The Psychology of Gender
SECONI) EDITION
Edited by
ALICE H. EAGLY ANNE E. BEALL ROBERT J. STERNBERG
~ THE GUILFORD PRESS NEW YORK LO'mON Sex Changes 329
cally, with reference to observing the increased presence of theory, the greater prevalence of biology, and the diminution of feminist politics. 14 Second, we take a close look at terminology in order to determine whether word choice provides information about the tacit beljef systems that continue to link sex with biological processes and gender with sociocultural processes. Third, we note the persistence of between-sex comparisons, which cominue to be the ce.ntral focus in general for psy chologists interested in gender. Finally, we tCIterate the poine that be cause geuder processes necessarily operate in conjunction with otber so Sex Changes cial categories (e.g., race, class, and age), investigators should attend more to these and other situarion and group interacrions. A Current Perspective
011 the Psychology of Gender THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CENOER: PAST AND PRESENT
MARIANNE LAFRANCE Tbe psychology of gender tOday subsumes a diverse collection of topics, ELIZABETH LEVY PALUCK questions, methods, and political underpinnings. Everytbing from hor monal and generic .inflnences on sex dille-rences to societal conditions af VICTORIA BRESCOLL fecting gender inequality is included. This second edition of The Psy cholOgy of Gender mirror~ this far-rangillg collection of topics. For example, Hampson and Moffat (Chapter 3) ask how n::prodllctive hor mones affect sex differences in behavior, and answer the question hy drawing on evidence from both animal and human studies. Ridgeway and BOLUg (Chapter 10) examine the ways that gender-linked status be liefs create power inequities between men and women, and investigate At, this volume attests, the psychology of gender comprises a rich array these links with social psychological experiments. of topics pursued by top-notch researchers drawing on the Jarest theories and using the most sophiscic
"woman a~ special" focus, 10 which women's noteworthy characteristics is that all four perspectives continue to have their adherents, not only in were given special attention. Regardless of how women were seen rela this volume but in the psychology of gender as a whole. tive to men, the common tbread was an emphasis On sex comparisollS. The second major perspective emerged in the 1970s, when psychol What's New in This Volume? ogists began to conceptualize gender as multidimensional rather than bi nary. Masculinity and femininity were conceptualized as two indepcnJ Twenty years ago, Deaux (1984) urged resean.:hers t() develop better the ent sets of psychological traits rather than as opposite ends of a single ories to explain the processes and mech Bourg, Chapter 10), social rotc theory (Eagly et aI., Chapter ll), social best policy and intervention recommendations come from a solid under constructivism (Marecek et aI., Chapter 9), and a gendered power per st<,nJing oi the processes and mechanisms involved. we look forward to spective (pratto & Walker, Chapter II) all address why men have more subsequent descriptions of how research findings on topics such as those social, economic, and political power than women do. A recurrent represented here might he put to use. Application may yet re-emerge as theme is that equ Politics in the Psychology of Gender CENDER TERJ,,1S Politics has been present since the beg.inlling of a psychology of gender. In the first edition of this volume, Beall and Sternberg (1993) observed In the history of the psychology of gender, terminology has been au area that "few fields of study have such political overtones as the study of of disagreement among social scientists (Nicholson, 1994). Although gender" (p. xix). Although political views affect all research programs, some perceive language disputes as distracting, issues of word.ing are im they ,ue seldom explicitly acknowledged as sllch. The exception has portant to a complete psychology of gender. Terminology is important been the psychology of gender, in which many psychologists have ac because inconsistently used or llnder-defincd labels hamper the develop knowledged their debt (Q feminist politics. Feminist politics, specifically ment of a coherent and clUnulanve body of work. Social constructivi1>ts a concem with dismantling sexist practices, generated the field that has go further by arguing that linguistic terms signi£icandy construct and come to be known as the psychology of gender. One might even argue constrain what we know or think we know. Consequently, if language theH the psychology of women and gender would nor exist as a distinct changes, so too doe~ our understanding of tbe phenomena Vie study. For area were it not for feminism. The field began by challenging the notion example, when people read about a "sex difference," tbey typically as that \vomen are inherently inferior. Subsequently, responding to calls sume that it is more rooted in biology than one described as a "gender from feminists, psychologists took up social problems such as rape, difference" (Pryzgoda & Chrisler, 2000). domestic violence, and sexual harassment (Koss et aI., 1994). The field known today as rhe psychology of gender began with no For many psychologists, the concern with gender centers on social mc:ntion of gender-only sex. Sex was generally understood to mean issues. The American Psychological Association's involvement in rhe identities rooted in bodily differences that were believed to significantly Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins se~"( discrimination case illusn:ates how a affect traits, abilities. and interests regarded 85 "m35cul inc" or "femi research basis can be used to influence imponant legal and policy ls~ues mne." The terms gender and gender idell#ty were II1vemed to describe (fiske, Bersoff, BorgiJa, Deaux, & Heilman, 1991). When tbe Supreme individual'>' outward manifestations of and attitudes toward their status Coun he..'lrd this case, psychologists testified on the role of stereotypes as males or females (Hooker, 1993; Money, 1955; Stoller, 1964; Unger, ancl gender expectations. Hopkins eventually prevailed, in parr because 20(1). Terms like gendeHypicat and sex-identified were coined to ac of input from psychological research. Research on rape by gender psy knowledge variation in what the psychological attributes attributed to chologists has also contributed to puhlic policy. For example, Koss's bei.ng male or female. The distinction between sexual harassment and congressional testimony on the factors affecting the incidence of and re gender harassment made .in Chapter 11 ot this volume points to two dif actions to rape contributed to the pas~ing of the Violence AgainSt ferent kinds of hazards for working women. The former term stresses Women A.ct (Award for Distinguished Contribution, 2000). the kind of harassment that comes from sexual coercion. while the latter This volume devotes rather little explicit attention to politics and focuses on hostile working conditions imposed on people because tbey social policy implications, aIthough the social constructivist and are deemed to be the wrong sex iu a particular environment. All this ex gendered power perspectives are clear exceptions. The emphasis pansion of terminology has the effect of alcrting researchers to possible throughout this vohuneis on documenting new developments in basic ideological and social structural underpinomgs For the differences bc: theory and research. The authors have responded by describing the cur tween males Jnd females. In particular, it has allowed psychologists in· retlt state of knowledge in several topics. It might be lhe case, as Unger terested in changing male-female inequality to think about differences as (1998) bas argued. that a gr~ter focus on theory building sometimes re part of a dynamic, socioculwraUy based gender system rather than sults in a decreased application of research to practical i.c;sues. Since the simply a biologically based sex system. 334 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER Sex Changes 335 Ne\\;' terms such as gender role, sex-typical, sex-typed, gender per the word gendel' in their titles. Does this mean that the authors deal pri fonmJnce, gender identity, sex category, sexual preference. biologically marily with socioculnll:al rather rhan biological mechanisms, as might be assigned sex, and sex-identIfier have alsu come to be used because of the lU1dcrstood by readers not well initiated into the nuances of the field's need to recognize and investigate the increasingly complex domaIn sub terminology (Pryzgoda & Chrisler, 2000)? Clearly it does not. What sumed by the psychology of gender (see West & Zimmerman, 1987). docs seem to be the case is that aurhors who stress biological variables Terminology describing the concept of sexual orientation, specifically, tend w use sex more often than gender, while authors who stress sociaJ lesbian, ga~', bisexual, and transgendered people (LGBTj, opened up new variables and explanations tend to employ gender more otten than sex. areas of research and theory on the relarionships between and among In om examination of this book',~ chapters, we counted four catego sex, gender, and sexuality. Consider tne term transf?endered, which c10cs ries of terms. Sex terms and gender terms constituted two categories. For not refer to lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals, but rather to people example, sex-typed was included in the sex category, and the adjective whose appearance and/or sexual behavior runs contrary to their identifi gendered was counted in the gender categor)'. The third category, namely cation as male or female. For example, it can include cross-dressers as sexual terms, included words such as se.:toual and sexuality, and the well as individuals who self-describe as "blltch" or "fern.'> fourth category comprised terms describing sexual orientation (e.g., bi In short, terms have developed in order to deal with the sexual, lesbian, gay, heterosexual, and homosexual). The sexual aDd sex nonequjvalence among sex, gender, and sexual orientation. The ex ual orientation language categories appear relarively infrequently in the panded vocabulary has in nun prompted questions about methodology book, so our analysis will focus primarily on the first two groups of and statistical analy~es. For example, on what bases should \ve measure terms. sex, gender, and sexuality? Eagly ct a1. (Chapter 12, this volume) lise the Not surp[lsingl~', the chapter on evolutionary theory (Kenrick et aI., concept "socially identified sex," whicb indicates that assessment of Chapter 4) and the twO chapters describing hormonal processes (Hines, someone's "sex" usually draws on social appearances rather than some Chapter 2; Hampson & Moffat, Chaprer 3) employ rhe greatest propor biological or physical criterion. Theoretical models, in turn, arc articu tion of sex terms (60-80% of all terms used in our categories). In COIl lating how sex, gender, and sexuality interrelate, as it is now dear that trast, chapters with a more social conre.xruaJ emphasis usc proportion sex does not necessanly provide information about gender or sexuality. ally more gender terms. The chapter on gender development by Bussey This volume shows this diversity of new terminology, but-as ill the and Uaadura (Chapter 5) uses gender terms most ofte-n, followed in turn field more generally-identical terms sometimes refleer different mean by Gardner and Gabriel (Chapter S), Bell (Chapter 7), Ridgeway and ings, and different terms somerimes reflect similar usage. For example, Bourg (Chaprer 10), Best and Thomas (Chapter lJ), and Pratto and some authors use sex and gender lIlterchan.geably to cOllvey that they re Walker (Chapter 11) (59-89% of all terms in our categories). Interest gard the association of sex with nature and gender with nurture as not ingly, the chapters by Eagly et at. and Pomerantz et al. (Chaprers 12 and yet determined. Orhers, while !lot explicitly sayIng so, appear ro link sex 6, respectively), both of which explicitly incorporate both biological and differences with biological correlates and gender differences with social processes into their explanations, use equivalent proportions of sociocultural olles. sex terms (47% and 45%, respectively) and gender rerms (52% and The Puhlication Manual 0/ the American Ps}'chological ASSOCiation 50%, respectively). for example, in the Eagly et a1. chapter (Chapter (2002) does not specify when authors are to use the term sex instead of 12), comparisons between males and females are described as sex differ gender and vice versa, bur instructs investigators to "avoid ambiguity in ences and rhe social environmental processes that moderate rhese are de sex identity or sex role by cn(losing nouns, pronouns, and adjectives that scribed in gender tcrms. Although most researchers in the psychology of specifically descJ'ibe participants" (p. 66). In the ElIcydo/Jedia of Ps'y, gender now eschew the simple equation of sex with biology and gender chology, Eagly (2000) argued that the labels sex differences and gender with SOCial context, readers of the literature still need to be alert to sub differences should botb be consiJered correCt, given that little consensus rle associations implied by sex and gender terms. At least for the mo exists regarding distinctions between them. ment, we have no single term that clearly conveys the idea that both We have examined ternunological practices in this volume to see biology and social context are simultaneously implicated whenever whether the various chapter authors have adopted a common language gender matters are discussed. with respect to sex and gender. Because the volume is titled The Psychol We also took nore of whether the authors of these chapters concep ogy of Geuder, ir is not surprising that the majority of chapters i.nclude tualized sex and/or gender as binary and mutually exclusive. For exam 336 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER Sex Changes 337 pIe, in two chapters that used more sex category thall gender category bilities, cognitive faculties, personality traits, social inclinations, styles of terms, namely, Chapter 4 on evolutionary theory and Chapter 3 011 re commlmication, and so forrh. Although there has been concerted move productive hormones, the amhors also use the term opposite sex. This ment away from simple sex comparisons, this volume shows that sex com term clearly entails a view of sex as a dichotomous and mutually exclu parisons sti II tend to domi nare the psychology of gender. sive category. Bur to show that the ust' of sex does not always imply a di The focus on sex comparisons is so cmrenched in the fabric of psy chotomous classification, Hines (Chapter 2) ellso uses sex frequently bur chology that the subject area "human sex differences" generates over introduces the idea of il1tersexed individuals, which by definition avoids 50,000 citations just for work published since 1974. For many, this fo implications of ffiU tllaI exclusivity. Interestingly, most of the chapters cus makes good sense and constitutes a much needed balanl'ing of psy that use a greater proportion of gender terms also construt' gender as bi chology's earl)' subject matter, which for too long equated psychology as nary, despite the priority the)' give ro social contextual influences. The a whole with the psychology of men. A similar rebalancing is now under exception is Chapter 7, which discusses current psychoanalytic theories way in medicine. A recent report from the fnstiOlte of Medicine (2001), of gender and in which Bell proposes a "multiplicity of genders." Sxploring the Biological Contributions to /-Iumall Health: Does Sex As noted above, sexual orientation ~lppears rarely in this volume, Matter?, answereJ the question in the affirmative. Sex matters, ~pecifi appearing to substantiate Kirzinger's (1994) chi im that sexual oriel1lCl cally sex differences matt·er. According to the authors of this repore, sex tion research constitute:; a peripheral area within gender psychology is a basic human vdriable. Because "every cell ha~ a sex" :lnd "the scien (Kirzinger, 1994). FQr example, Kenrick et a.l. (Chapter 4) describe se:< tific importance of sex differences throughout the life span abounds," behavior in exclusive.!y heterosexual terms, and Some other word choices the authors state emphatically that effort should be directed at "under appear to reinforce a marginal status for non-heterosexual people. Hines standing sex differences and determinants at the biological level " (p. 20). (Chapter 2) uses the term homosexual against the advice of the Ameri Thc}' recommend that sex be included in the design and analysis of can Psychological Association's publication manual, which recommends "studies in all areas and at all levels of bio-medical and health related re "gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals" as the more precise, less stigmatizing search" (2001, p. 20). From one viewpoint, this call to incorporate sex terms. Pratto and Walker (Chapter 11) follow the manual's recom comparisons is laudable, because diseases and their treatments do some mended practice. Bell (Chapter 7) and Marecek et al. (Olapter 9) lise rhe times vary depending on a person's sex. Nonetheless, the breadth of such more political term) queer, which questions a simple heterosexual a focus could inadvertently gt'neratc a whole new set of problems that homosexual dichotomy. The social constructivist chapter (Chapter 9), we describe in Illore detail in the section entitled Problems with St~X the one most preoccupied with t('rminology, L1ses the term spectrum per Comparisons. SOl1 to convey the range, rather than the dichoromy, of sexual This volume also devotes considerable coverage to sex comparisons, orientation. although mallY chapters add important moderating factOrs to the mix. A<; is probably evident by now, terminology is central to the under The kinds of comparisons can be roughly grouped into those that con standing of the psychology of gender. This volume shows how the lan centrate on showing that men and women have "different bodies," or guage has grown to kecp pace with the ever-evolving set of COnStruc[S in that they encounter "different worlds," or that they are located in a so the field. It also occasionally reveals an ambiguit), in the LIse of some cial system that struchually affords men and women "different power terms, which is similarly true of the field as a whole. Investigators and and status." readers alike need to be attentive to the selection of tcrms because of Several chapters focus on thc sexes having "different bodies," but their implied or indetermin.ate meanings. the particular physical features being described vary greatly. Hines (Chapter 2) examines the influences of gonadal hormones on human brain devdopmenr and behaviors such as childhood play preference and EMPHAS1ZINC SEX COMPARISONS cognitive abilities. Hampson and Moffat (Chapter 3) review evidence perrainll1g to tbe idea thar estrogen and androgen modulate cognitive As noted earlier, the psychology of gender was once nearly synonymous functions in women and men, respectively. For Kenrick et al. (Chaprer 4) with sex comparisons. In its most elementary form, this approach focuses a "different bodies" perspective takes the form of presenring the idea on whether, and to what degree, the sexes diffcr or are simil sexual behavior are the result of gradual changes in male and female differences matter a good deal more than do gender differences gem'tics acquired over generarions. (Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2(02). In addition, studies that include other Authors of several other chapters emphasize the idea thar males and dimensions, along with sex, are commendable in that they allow us to females tend to encounteJ "differenr worlds.'" Chapters by Bussey and evaluate the importance of sex differences and not just their existence. Bandura (Chapter 5) and by Pomerantz et al. (Ch interactions with sex, as Best and Williams have done on the interac der as a whole, and in this volume, is often conducted with samples of tions of sex with culture in Chapter 13. Conceptually, it means consid cOllvenience. With the exception of research that rC4uires "special" pop ering sex as a process, as Pratto and Walker (Chapter 1I) have done ulations, such as women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (Hines, in their discussion of the interaction of sex with power. It means un Chapter 2) or international populations (Best and Thomas, Chapter 13) packing the constructs "male" and "female," as several chapters here or children (Pomerantz er aI., Chapter 6), college students are often the have clone, to determine what about them is predicted to be the cause samples of choice. The prohlern is they tend to be more educated anJ lit or the result of other processes. Most crucially, it means not reducing erate, more financially secure, and more likely to <;peak English, even in the psychology of gender to a search ior sex differences. To do so -:an countries outside the United States. conceal rather than reve,ll what is important about the gender and its Consequently, we still know less about gender-related behavior psychologica I ramifications. among people who have low incomes or who are immigrants, middle aged, or elderly. Even outside the United States, researcheri> use samples of convenience. See, for example, results described by Best and Thomas SEX AND OTHER SOCIAL CATEGORIES (Chapter 13), in which an international comparison llsed participants who attending college in their respective coulltries. Although the psychology of gender originally developed in response to Samples of convenience In the study of gender-related behavior are psychology's male-centered bias, it soon became clear that the psychology a concern, then, because they are uIliqlie in a number of respects and of gender has also had its own problems of exclusion.. Psychology of gen may seem more typical and represenwtive than they are and less in need der researchers have, until recently, largely ignored how gender interacts of explanation (Miller, Taylor, & Buck, 1991). Other samples may seem with race (Greene et al., 1997), sexual orientation (Rothblum & Cole distinctive or applied jllst because they are less familiar. In addition, re 1988), disability (Fine & Asch, 1988), and social class (Reid, 1993). search psychologists as a group may, like otber scientists and professors, As outlined earlier) concentrating on ~cx differences and ignoring lack the "srandpoint" of personal experience \vith diversity. At the least, other group differences tends to obfuscate f:JCtors that may betTer ex this fan lihouJd prompt the exercise of care in interpreting resuhs with plain many psychological phenomena. At the very least, examining dif nontYPICal samples. Interpretations of rhe meaning of gender-related be ferences alllong groups of women and men may help untangle the rela havior may vary with the group being studied; hence) members of the tive influence of sociocultural and biological factors on sex differences, group in question should be consulted (Harding, 1991). because sociery exposes different groups to different experiences. For in· To address concerns about "standpoint," more diversity within stance, white women do nOt experience sex discrimination in the same academia at the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty Icvels is likely to way as African American women, given that the former are privileged bring different perspectives to psychological research on gendet. Al because of their skin color (MacImosh, .1987). Similarly, sex discrimina though It is not the respollslbihty of gay and lesbian, disabled, racial mi tion likel}' takes different forms and has different effects depending on nority, and working-class IIwestigators to initiate more research and race, age, social class, and sexual orientation (Hurtado, 1992). In this knowledge on diverse groups, the heightened visibility of these individu volume, rhe expectation states approach (Ridgeway & Bourg, Chapter als in psychology departments v;"ould make their identities and group 10) and the genucred power approach (Pratto & Walker. Chapter J I) issues more salient and familiar to psychologists. specifically combine other factOrs such as race, class, sexual orientation with gender processes. According to Marecek et al. (Chapter 9), the con nections among biology, physical appearance, social roles, and sexual CONCLUSIONS orientation Illay be neither stable nor universal. Psychologists have discovered that ,;cx and gender maner, and have Toward a More Inclusive Psychology of Cender made discernible inroads into describll1g whelJ, how, and why that is dJe case. The chapters in this volume demonstrate bow much the ficld has Although DO psychologist, to our kllowledge, explicitly dlsagrees with grown. It has expandeu to include biological processes as well as socio the contention that race, class, sexual orientation, and age maner in un logical ones. It has become encompassing with respect ro methodology derstanding the psychology of gender, research In the psychology of gen- and now actively entertains and tests sophisticated theoretical modeh. 342 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER Sex Changes 343 The growth has been such that psychologists across the discipline are Deaw(, K., & LaFrance. M. (1998). Gender. In D. Gilberr, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eels.), The handbook of social psychology (4th cd.). New York: now more likely to incorporate gender issues into their research and ap plications, and gender psychologists are bringlllg the theories and .l\kClrawHilL Oeaux, K. (19ll4). FlOm indiviJual dihercnces co social..:ategories: Analysis of a methods of other areas to bear on gender questions. Jccade's re.~earch on gender. Ameriam Psychologist, 39,105-116. the how This second edition of The Psychology of Gender shows Eagl>", A. H. (1987). Reportll1g sex differences. American I'sychologist, 42. 756 and suspects varied in£luential this field has become. Consequently, one 757. that it will be harder in the next edition CO capture in a mere thirteen Eagly, A. L-i. (200m. Sex differences and gender difference~. In A. Kazdin rEd.), chapters what this volume has done. Encyclopedia of psychology. New York: Oxford UniversJty Pres,. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). M'yths of gel/der: Biological therlrles about women alld men. New York: Basic Booh. REFERENCES ine, M., & Asch, 1\. (1988). WOnt/!'rt with disabilities: Essays In psycbology. cui· Nlre, and politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Prt:~s. American Psychological Association. (2001). publication Mamwl of the Altleri Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Rorglda, .E., De:lll'(, K., & Heilman. M. (199'1\. So call Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Alldwr. CIal ~cience research on trial: Use of sex stereot}'ping research in Price Wa Award for Distinguished Contribution ro Research in Public Policy: Mary Koss. terhouse v. Hopktns. Amerinm Psychologis/., 46, 1049-1060. (2000). American Ps'ycho/ogis/. 55, 1330-1332. illigan, C. (I 9H4). [71 a different voice: Psychological theory a1ld wome/l's l1e Banaji, M. (1993). The psychology of gender: A perspeerive on perspectives. In vel(){lmenr. Cambndge, MA: Harvard Um\'ersity Press. A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology 0/ gender (pp. 25] Greene, B., SallchCl.-Hucles,].. Banks, M., Clvish, G., Conrratro, S., Griffith,./-, 273). New York: Guilford Press. et al. (1997), DivefS\.ty: Advancmg an inclusive femillist r~ych()logy. In J. Baumeister, R. F: (1988). Should we stop studying gex differences altogether? WordI & N. G. Johnson (fds.l, Shaping tbe Ittlurt' olfeminist psychology: American Psychologist, 4~, 1092-1095. 1:..d1/c4tiol1, research, and practic.e (pp. 173-202). Washington, DC: Ameri· Baumeister, R. P. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: TIle female sex can Psychological ASSOCiation. drive as socially flexihle and rcsp()nsive. Psych 0 logiCtJ I Billie/in, 126, 347 Harding, S. (199 j J. Who's sCIence? Wbo's kl/Otuledge? Ithaca. NY: Cornell UIll 374. "trsity Press. Baumeister, R. F., Catanese. K. le, & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender dif Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex ference in strength (If sex drive? Theoreocal Views, conceptual distinctions, Role lnventory: Areasscssmtnr l1nd new issues regarding classification vari and a review of relevenr evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Re ability. Measurement (lnd EI!aluatirm in Coullseling mid Development, 34, view, 5, 242-273. .39-55. Beall, A. E., & Ste.rnbt:rg, R. J. (£cis.). (1993). The psydJotogy uf gender. New I-looker, E. (1993). Reflections of a 40·year explorarioil: A ~cicntific view on ho York: Guilford Press. l11osexualtty. Amencmt 1'sychologist, 48, 450-453. Bezn, S. L. (1974). The me:lsurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of llome.r, M. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement·related conflicts in Consulting and Cln'rieal Psychology, 42, 155-]62. women. Journal o{Soc/(l1 Issues, 28, 157-175. Rem, S. L (1993). The lenses of gender: Trallsforming the debate on sexual In Hubbard, R. (1989). Polstlcs of women's !JlO!Ogy. New Brwlswi~k, NJ: Rutgers eql.wlity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. University Press. Bernhardt, P. C, \.)abbs, J. M., Fielden, J. A., & Lutter, C. D. (1998). Testoster Hmraclo, A. (1989). Relining to priVilege: ~eductlon and rejecrion in the subor one changes during vicarious experiences of Winning and losing among fans dination of white women and women ot color. SIgns: Jou1'l101 of Women 1/1 ar sporting events. Physiology and Behavior, 65, 59--62. ClIltllre and Society, 14. 8.33-855. Bleier. R. (1984). Science and gender: A crztiqtlc of biology Jnd it~ theones ()II .Institute of Medicine. (2001). Exploring Ihe biological con/rtbUIIO/1$ to human Ulomen. New York: Pergamon Press. healtf): Does sex malter? Washington, DC: National A-:adcmy Press. Crawford, M., & Marecek, J. (1989). Femiuisr theory, feminist psychology: A Kia.inger, C (Ed.). (1994). Should psychologists stud)' ~ex differences? Feminism bihliography of epistemology, critical analysis, and applications. Psychol and Ps')'cholog'y, 4, 50 J-546. ogy of fXlomen Quarterly, /3.477-491. Koss, M. P., Goodman, L. A.) Browne, .i:I,., Fitzgerald, L. E, Keita, G. P., & Crawford, M., & Unger, R. (1997). Women and gender: a leminis/ psychology. RL1SS0, N. F. (1994). No safe hat/ell: Male violence (/gaillst wome't at home, Philadelphia; Temple University Press. at work, tltld in the COn/mlmity. \'(fashingron, DC: American Psychological Association. 344 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER Mclnrosh, P. (1998). White privilege: LJnpackmg the invi~lble knapSJck. In M. MlGoldrick (Ed.), Re-lJisionillg family therapy: Race, cultllre, alld gender in clinical practic(! (pp. 147-152). New York: (iuilford Press. Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Bm:k, M. L. (t 991). GendtT gaps: Who needs to be explained: Journal lil Personafity mid Social Psychology, 61, 5-12. Atoney, J. (1955). Hermaphroditism, gender and prewcity in hyperadreno corticism: PSydlOlogic unwngs. Blt/letin ofthe ]()/ms Hopkllls Hos/lital, 96, 253-264. Nicholson, L. (1994). Jnterpreting gender. Signs: Journal of Women ill Culture and Society. 20, 79-J 05. Pryzgoda, J., & Chl'islcr, J. C. (2000). Definitions of genJel- and sex: The subtle Author Index ties of meaning, Sex Role:>: A Journal of Research, 43, 553-56~. Reid, P. T. ('1993). Poor ;'iiomen in psychological research: Shut LIp and shut ()ur. Psyd?Ology of Women Quarterly, 17, 1.13- J50. Rogers, L. (1999). Sexing the hrain. London: Weidenfcld & Nicolson. Sprcchel; ')., & Tom-Morn, M. (2002). A study of men and women rrom dIffer ent sides of E-arrh to derel'mine if men are from IV1ars and women arc from Anker. r., 1n B'lbwck. Joo 246 Becker, G. )., 249 Abram;. O. 174 Bachman, J. (;., 288 BcU!', I).. 176 Venus in their beliefs abOUT love and I'Ollli1ntic relationships. Sex Roles: A Acker. Joo 24g Bacon, 'vI. K.• 27~, 308 lklrL, C. M.. 176 Journal Df Research, 46, 13 1-147. :\damopoulos. ,I., 297 Bacon, j'. L, 177 Hem, S. L, 161, 236, 298, Stoller, R. J. (1964). The hcrtllilphrodiric identity of hermaphrodites. !ol/rna! of AJaniS. S. M .• 253 Badgett, M. V. L., 261 30. 338 Nervous and Menta! Disease, 1 J9, 453-457. Adl"r, ~. M., 305 I!.aird, n. D., 73, 80 B<:11bow, C. P., 22 ;\gatw~l, K. $., 304 Bakan. D.• 170 BenJamIn. L J48. 150, 152, 1199il). Unger, R. Reslstmg gender: Twetlty-fwl' years of /eminist psychology. ;\hlbng, c., 106 Baker, D. D., 245 153. 155, 156. 157, 158, Thollsand Oab, CA: Sage. Ahmed, S. E, 15 Baker. $. W., 15. 16, 20 161, 1:62, 163 Unger, R. (2001). Handbook ol the psyclm!og'y 0/ women and gender. New .'\lraksmen. E., 49 Bales. R. E, 227 Bentll;r~ r M., 21\ York: Wiley. Abndc. A.. 309 Balkwell, J. W., 23.3.225 Bcrcnbaum, S. A., 15, 20. 21 Akoh, H., ju Banaji, M. R.. 22.4,329 Berg, S. J., 280 West, c.. & Zillill1erman, D. H. (19ii7,1. Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, Alben. A. l\., 307 Handma, A., 91, 93, 94, 95, Bergen. D. J., 12.> 125-151. AIC(\ck, J.. 66. 86 %.97, 'Jll, 99, 100,102. Berger, I.. 217,219,221. Alexa nder, G. 1'\"1.. q 104. 105. 107, 108. 109, 222, 2.23. 22'1, 2:.5, 2.26. Alexantler. R. L> .. 6S 110, 112, 111 BO.235 Allen. E., 12R BaIW1ICc. R., 108 Berger, P. L., IY8 AUl:-u, L. $.. 1 I. 27 Barber, B. K., 311 Berb.,!, L,210 Ailey, T. R., 73 Bargh. J., J79, 178 Ikmdt, T. J., 176 Allgeier. E. R., 86, 287 Barne.>, M. F., 80 Bernh:udc, P. C, 331 Alli.oll. D .• I Barnes, M., 315 llern$!cln, I. S., S4 Almaguer, T., 2Hl B.lrJles. R. D., 172 BCIT)', J. w., 302,314 Amabile. T. M .. 276 Baron. J. N., 148 Berscheid, E., 92 Amott. T. L., 257 1kl rren, J<. C, 106 Jlcrsoff, D. N., 332 Ancis, J. R., III .Barrctt·Connor. E., 55. 57 Best,D. L.. 76,170.2'19, Anderson, C., 278 Ba.rrios, M.. 253 221,251.275,300,301. Anderson. K. Joo 122 Barry. R., Tn. 278, 30:), 310 302, 303. 304, 306. 3"17 Andels~on, 1'0'1., 71 Bart, 1'., 209 IleC7., N. E.. 100 An:!Jer, J., 53. 66 Bas