TWO ROUTES TO ELIMINATING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PERSONAL ENTITLEMENT: Social Comparisons and Performance Evaluations

This analog study examined how the presence and absence of explicit social comparison standards and performance feedback influenced women's and men's perceptions of personal entitlement for pay. In the absence of both comparison information and performance feedback, women felt they deserved less pay than did men. However, these gender differences were eliminated when women and men were exposed to either the same comparison information or the same performance feedback. Path analyses further revealed that the effects of comparison information and performance feedback on judgments of pay fairness and satisfaction were mediated almost exclusively by feelings of entitlement.     

Psychological factors in abortion. A review.

Psychological research is increasingly involved in debates regarding abortion. While recognizing the diversity of ethical and moral issues intertwined with abortion, the American Psychological Association (APA) has focused its involvement on psychological factors, most recently by appointing an expert panel to review the literature on psychological effects. This article notes the history of APA involvement and reports on the panel's conclusions. It presents evidence that abortion is not likely to be followed by severe psychological responses and that psychological aspects can best be understood within a framework of normal stress and coping rather than a model of psychopathology. Correlates of more negative responses following abortion are also discussed.     

Gender patterns in social touch: the impact of setting and age

This study examined the impact of age of participants and the setting in which touch occurred on gender patterns in 799 instances of observed intentional touch. Gender asymmetry, a pattern in which men are more likely to touch women than vice versa, was observed when touch between adults was examined but not when touch involving children was examined. Adult touch interactions occurring in public, nonintimate settings showed gender asymmetry, but adult touch interactions occurring in greeting or leave-taking settings did not. Cross-sex touch was more prevalent among adults, whereas same-sex touch was more prevalent when a child was involved. Implications for theoretical perspectives on gender and touch are discussed.     

The Unintended Negative Consequences of Sympathy for the Stigmatized1

Research on attitudes toward the stigmatized indicates that negative feelings and stereotypes toward the stigmatized are often mixed with positive feelings of sympathy and concern. Three studies investigate the hypothesis that positive outcomes for the stigmatized that are motivated by sympathy may have unintended negative consequences for self-esteem, affect, and motivation. Subjects were asked to imagine themselves in the position of a stigmatized person who received a job either because he or she was qualified, or out of sympathy for a stigmatizing condition. Results indicated that subjects reported lower state self-esteem, more negative affect, and lowered work motivation when the job was offered out of sympathy rather than on the basis of qualifications. Study 2 showed that the negative effects of sympathy occur whether the basis for the sympathy is prejudice and discrimination or mobility problems faced by the stigmatized individual. The third experiment showed that sympathy has negative effects when the sympathy is based either on individual or group-based problems imposed by the stigmatizing condition. The findings are discussed in terms of the attributional ambiguity surrounding positive outcomes faced by the stigmatized and applied to the effects of affirmative-action programs.     

Perceiving personal discrimination: the role of group status and legitimizing ideology

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups.     

Group identification moderates emotional responses to perceived prejudice

Two studies tested the prediction that group identification (importance of the group in the self-concept) moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-evaluative emotions (depression and self-esteem). In Study 1, women low in gender identification experienced less depressed emotion and higher self-esteem if a negative evaluation was due to sexism than when it was not. The self-evaluative emotions of women high in gender identification were not buffered by attributions to sexism. In Study 2, ethnic identification and depressed emotions were positively related when Latino-Americans read about pervasive prejudice against the ingroup but were negatively related when they read about prejudice against an outgroup. Both studies demonstrated that for highly group identified individuals, prejudice against the ingroup is a threat against the self. Thus, the self-protective strategy of attributing negative feedback to discrimination may be primarily effective for individuals who do not consider the group a central aspect of self.     

It's not my fault: when and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem

This study tested the hypothesis that awareness of the possibility of being a target of discrimination can provide individuals with a means of self-esteem protection when they are faced with negative outcomes. Men and women contemplated being rejected from a course due to sexism, personal deservingness, or an exclusively external cause. Regardless of gender, participants in the sexism condition blamed themselves less, attributed the rejection less to internal causes, and anticipated feeling less depressed than those in the personal deservingness condition. Furthermore, the more participants discounted the rejection--blamed it more on discrimination than themselves--the less depressed emotions they anticipated feeling. Discounting did not buffer participants from feeling hostility or anxiety. These findings advance our understanding of when and why attributions to prejudice protect emotional well-being.     

Devaluing domains in response to threatening intergroup comparisons: perceived legitimacy and the status value asymmetry

Group status and status legitimacy were tested as moderators of devaluing in response to threatening intergroup comparisons. In 3 experiments, participants received feedback comparing their in-group (based on school or gender) to a higher or lower status out-group. When the legitimacy of group status differences was assumed (Studies 1 and 2) or manipulated (Study 3), participants devalued the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a lower status out-group but did not devalue the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a higher status out-group. In Study 3, this status value asymmetry was eliminated when status differences were delegitimized. Mediational analyses suggested that the status value asymmetry was explained by the perceived utility of the domain for gaining status-relevant rewards.     

Remembered study mode: Support for the distinctiveness account of the production effect

The production effect is the finding that words spoken aloud at study are subsequently remembered better than are words read silently at study. According to the distinctiveness account, aloud words are remembered better because the act of speaking those words aloud is encoded and later recovery of this information can be used to infer that those words were studied. An alternative account (the strength-based account) is that memory strength is simply greater for words read aloud. To discriminate these two accounts, we investigated study mode judgements (i.e., “aloud”/”silent”/”new” ratings): The strength-based account predicts that “aloud” responses should positively correlate with memory strength, whereas the distinctiveness account predicts that accuracy of study mode judgements will be independent of memory strength. Across three experiments, where the strength of some silent words was increased by repetition, study mode was discriminable regardless of strength—even when the strength of aloud and repeated silent items was equivalent. Consistent with the distinctiveness account, we conclude that memory for “aloudness” is independent of memory strength and a likely candidate to explain the production effect.