, do you think their genes or genetic make-up has anything to do with this difference?

Genetic Explanations for Perceived Gender Differences in Math Ability/Violence

Some people think men tend to differ from women in how good they are in math. Do you think their genes have anything to do with this difference?

Some people think men differ from women in their tendency to act violently. Do you think their genes have anything to do with this difference?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cole, E.R., Jayaratne, T.E., Cecchi, L.A. et al. Vive La Difference? Genetic Explanations for Perceived Gender Differences in Nurturance. Sex Roles 57, 211–222 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9248-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9248-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation