Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98044356.pdf

Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression

Numerous theories in social and health psychology assume that intentions cause behaviors. However, most tests of the intention- behavior relation involve correlational studies that preclude causal inferences. In order to determine whether changes in behavioral intention engender behavior change, participants should be assigned randomly to a treatment that significantly increases the strength of respective intentions relative to a control condition, and differences in subsequent behavior should be compared. The present research obtained 47 experimental tests of intention-behavior relations that satisfied these criteria. Meta-analysis showed that a medium-to-large change in intention (d = 0.66) leads to a small-to-medium change in behavior (d = 0.36). The review also identified several conceptual factors, methodological features, and intervention characteristics that moderate intention-behavior consistency.

/pdf/does-changing-behavioral-intentions-engender-behavior-change-4nqh8nlgfo.pdf

Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence.

Research comparing the leadership styles of women and men is reviewed, and evidence is found for both the presence and the absence of differences between the sexes. In contrast to the gender-stereotypic expectation that women lead in an interpersonaily oriented style and men in a task-oriented style, female and male leaders did not differ in these two styles in organizational studies. However, these aspects of leadership style were somewhat gender stereotypic in the two other classes of leadership studies investigated, namely (a) laboratory experiments and (b) assessment studies, which were denned as research that assessed the leadership styles of people not selected for occupancy of leadership roles. Consistent with stereotypic expectations about a different aspect of leadership style, the tendency to lead democratically or autocratically, women tended to adopt a more democratic or participative style and a less autocratic or directive style than did men. This sex difference appeared in all three classes of leadership studies, including those conducted in organizations. These and other findings are interpreted in terms of a social role theory of sex differences in social behavior.

/pdf/gender-and-leadership-style-a-meta-analysis-2kh816as5o.pdf

Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis

According to our social-role theory of gender and helping, the male gender role fosters helping that is heroic and chivalrous, whereas the female gender role fosters helping that is nurturant and caring. In social psychological studies, helping behavior has been examined in the context of short-term encounters with strangers. This focus has tended to exclude from the research literature those helping behaviors prescribed by the female gender role, because they are displayed primarily in long-term, close relationships. In contrast, the helping behaviors prescribed by the male gender role have been generously represented in research findings because they are displayed in relationships with strangers as well as in close relationships. Results from our meta-analytic review of sex differences in helping behavior indicate that in general men helped more than women and women received more help than men. Nevertheless, sex differences in helping were extremely inconsistent across studies and were successfully predicted by various attributes of the studies and the helping behaviors. These predictors were interpreted in terms of several aspects of our social-role theory of gender and helping.

Gender and Helping Behavior. A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. A meta-analysis of 78 studies demonstrates that social loafing is robust and generalizes across tasks and S populations. A large number of variables were found to moderate social loafing. Evaluation potential, expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness, and culture had especially strong influence. These findings are interpreted in the light of a Collective Effort Model that integrates elements of expectancy-value, social identity, and self-validation theories. Many of life's most important tasks can only be accomplished in groups, and many group tasks are collective tasks that require the pooling of individual members' inputs. Government task forces, sports teams, organizational committees, symphony orchestras, juries, and quality control teams provide but a few examples of groups that combine individual efforts to form a single product. Because collective work settings are so pervasive and indispensable, it is important to determine which factors motivate and demotivate individuals within these collective contexts. Intuition might lead to the conclusion that working with others should inspire individuals to maximize their potential and work especially hard. Research on social loafing, however, has revealed that individuals frequently exert less effort on collective tasks than on individual tasks. Formally, social loafing is the reduction in motivation and effort when individuals work collectively compared with when they work individually or coactively. When working collectively, individuals work in the real or imagined presence of others with whom they combine their inputs to form a single group product. When working coactively, individuals work in the real or imagined presence of others, but their inputs are not combined with the inputs of others. Determining the conditions under which individuals do or do not engage in social loafing is a problem of both theoretical and practical importance. At a practical level, the identification of moderating variables may

/pdf/social-loafing-a-meta-analytic-review-and-theoretical-22g4ic0jro.pdf

Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.

According to stereotypic beliefs about the sexes, women are more communal (selfless and concerned with others) and less agentic (self-assertive and motivated to master) than men. These beliefs were hypothesized to stem from perceivers' observations of women and men in differing social roles: (a) Women are more likely than men to hold positions of lower status and authority, and (b) women are more likely than men to be homemakers and are less likely to be employed in the paid work force. Experiments 1 and 2 failed to support the hypothesis that observed sex differences in status underlie belief in female communal qualities and male agentic qualities. Experiment 3 supported the hypothesis that observed sex differences in distribution into homemaker and employee occupational roles account for these beliefs. In this experiment, subjects perceived the average woman and man stereotypically. Female and male homemakers were perceived as high in communion and low in agency. Female and male employees were perceived as low in communion and high in agency, although female employees were perceived as even more agentic than their male counterparts. Experiments 4 and 5 examined perceptions that might account for the belief that employed women are especially agentic: (a) A double burden of employment plus family responsibilities did not account for this belief, and (b) freedom of choice about being employed accounted for it reasonably well.

/pdf/gender-stereotypes-stem-from-the-distribution-of-women-and-3kt8u5by59.pdf

Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles

Subjects’ beliefs about the communion and agency of part-time employees were compared with their beliefs about the communion and agency of homemakers, full-time employees, and persons without an occupational description. Female part-time employees were believed to be more communal and less agentic than female full-time employees as well as less communal than female homemakers. Male part-time employees were believed to be less agentic than male full-time employees as well as less communal and less agentic than both male homemakers and men without an occupational description. In addition, subjects believed that part-time employment is associated with different life situations for women and men. For women this situation is substantial commitment to domestic duties, whereas for men it is difficulty in finding full-time employment. These findings support the theory that stereotypes concerning the communion and agency of women and men are a product of the social roles that women and men have been observed to occupy.

Gender stereotypes, occupational roles, and beliefs about part-time employees

College men reported their attitude and intention to perform the testicle self-exam (TSE) and they rated the likelihood of various consequences of performing the TSE, as well as the likelihood that several other people approved of this behavior. Half of these men had read a brochure about the TSE before completing the questionnaire, and half had not. Also, about half had heard about the TSE prior to the experiment and the others had not. Men's beliefs about the consequences of doing the TSE clustered into two factors: Beliefs about practical consequences and beliefs about health consequences. Men with (vs. without) prior knowledge about the exam and men who read (vs. did not read) the brochure endorsed more positive beliefs about practical and health consequences and more positive TSE attitude and intention. However, the effect of the brochure was far stronger for men without than with prior knowledge. In addition, factors influencing TSE attitude and intention differed for men without versus with prior TSE knowledge. Although the findings were generally consistent with the theory of reasoned action, some findings supported elements of protection motivation theory. Implications for promoting the TSE are discussed.

Men's Motivation to Perform the Testicle Self-Exam: Effects of Prior Knowledge and an Educational Brochure

This experiment explored people's implicit theories about the effects of influencers' and targets' status and sex on the directness and politeness of influencers' persuasive style. Female and male subjects read a description of either a woman influencing a man or a man influencing a woman. Either the influencer's job title was high in status and the target's was low, the influencer's title was low in status and the target's was high, or neither person had a job title. For each of four request styles that varied in directness and politeness, subjects rated the likelihood that the influencer would (1) use the style; (2) gain compliance by using the style; and (3) be liked by the target after using the style. As predicted, high-status influencers were considered more likely to use direct and impolite styles and less likely to use indirect and polite styles than low status influencers. As a consequence of using direct and impolite styles, high status influencers were thought more likely to gain compliance and...

Implicit Theories about Influence Style The Effects of Status and Sex

Stereotypes of women and men who varied in their occupations were assessed by obtaining (a) judgments of prototypical individuals on trait-rating scales or (b) estimates of the percentage of group members who possess each trait. The absence of significant interactions between the method of assessing stereotypes and the sex or occupation of the target stimuli suggests that these two methods of stereotype measurement can be used interchangeably.

Valerie J. Steffen

Papers

Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles

Gender stereotypes, occupational roles, and beliefs about part-time employees

Men's Motivation to Perform the Testicle Self-Exam: Effects of Prior Knowledge and an Educational Brochure

Implicit Theories about Influence Style The Effects of Status and Sex

A Note on Assessing Stereotypes