Book contents
- Science, Technology, and Society
- Science, Technology, and Society
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Prologue
- Chapter 1 Technically Based Programs in Science, Technology, and Public Policy
- Chapter 2 Comparative Studies of Science and Technology
- Chapter 3 On the Origins of Models of Innovation
- Chapter 4 The Third Wave of Science Studies
- Chapter 5 Legal Regulation of Technology
- Chapter 6 The Social Shaping of Technology (SST)
- Chapter 7 Placing Users and Nonusers at the Heart of Technology
- Chapter 8 Scientific Community
- Chapter 9 Genetic Engineering and Society
- Chapter 10 Technology Enables and Reduces Sex Differences in Society
- Chapter 11 Technology for Society
- Index
- References
Chapter 10 - Technology Enables and Reduces Sex Differences in Society
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2019
By
Edited by
Book contents
- Science, Technology, and Society
- Science, Technology, and Society
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Prologue
- Chapter 1 Technically Based Programs in Science, Technology, and Public Policy
- Chapter 2 Comparative Studies of Science and Technology
- Chapter 3 On the Origins of Models of Innovation
- Chapter 4 The Third Wave of Science Studies
- Chapter 5 Legal Regulation of Technology
- Chapter 6 The Social Shaping of Technology (SST)
- Chapter 7 Placing Users and Nonusers at the Heart of Technology
- Chapter 8 Scientific Community
- Chapter 9 Genetic Engineering and Society
- Chapter 10 Technology Enables and Reduces Sex Differences in Society
- Chapter 11 Technology for Society
- Index
- References
Summary
Few topics have sparked as much interest, not only among scientists but also among politicians and the general public, as the topic of sex differences. In what specific psychological qualities and behaviors do women differ from men (Hyde, 2007, 2014) and how can such differences be explained (Eagly & Wood, 1999, 2013)? These issues are important because a thorough understanding of them would inform business practices and political debates (for example, about the reasons for the lack of female top executives; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly & Karau, 2002) and because they concern key decisions that people make in their private lives (for example, about the qualities they look for in a mate or the level of income they seek; Tinsley, Howell, & Amanatullah, 2015; Zentner & Mitura, 2012).
People are also intrigued by the question of how technology and electronic media affect societies and individual behaviors.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Science, Technology, and SocietyNew Perspectives and Directions, pp. 234 - 252Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 256–267. doi:10.1037/a0017094Google Scholar
Bear, J. B., & Collier, B. (2016). Where are the women in Wikipedia? Understanding the different psychological experiences of men and women in Wikipedia. Sex Roles, 74, 254–265. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0573-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470743386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Buckner, C. E. (2018). The psychology of sex and gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1151–1177. doi:10.1037/apl0000113Google Scholar
Carothers, B. J., & Reis, H. T. (2013). Men and women are from Earth: Examining the latent structure of gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 385–407. doi:10.1037/a0030437Google Scholar
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 340–357. doi:10.1177/1745691613484767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evers, C., Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Anger and social appraisal: A “spicy” sex difference? Emotion, 5, 258–266. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.3.258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup, . (2016). Women in America: Work and life well-lived. Retrieved from www.gallup.com/reports/195359/women-america-work-life-lived-insights-business-leaders.aspxGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilman, M. E., & Wallen, A. S. (2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 664–667. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.008Google Scholar
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69–95. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002Google Scholar
Hilbert, M., & López, P. (2011). The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332, 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.1200970Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2007). New directions in the study of gender similarities and differences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 259–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00516.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., & Livingston, B. A. (2008). Is the gap more than gender? A longitudinal analysis of gender, gender role orientation, and earnings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 994–1012. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.994Google Scholar
Karsay, K., Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2018). Sexualizing media use and self-objectification: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42, 9–28. doi:10.1177/0361684317743019Google Scholar
Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 371–392. doi:10.1037/a0037215Google Scholar
Kugler, K. G., Reif, J. A. M., Kaschner, T., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2018). Gender differences in the initiation of negotiations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 198–222. doi:10.1037/bul0000135CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauzen, M. M., & Dozier, D. M. (2005). Maintaining the double standard: Portrayals of age and gender in popular films. Sex Roles, 52, 437–446. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3710-1Google Scholar
Lauzen, M. M., Dozier, D. M., & Horan, N. (2008). Constructing gender stereotypes through social roles in prime-time television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 200–214. doi:10.1080/08838150801991971Google Scholar
Moll, R., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2014). Competent or clueless? Users’ knowledge and misconceptions about their online privacy management. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 212–219. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.033Google Scholar
Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2014). Male backlash: penalties for men who violate gender stereotypes. In Burke, R. J., & Major, D. A. (Eds.), Gender in organizations: Are men allies or adversaries to women’s career advancement? (pp. 247–269). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238Google Scholar
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073–1083. doi:10.1177/01461672022811006Google Scholar
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715. doi:10.1177/009365098025006006Google Scholar
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243–1254. doi:10.1177/01461672012710001Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003Google Scholar
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Perceiving groups. In Social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 155–202). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Citera, M. (2005). Hostile behavior and profit in virtual negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 69–93. doi:10.1007/s10869-005-6984-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuhlmacher, A. F., Citera, M., & Willis, T. (2007). Gender differences in virtual negotiation: Theory and research. Sex Roles, 57, 329–339. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9252-yGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, C. H., & Ely, R. J. (2018). What most people get wrong about men and women. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 114–121. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/05/what-most-people-get-wrong-about-men-and-womenGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, C. H., Howell, T. M., & Amanatullah, E. T. (2015). Who should bring home the bacon? How deterministic views of gender constrain spousal wage preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126(1), 37–48. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.09.003Google Scholar
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304–340. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001Google Scholar
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1–22. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(96)00026-XGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 165–197. doi:10.1037/bul0000039Google Scholar
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.699CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 629–667). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7Google Scholar
Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 1176–1185. doi:10.1177/0956797612441004Google Scholar