Gender and Intergroup HelpingForms of Prosocial Behavior as Differential Social Control Mechanisms for Women and Men

  1. Silvia Abad Merino 1
  2. John F. Dovidio 1
  3. Carmen Tabernero 2
  4. Ignacio González 2
  1. 1 Yale University (USA)
  2. 2 Universidad de Córdoba
    info

    Universidad de Córdoba

    Córdoba, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05yc77b46

Aldizkaria:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Argitalpen urtea: 2016

Alea: 19

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2016.72 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Garapen Iraunkorreko Helburuak

Laburpena

The present research, drawing on the Intergroup Helping as Power Relations Model (Nadler, 2002), investigated the ways in which different forms of helping behavior can strategically affect responses to women and men who display socially valued or devalued characteristics. Participants read scenarios about concrete problems faced by a woman or man in need, who displayed positive (i.e., prosocial) or negative (i.e., antisocial) characteristics, and indicated the extent to which they would be willing to support small tax increases if that money were used to help address the target’s issues. The predicted Target Gender × Target History × Type of Support interaction, controlling for political orientation, was obtained, F(1, 149) = 6.49, p = .012, ηp2 = .04. Participants tended to give less autonomy-oriented (i.e., empowering) help to a man displaying antisocial (vs. prosocial) characteristics, F(1, 36) = 3.39, p = .074, ηp2 = .09.; they also tended to off more dependency-oriented (i.e., disempowering) help to a woman women exhibiting prosocial (vs. antisocial) qualities, F(1, 38) = 3.42, p = .072, ηp2 = .08. The role of seemingly positive forms of social behavior as a mechanism for social control and the relation of helping to processes of group-hierarchy and system-justifying processes are considered.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Abad Merino S., Newheiser A., Dovidio J. F., Tabernero C., & González I. (2013). The dynamics of intergroup helping: The case of subtle bias against Latinos. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, 445–452. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0032658
  • Becker J. C., Glick P., Ilic M., & Bohner G. (2011). Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t: Consequences of accepting versus rejecting patronizing help for the female target and male actor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 761–773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.823
  • Biernat M., Ma J. E., & Nario-Redmond M. R. (2008). Standards to suspect and diagnose stereotypical traits. Social Cognition, 26, 288–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/ soco.2008.26.3.288
  • Biernat M., & Vescio T. K. (2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s benched: Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 66–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167202281006
  • Bowles H. R., & Babcock L. (2012). How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 80–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312455524
  • Brescoll V. L., & Uhlmann E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science, 19, 268–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x
  • Carter J. S., Corra M., & Carter S. K. (2009). The interaction of race and gender: Changing gender-role attitudes, 1974–2006. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 196–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00611.x
  • Dovidio J. F., & Gaertner S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36001-6
  • Eagly A. H., & Diekman A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19–35). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Eagly A. H., & Mladinic A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0146167289154008
  • Eagly A. H., Wood W., & Diekman A. B. (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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • European Commission (2012). Discrimination in the EU in 2012 [Special Eurobarometer 393]. Retrieved from European Comision Website http://ec.europa.eu/ public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf
  • Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P., & Xu J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
  • Gilbert D. T., & Silvera D. H. (1996). Overhelping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 678–690. http://dx. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.678
  • Glick P., & Fiske S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
  • Glick P., & Fiske S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 530–535. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0361684311414832
  • Halabi S., Dovidio J. F., & Nadler A. (2008). When and how high status groups offer help: Effects of social dominance orientation and status threat. Political Psychology, 29, 841–858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221. 2008.00669.x
  • Halabi S., Dovidio J. F., & Nadler A. (2012). Responses to intergroup helping: Effects of perceived stability and legitimacy of intergroup relations on Israeli Arabs’reactions to assistance by Israeli Jews. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 295–301. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.12.002
  • Hurwitz J., & Peffley M. (2005). Playing the race card in the post–Willie Horton era: The impact of racialized code words on support for punitive crime policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 99–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/ nfi004
  • Jackman M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Jackman M. R. (2005). Rejection or inclusion of outgroups? In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 89–105). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Jackson L., & Esses V. M. (2000). Effects of perceived economic competition on people’s willingness to help empower immigrants. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 419–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1368430200003004006
  • Jost J. T., Liviatan I., van der Toorn J., Ledgerwood A., Mandisodza A., & Nosek B. A. (2012). System justification: A motivational process with implications for social conflict. In E. Kals & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 315–327). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-19035-3_19
  • Kay A. C., Gaucher D., Peach J. M., Laurin K., Friesen J., Zanna M. P., & Spencer S. J. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0015997
  • Kervyn N., Bergsieker H. B., & Fiske S. T. (2012). The innuendo effect: Hearing the positive but inferring the negative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 77–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp. 2011.08.001
  • Kteily N., Ho A. K., & Sidanius J. (2012). Hierarchy in the mind: The predictive power of social dominance orientation across social contexts and domains. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 543–549. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.007
  • Lee T. L., Fiske S. T., & Glick P. (2010). Next gen ambivalent sexism: Converging correlates, causality in context, and converse causality: An introduction to the special issue. Sex Roles, 62, 395–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-010-9747-9
  • Livingston R. W., Rosette A. S., & Washington E. F. (2012). Can an agentic black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23, 354–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611428079
  • Moya M., Glick P., Expósito F., de Lemus S., & Hart J. (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1421–1434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207304790
  • Nadler A. (2002). Inter-group relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups though helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00272
  • Nadler A., & Halabi S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 97–110. http://dx. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.97
  • Pearson A. R., Dovidio J. F., & Gaertner S. L. (2009). The nature of contemporary prejudice: Insights from aversive racism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 314–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004. 2009.00183.x
  • Purdie-Vaughns V., & Eibach R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
  • Rudman L. A., & Fairchild K. (2004). Reactions to counter stereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.87.2.157
  • Saucier D. A., Miller C. T., & Doucet N. (2005). Differences in helping whites and blacks: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 2–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_1
  • Scheepers D., Spears R., Doosje B., & Manstead A. S. R. (2006). Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 944–960. http://dx. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.944
  • Schneider M. E., Major B., Luhtanen R., & Crocker J. (1996). Social stigma and the potential costs of assumptive help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 201–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296222009
  • Sidanius J., Levin S., Federico C. M., & Pratto F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice and intergroup relations (pp. 307–331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sidanius J., & Pratto F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Skitka L. J. (1999). Ideological and attributional boundaries on public compassion: Reactions to individuals and communities affected by natural disaster. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 793–808. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0146167299025007003
Datuen iturria: Dialnet