Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27 (2003), 281–290. Blackwell Publishing. Printed in the USA.

Copyright 
C 2003 Division 35, American Psychological Association. 0361-6843/03

MAKING GENDER COMPARISONS MORE MEANINGFUL:

A CALL FOR MORE ATTENTION TO SOCIAL CONTEXT

Janice D. Yoder Arnold S. Kahn

University of Akron James Madison University

We challenge researchers to consider sex and gender as a marker for possible social contextual differences. Disappointed
by both philosophical and empirical attempts to find coherence in research making gender comparisons, we selectively
review studies showing both context-specific similarities between women and men where overall comparisons found
differences as well as context-specific differences where general patterns of similarity existed. These examples cut
across embedded levels of social context, ranging from those immediately proximal to the individual (interpersonal)
to organizational and broad societal structures. They suggest that seemingly identical contexts can have sweepingly
different impacts on women and men and that effective social interventions be gender-sensitive.

Comparing women and men, girls and boys, is a preoccu- “in order to understand why people do what they do, and
pation that intrigues everyone from laypeople to research certainly in order to change what people do, psychologists
psychologists. A cursory check of PsycINFO in November must turn away from the theory of the causal nature of the
2002 catalogues 34,232 articles, 12,168 dissertations, 2,034 inner dynamic and look to the social context within which
chapters, and 333 books under “human sex differences” individuals live” (p. 67). Carolyn Sherif (1979) made the
(the Thesaurus term) and written in English. The topic ar- same point in her chapter, “Bias in Psychology.” Barbara
eas covered by these studies are virtually universal across Wallston (1981) stated, “sex, when it is a subject variable, is
the discipline. a trait; and sex differences research should always explore
A fundamental problem with our fascination with gender situational influences, especially those which may be con-
comparisons is that our exploration stops too soon. The vast founded with sex” (p. 613). Likewise, sociologists have long
majority of researchers documenting sex or gender differ- argued that gender and gender differences are created and
ences seems to accept their description of difference as an re-created through social interaction (e.g., Lorber, 1994;
explanation in and of itself. This way of thinking implies that West & Zimmerman, 1987).
sex or gender is the cause and that differences are rooted To explore the extent to which psychologists publishing
within women and men, girls and boys; as such, gender dif- research have heeded this repeated call, we examined the
ferences are part of our essential psychological natures. The first four issues of 2001 of Journal of Personality and Social
purposes of the present paper are to challenge researchers Psychology, Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin,
both to think beyond superficial descriptions of difference Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, and the first two issues
and to consider more often the impact of the social context of 2001 of Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
in which these differences occur. These journals were selected because they represent areas
Our call to look to the social context to understand gen- in psychology most likely to explore social contextual effects.
der differences in behavior is not unique or even new. We examined each article to see whether gender differences
Shields (1975) cited similar arguments by Mary Calkins were found and the extent to which the authors considered
in 1896 and Leta Stetter Hollingworth in 1914. Naomi the social context in interpreting gender differences (see
Weisstein (1968) reiterated the argument over 30 years ago: Table 1). The 31 studies reviewed in Table 1 include only
those in which the researchers both examined for and found
gender differences.
Janice D. Yoder, Department of Psychology, University of Akron;
Interestingly, in over one-half of the studies (58%) the
Arnold S. Kahn, Department of Psychology, James Madison researchers made no attempt to explain the gender differ-
University. ences found. In most of these cases, the authors did not
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Janice D. hypothesize or anticipate a gender effect and apparently
Yoder, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Akron, neither the authors nor editors felt the need to explain them.
Akron, OH 44325-4301. E-mail: [email protected] Only in Sex Roles, a journal devoted to the study of gender,

281
282 YODER AND KAHN

Table 1
Interpretation of Gender Differences in Four Psychology Journals
Total Articles Gender Attribute Attribute Differences Attribute Differences
with Gender Differences Differences to to Personality Traits to the Social
Journal Differences Not Interpreted Socialization or Evolution1 Context

JPSP 9 6 0 2 1
PSPB 7 6 0 1 0
Sex Roles 10 1 1 5 3
JCCP 5 5 0 0 0
Total 31 18 1 8 4
Note. JPSP = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; PSPB = Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; JCCP = Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology.
1
Includes studies where the authors attributed gender differences to differences in motivation and goals between women and men.

did we find that the majority of the authors attempted to evitability also seems inescapable when we root presumably
explain the cause of a gender effect when they found one; stable personality traits in past, and hence unchangeable, in-
yet, the authors of only three of the nine studies in Sex Roles dividual childhood experiences (Kahn & Yoder, 1989; Yoder,
seeking to explain a gender difference considered the so- 2003, pp. 120–121). Although it would be naive to suggest
cial context as a possible cause for that difference. Overall, that biology and childhood socialization do not influence
authors referred to the social context as a potential cause the behaviors, cognitions, and emotions of women and men,
for an obtained gender difference in only four of the 15 ar- neither biology- or childhood socialization-based interven-
ticles in which they sought an explanation for an observed tions offer as much promise as the social context for advo-
gender difference. It appears, for the most part, that the cates of social change. However, re-socialization (Marecek
consideration of social context when researchers find gen- & Hare-Mustin, 1991), which focuses on present learning
der differences continues to be overlooked. by adults, may be a promising mechanism for infusing a so-
cial contextual understanding into an individual’s schema.

THE UTILITY OF GENDER COMPARISONS

HOW DIFFERENT ARE WE?
Of all the comparisons we could make among human be-
ings, why are we so fascinated with gender comparisons? The extent of gender differences has been debated in
Bem (1993) eloquently tackled this question by highlight- psychology without resolution. Hare-Mustin and Marecek
ing the salience of gender in Western culture and its un- (1988) described two opposing “biases” or worldviews:
derlying gender polarization as captured in the frequent “alpha bias,” which assumes large gender differences and
conceptualization of the “opposite” sex. Furthermore, what “beta bias,” which assumes minimal differences. Regard-
is the meaning of making these gender comparisons? It less of which assumptive framework one chooses, gender
matters to the extent that finding either similarity or dif- differences in cognitive and behavioral characteristics of-
ference can be used to bolster or to challenge the status tentimes have been construed as essential to the natures of
quo regarding the status of women and men in our society women and men, rooting differences within women’s and
(Prilleltensky, 1989). Findings of gender similarity might be men’s bodies and/or psyches.
used as grounds for legitimating equal treatment of women Hare-Mustin and Marecek (1988; 1994) detailed the pit-
and men, or to argue that women’s subordinated status is falls of both alpha and beta bias. By assuming gross dif-
justified by women’s presumed lack of ability or effort. Like- ferences between women and men, presuming each to be
wise, findings of gender difference might be used to validate homogeneous groups, the alpha bias ignores intragroup di-
men’s superior status, or to serve as the basis for gender- versity. The difference position assumes that differences
sensitive programs designed to promote the equitable treat- will be similarly valued, yet the typical androcentric pat-
ment of both women and men. tern devalues that which is deemed feminine (Halpern,
Where we locate gender differences has important impli- 1994; Helgeson, 1994; Yoder & Kahn, 1993). In practice,
cations. Martin and Parker (1995) made the connection be- alpha bias leads to essentialism and the naturalization of in-
tween sweeping socio-political values and the approach one evitable, and ultimately unjust, social inequity (Scott, 1988).
takes toward gender comparisons. Exploring folk theories Most relevant to the arguments to be made here, when we
held by undergraduates about sex and gender differences, focus on presumably essential differences between women
they found that the more strongly students believed sex and men, we make the implicit assumption that women and
differences were rooted in biology, the more difficult they men operate in similar contexts, or that the social context is
thought it would be to eliminate those differences. Such in- irrelevant.
Making Gender Comparisons More Meaningful 283

Advocates of the beta bias position of minimizing gen- CONTEXT MATTERS AND IS GENDERED
der differences ultimately support identical, invariant treat-
ment of women and men, a “gender-insensitive” “equality” What do we mean by social context? We refer to social con-
that has unjust consequences when biological differences text here as any element in a person’s social environment
do exist (e.g., childbearing) and when women and men op- that can produce or constrain behavior (Ross & Nisbett,
erate under different social pressures. In sum, both alpha 1991). These elements may be immediate for the individual,
and beta biases are compromised by the faulty assumption involving, for example, direct social exchanges, or more dis-
that women and men share identical or gender-irrelevant tal such that they involve more sweeping influences, such as
social contexts. societal or cultural factors. Each level of analysis is affected
Researchers seeking empirical answers to questions of by the others so that all human social behavior takes place
gender similarity or difference also have arrived at an im- within embedded layers of contexts (see Pettigrew, 1991).
passe. Two well-respected meta-analysts, Eagly (1995) and For example, being female for the first author is played out
Hyde (1996, p. 19; Hyde & Plant, 1995), reviewed the same on an individual level with gendered displays as trivial as
body of meta-analytic studies of gender comparisons yet the clothes I wear and as central as my gender identity; on
came to opposing conclusions regarding their scope. On an interactional level with the roles I hold (such as mother)
the difference side, Eagly (1995, p. 148) asserted: “The psy- and others’ expectations for these; and on a societal level by
chologists who have conducted most of these syntheses of the status afforded being female in a patriarchal culture.
sex-related differences in social behavior and personality It is a truism to say that all human behaviors occur within
are in general agreement that their meta-analytic findings some social context, and most psychologists acknowledge
yield evidence of difference.” Making a case for similarity, that much, if not all, human behavior is context depen-
Hyde and Plant (1995) revealed that a larger proportion dent (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1989). Although traditionally
of gender comparisons yielded nonsignificant differences researchers in psychology try to minimize or hold con-
(25%) than typically found in meta-analyses focusing on var- text constant, it nonetheless is omnirelevant (Sherif, 1979;
ious psychological, educational, and behavioral treatments Unger, 1990; Weisstein, 1993). The cornerstone of much so-
(6%). cial psychology is the empirical and theoretical exploration
We contend that the answer to the question, “How dif- of the importance of social contexts (Ross & Nisbett, 1991).
ferent are we?” is empirically unknowable (Hare-Mustin & Additionally, a social contextual approach can move our
Marecek, 1988; Kahn & Yoder, 1989) because the sources of focus beyond a singular concentration on gender alone to-
sex and gender differences do not reside exclusively within ward a recognition of the intertwining of gender with other
women and men (Marecek, 1995). The more useful ques- markers of social status such as race and ethnicity, class, age,
tion to ask, we argue, is “Under what conditions are women sexual orientation, physical (dis)ability, and so on (Andersen
and men similar and different?” This shifts our focus from & Collins, 1998; Moraga & Anzaldúa, 1981; Reid & Comas-
simple descriptions of sex and gender as self-explanatory Dı́az, 1990; Spelman, 1988; West & Fenstermaker, 1995).
to regarding sex and gender as a marker for related causal Gender itself is enacted in a social context that spans in-
factors (an approach also endorsed by both meta-analysts: terpersonal (Deaux & Major, 1987), organizational (Ragins
Eagly, 1994, 1995; Hyde, 1990; Hyde & Frost, 1993). & Sundstrom, 1989; Riger & Galligan, 1980), and societal
Likely causal factors related to sex and gender encom- (Lorber, 1994) levels. Thus, our social contextual approach
pass a wide array of possibilities, including, but not lim- encourages a complex understanding of gender as a social
ited to, biology and personality traits. However, in the re- construction (Bohan, 1993; Riger, 1992; Unger, 1988), rec-
mainder of this paper, consistent with the earlier calls of ognizing that women and men act in relation to others and
Calkins, Hollingsworth, Weisstein, Sherif, and Wallston, we represent heterogeneous social categories with intra-sex di-
will argue that an understanding of the often-different so- versity (Yoder & Kahn, 1993).
cial contexts in which women and men act can contribute Operationally, a social psychological, contextual ap-
to a useful framework from which to meaningfully address proach to examining gender comparisons searches for mod-
issues of gender differences and similarities. Although un- erators (Baron & Kenny, 1986) that identify conditions un-
derstanding the impact of social context by itself cannot der which gender differences emerge and disappear. In the
fully explain gender similarities and differences, it does following selective overview we recognize that each topic
offer social change agents ways to think about construct- area is highly complex and that extensive literatures exist
ing social contexts that can either maximize or minimize for each. We do not seek a comprehensive understanding
differences. Deaux and Major (1987) and Riger (1997) of each topic here; rather, our intent is to survey a wide array
have proposed similar models of gender differences in of topic areas with the goal of illustrating the far-reaching
which gender differences may come about because of situ- potential of adding more research exploring a social contex-
ational factors. However, their models focus on the imme- tual approach. Each presentation begins with a citation to
diate situation and downplay the macrostructural cultural ground the gender similarity or difference empirically and
and historical context in which interpersonal exchanges are then describes a social contextual example that modifies the
embedded. opening generalization (often a main effect). The pattern
284 YODER AND KAHN

of a generalization modified by context is illustrated in two Hall (1984) found a pattern of small to moderate gen-
forms. In the first, social contexts can narrow or eliminate der differences in facial decoding skills, recognizing faces,
a difference. In the second, contexts can create differences accurately expressing emotions, social smiling, distance
where they otherwise might not exist. maintained from others and by others, and expansiveness
that suggested a pattern of greater interpersonal sensi-
tivity by women. Indeed a number of studies cited by
Disappearing Differences
Manstead (1992) found evidence of folk wisdom espous-
The superior performance of more men than women on ing “women’s intuition.” Ickes, Gesn, and Graham (2000)
mental rotation tasks (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995) is one in a meta-analysis of 15 studies uncovered an explanatory
of the strongest gender differences substantiated by meta- moderator: motivation to appear empathic. When the cod-
analysts. Sharps, Price, and Williams (1994) showed that ing sheet expressly required raters to estimate the accu-
men’s performance was bolstered by masculine stereotypes racy of their inferences, which made salient that empathic
of spatial tasks (e.g., navigating naval vessels) and dimin- ability was being measured, women proved more accu-
ished by female stereotypes (e.g., interior design). Men rate than men. When the coding sheet only asked partic-
hearing masculinized instructions outperformed the other ipants to indicate the emotional tone of each thought or
groups; however, men exposed to feminized instructions feeling, making empathic ability less salient, gender dif-
performed comparably to women. ferences disappeared. Ickes and his colleagues (2000) in-
Similarly, heated debate has raged about the causes of terpreted this pattern as reflective of women’s motivation
differences between women’s and men’s mathematics per- to conform to a favorable stereotype rather than gender
formance (Feingold, 1993; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, differences in judgmental ability, a finding confirmed by
1990; Stumpf & Stanley, 1998). Steele (1997) presented ev- Klein and Hodges (2001; also see Eisenberg & Lennon,
idence that women’s math performance could be modified 1983).
by the social context. Women performed much worse than Agency often is associated with men and communal-
men when they were led to believe that men were better ity with women (Bakan, 1966; Eagly, 1987). Conway,
at math than women (evoking stereotype threat), but per- Pizzamiglio, and Mount (1996) found that students rated
formed equal to men when convinced there were no gen- high-status workers, regardless of their gender, as more
der differences (see also, Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; agentic and less communal than low-status workers (also
Oswald & Harvey, 2000; Shih, Pittensky, & Ambady, 1999). see Gerber, 1996). Status, not gender per se, but rather con-
Similarly, parental expectations about girls’ math abilities founded with gender, was a critical determinant (Marecek,
have been related to girls’ actual performance (Eccles & 1995).
Jacobs, 1986).
Meta-analysts consistently find higher levels of physical
Splintering Similarities
aggression by men than women (Eagly & Steffen, 1986;
Hyde, 1984). Lightdale and Prentice (1994) argued that Eagly and Johnson (1990) found virtually nonexistent
stereotypes of women as nonaggressive (White & Kowalski, gender differences in task-oriented versus relationship-
1994) inhibit them from expressing aggressive behavior. oriented leadership styles and a small difference in auto-
When women were unidentifiable to others, they defied cratic versus democratic styles such that more women were
the stereotype by dropping as many computer-simulated democratic. Three contextual conditions, however, magni-
bombs as men, but reported acting less aggressively than fied differences. More gender-stereotyped leadership styles
did men, conforming to the stereotype. Similarly, provoca- were found in laboratory than in real-life settings. The
tions such as physical attacks, verbal insults, and frustrations gender-congeniality of the leader’s role made a difference
justify women’s deviation from a nonaggressive stereotype, such that both women and men were more task-oriented
reducing differences in aggressiveness between women and when they filled leadership roles compatible with their gen-
men (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). der’s stereotype. Eagly and Karau (2002) extended this rea-
Eagly and Crowley (1986) found a small to moderate soning about the gender congeniality of the leadership role
gender difference in helping behavior such that more men to theorize about pervasive differences in women’s and
than women helped strangers in short-term relationships. men’s emergent leadership. Finally, the gender composi-
Gender differences were most pronounced in the context tion of followers influenced leadership style in Eagly and
of rescuing (e.g., picking up a hitchhiker, breaking up a Johnson’s analysis such that more women used an autocratic
fight, and helping a stranger on a subway), suggesting a style when leading groups of men.
masculine stereotype of chivalry. When this stereotype was Swim, Borgida, and Maruyama (1989) conducted a meta-
reduced by the victim’s direct request or by helping anony- analysis of 106 studies in which judges evaluated the same
mously, women’s rates of offering chivalrous help equaled stimulus materials attributed to either female or male cre-
men’s. Similarly, when women’s concerns about personal ators, and concluded that no aggregate gender differences
safety were minimized (e.g., on a college campus), gender existed. However, further probing revealed the impact of
differences evaporated. the social context: Work attributed to women was devalued
Making Gender Comparisons More Meaningful 285

somewhat when the stimulus materials were either mascu- per se, but because of gendered social contexts that func-
line or gender-neutral, when little information was available tion as moderators of sex or gender (Caplan & Caplan,
about the originator, and when the materials judged were 1994).
résumés or job applications (also see Lott, 1985). Other re- Looking across these examples, the social contextual
search, controlling for targets’ ability, experience, and ed- components studied cut across each layer of the social con-
ucation, found that evaluation bias disadvantaged women text. At the interpersonal level most proximal to the individ-
working in groups of mostly men (Sackett, DuBois, & Noe, ual, exchanges that evoke stereotype threat (Steele, 1997)
1991). and self-fulfilling prophecies (Geis, 1993) are common. Of-
Dindia and Allen’s (1992) meta-analysis of 205 stud- tentimes these stereotypes are made salient by task charac-
ies revealed a slight overall difference in self-disclosure teristics and the gender composition of dyads or groups.
by women and men. Again, this difference shrank and ex- Similarly, at an organization level, occupational and job
panded depending on the social context, specifically the sex stereotypes create contexts that are differentially congenial
of the target, the relationship between the discloser and the for women and men. Finally, at the level most distal to the
target, and the measure of self-disclosure used (self-report individual, broad confounds of power and status with gen-
or observational). der pervade contexts differently for the women and men
Illustrating the intersection of gender with other forms embedded within them.
of social identity, in this case race/ethnicity, Yoder and Our central point is that ostensibly similar contexts can
Berendsen (2001) compared the experiences of African be perceived and experienced differently by women and
American and White women firefighters. Almost all these men, girls and boys. An illustrative case in point is occupa-
women reported incidents of differential treatment based tions. Oftentimes by studying women and men in the same
on their gender. However, the two groups diverged in their occupation, we assume we are comparing apples with ap-
descriptions of these experiences. The stereotype of African ples. Consider women in male-dominated occupations like
American women as “beasts of burden” left them over- firefighter. These women “tokens” face performance pres-
burdened with heavy loads and extra chores. In contrast, sures resulting from their heightened visibility, social iso-
the stereotype of White women as fragile undermined oth- lation, negative role stereotyping (Kanter, 1977), blocked
ers’ perceptions of their physical stamina, encouraged these promotional opportunities, sexual harassment, and wage
women to cover up illnesses and weaknesses, and left them inequities (Yoder, 1991), none of which are experienced
feeling overprotected and underburdened. In sum, similar by men in the same occupation. Furthermore, token men
reports of differential treatment splintered upon deeper ex- in female-dominated occupations experience few if any of
amination because of stereotypes rooted in the intersection these negative consequences and instead seem to prosper
of gender with race/ethnicity. (Williams, 1992). Not only do women’s and men’s experi-
ences within the same occupation differ, but even the expe-
rience of being underrepresented as a token is different for
Discussion
women and men (Yoder, 1991; Zimmer, 1988) and within
Within the limited framework of similarity or difference, al- groups of women (Yoder & Berendsen, 2001). Thus it would
pha bias or beta bias, the preceding selective review would be naı̈ve to believe that examining women and men in the
appear contradictory and confusing. On the one hand, dif- same gender-skewed occupation places them in the identi-
ferences can be magnified as predicted by advocates of cal social context (Reskin, 1988).
the alpha bias. Data are available that evaluate women as
deficient in spatial and mathematical skills and seemingly
Social Interventions
less aggressive, less helpful, more interpersonally sensitive,
more visually dominant, and more communal than men (see In the preceding analysis we concluded that many women
summaries such as Yoder, 2003). On the other hand, differ- and men perceive and experience contexts differently be-
ences can be minimized supporting the beta bias. Research cause of gender-related stereotyping and status differences.
evidence documents that women and men frequently share Carli and Eagly (1999) modeled this approach by drawing
leadership styles, that their work is often evaluated without on both social role theory and status characteristics theory
regard to the originator’s gender, and that they self-disclose to examine emergent leadership. Yet, more often than not,
at similar rates (Yoder, 2003). Thus, women and men, as designers of social interventions oftentimes fail to acknowl-
deceptively homogeneous groups, can be shown to be both edge these divergent contexts and instead challenge women
similar and different. to “fix” themselves.
In contrast, the social contextual approach taken above For example, some consultants promote assertiveness
identifies gender-related conditions, which explain both dis- training (Paterson, 2000) for women as a way to com-
appearing differences and splintered similarities and thus pensate for interpersonal shortcomings in business set-
lend coherence to an otherwise disjointed review. Indeed, tings (e.g., Bloom, Coburn, & Perlman, 1975). In contrast,
women and men in the aggregate are shown to be both context-sensitive researchers find that assertive acts take
similar and different, not because of their sex or gender on different meanings when enacted by women and men.
286 YODER AND KAHN

Carli (1990) found that students rated an assertive woman groups subsequently lead by legitimated leaders outper-
making a counterattitudinal argument as competent and formed the control groups. In other words, only groups led
knowledgeable, but men were not influenced by her argu- by women leaders legitimated by the social context bene-
ments. A less assertive, more tentative woman was more fited from their leader’s training.
influential with men than an assertive woman. Similarly, In these two successful social interventions, the gen-
Gervasio and Crawford (1989) found that assertive women dered contexts experienced by women were openly ac-
were regarded as competent by men, but were disliked by knowledged. A spatial task congenial to expectations
many of them. These studies illustrate that the meaning of for a male partner but stereotypically detrimental to
assertiveness is inextricably gendered. a woman was effectively countermanded by compelling
A complementary pattern emerges from consultants ex- task-relevant pretest information. Similarly, by combining
ploring attributions for success (Harrington & Boardman, training with legitimization, women leaders overcame the
1997). Women, unlike men, have been criticized for fail- female-uncongenial role of leader of an all-male group per-
ing to internalize success by attributing their own successes forming a masculine task. Both studies drew on gender-
more than men to luck and task ease, and less than men to sensitive contextual understandings to facilitate women’s
their own internal abilities (McMahan, 1982). However, this participation.
gender difference disappears in some contexts: when tasks
are not male-linked, when the work group includes only
GENERALIZING THE APPROACH
women (Mednick & Thomas, 1993; Swim & Sanna, 1996),
and when status is kept constant across occupational set- We contend that a social contextual approach has been used
tings, networks and roles, and academic departments (Fox successfully to inform other problem-centered areas of re-
& Ferri, 1992). Gender-typing of tasks, the gender conge- search and that research along these lines should be ex-
niality of coworkers, and status, all contextual factors, influ- panded. Examples span a wide range of areas critical to
ence attribution patterns. improving women’s lives including mental health, physi-
Contextual analyses suggest social interventions focused cal health, work and family, and violence. Our goal here is
on molding contexts, keeping in mind that contexts are not to provide a comprehensive list of gender comparisons.
embedded within broader contexts. Consider social influ- Rather, our purpose is to suggest an array of areas in which
ence research. Pugh and Wahrman (1983) created four con- a social contextual approach might be further pursued in
ditions under which women and men completed a “spa- order to expand our understandings of documented gender
tial ability task,” a task with clear masculine overtones. differences. Our intent is to illustrate the breadth of poten-
In the control condition, women deferred more to men’s tial areas in which a social contextual approach might be
answers, establishing a clear gender difference in confor- more fruitfully applied.
mity. This difference persisted through the next two condi- For example, a social contextual approach to under-
tions in which a verbal disclaimer announced that no gen- standing depression brings into central focus concerns
der differences generally were found on this spatial task about trauma (Root, 1992) including sexual abuse and
and in which the woman participant appeared to score violence (Cutler & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991; Hamilton &
similarly to her male partner on a spatial pretest. In the Jensvold, 1992), financial stress (Mendes-de-Leon, Rapp,
fourth condition when the pretest unquestionably demon- & Kasl, 1994), poverty (Sen, 1993), unemployment (Osipow
strated that the woman outscored her partner, the gen- & Fitzgerald, 1993), nonemployment (Bromberger &
der gap closed so that these women were more influen- Matthews, 1994), and homelessness (Ingram, Corning, &
tial than women controls and were equally influential with Schmidt, 1996). Research on eating disorders needs to rec-
their male partner (also see Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997; ognize a culture of thinness that promotes body dissatis-
Foschi, 1996; Shackelford, Wood, & Worchel, 1996; Steele, faction in many women (Santor, Ramsay, & Zuroff, 1994;
1997; Wagner, Ford, & Ford, 1986; Wood & Karten, 1986). Schneider, O’Leary, & Jenkins, 1995; Siever, 1994) as well
Only the final condition successfully countered the gen- as the roles played by abuse (Root, 1991), racism, classism,
eral masculine stereotype that prevailed in the other con- heterosexism, and poverty (Brown, 1987; Hall, 1995; Lee,
ditions, and only in this context were women as influential 1995; Root, 1990; Thompson, 1992).
as men. Explorations of women’s physical health are increasingly
Yoder, Schleicher, and McDonald (1998) similarly strove sensitive to stereotypes of women’s physical maladies as
to empower women in a disadvantageous context. A to- psychologically based (Goudsmit, 1994); of andocentric ex-
ken woman was appointed to lead an all-male group on pectations about the onset, symptoms, and treatment of
a masculine-typed lunar mission. The context was varied chronic illnesses (e.g., Shumaker & Smith, 1995); and of
across three conditions: an appointed-only control leader, syndromes that pathologize common female experiences
an appointed and trained leader, and an appointed, trained, including menstruation (Caplan, 1995; Gallant & Derry,
and organizationally legitimated (empowered) leader. Al- 1995), childbirth (Stanton & Danoff-Burg, 1995), abortion
though training enhanced the individual performance for (Adler, David, Major, Roth, Russo, & Wyatt, 1990), and mis-
both groups of trained leaders over control leaders, only carriage (Madden, 1994). When gender is regarded more
Making Gender Comparisons More Meaningful 287

fully as a marker, not an explanatory cause of differences in REFERENCES

women’s and men’s mental and physical health, researchers
can begin to explore the impact of job-role quality and fam- Adler, N. E., David, H. P., Major, B. N., Roth, S. H., Russo, N. F., &
Wyatt, G. E. (1990). Psychological responses after abortion.
ily experiences on health outcomes (Barnett, 1997). Simi-
Science, 248, 41–44.
larly, studies of how workers balance occupational and fam- Andersen, M. L., & Collins, P. H. (1998). Race, class, and gender:
ily demands need to be attuned to the different work/family An anthology (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
contexts for women, for whom employment is additional, Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand
and for men, for whom breadwinning is their primary fa- McNally.
milial directive (Eccles, 1994). Barnett, R. C. (1997). How paradigms shape the stories we tell:
Researchers who study women who return to abusive Paradigms shifts in gender and health. Journal of Social
partners are considering the impact of women’s financial Issues, 53(2), 351–368.
autonomy, childcare responsibilities, and the availability of Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
social and physical supports (Strube, 1988). Rather than fo- variable distinction in social psychological research: Con-
cusing on gender as an explanation in and of itself, some ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
researchers have examined the social conditions that en-
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the de-
courage safer sexual practices (Morokoff, Harlow, & Quina, bate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University
1995), rape recovery (Davis, Brickman, & Baker, 1991), and Press.
the pursuit or suppression of sexual desires in heterosexual Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in
dating (Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991). The possibilities are aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis.
endless and, we believe, critically important to the well be- Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.
ing of women and the conduct of valid science. Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based
standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but
higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Per-
CONCLUSION sonality and Social Psychology, 72, 544–557.
We have argued that a social contextual approach to un- Bloom, V., Coburn, K., & Perlman, J. (1975). The new assertive
derstanding gender comparisons has been understudied woman. New York: Delacorte.
by both philosophical and empirical analyses. Our choices Bohan, J. S. (1993). Regarding gender: Essentialism, construction-
ism, and feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quar-
should not be limited to false dualities: similar or differ-
terly, 17, 5–21.
ent, alpha bias or beta bias, nature or nurture. Rather, a Bromberger, J. T., & Matthews, K. A. (1994). Employment status
third focus exists: the social context. Such a gendered un- and depressive symptoms in middle-aged women: A lon-
derstanding of social context can bring together apparently gitudinal investigation. American Journal of Public Health,
discrepant findings of both gender similarity and gender 84, 202–206.
difference. Brown, L. S. (1987). Lesbians, weight, and eating: New analyses
Social psychologists have long demonstrated that context and perspectives. In Boston Lesbian Psychologies Collec-
matters and feminist psychologists warn us that contexts are tive (Eds.), Lesbian psychologies (pp. 294–309). Urbana,
frequently, and oftentimes subtly, gendered (and further IL: University of Illinois Press.
nuanced by race/ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and so Caplan, P. J. (1995). They say you’re crazy: How the world’s most
on [West & Fenstermaker, 1995]). We are not suggesting powerful psychiatrists decide who’s normal. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
that social context be studied to the exclusion of other foci,
Caplan, P. J., & Caplan, J. B. (1994). Thinking critically about
but rather that a gender-sensitive social contextual analy- research on sex and gender. New York: HarperCollins.
sis adds significantly to our understanding of women, men, Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of
and their life experiences. Furthermore, a social contex- Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.
tual approach, more so than biology- or socialization-based Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on social in-
approaches, opens up promising possibilities for social in- fluence and emergent leadership. In G. N. Powell (Ed.),
terventions that may work to promote understandings of Handbook of gender and work (pp. 203–222). Thousand
and equity for women and men, girls and boys. Although Oaks, CA: Sage.
clear examples of such an approach already exist in sin- Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G. (2000). When positive stereo-
gle and meta-analytic studies across a wide range of topics, types threaten intellectual performance: The psychological
as demonstrated here, we believe that a preponderance of hazards of “model minority” status. Psychological Science,
11, 399–402.
gender comparisons fail to probe for a more meaningful
Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, M. T., & Mount, L. (1996). Status, com-
understanding of causality that includes a social contextual munality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gen-
analysis. The present paper is meant to spark such a deeper, der and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
richer analysis in future theory and research. chology, 71, 25–38.
Initial submission: August 31, 2001 Cutler, S. E., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Accounting for
Initial acceptance: November 26, 2002 sex differences in depression through female victimization:
Final acceptance: March 17, 2003 Childhood sexual abuse. Sex Roles, 24, 425–438.
288 YODER AND KAHN

Davis, R. C., Brickman, E., & Baker, T. (1991). Supportive and Hall, C. C. I. (1995). Asian eyes: Body image and eating disorders
unsupportive responses of others to rape victims: Effects on of Asian and Asian American women. Eating Disorders: The
concurrent victim adjustment. American Journal of Com- Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 3, 8–19.
munity Psychology, 19, 443–451. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication ac-
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An curacy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-
interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological versity Press.
Bulletin, 94, 369–389. Halpern, D. F. (1994). Stereotypes, science, censorship and the
Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: study of sex differences. Feminism & Psychology, 4, 523–
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106–124. 530.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role Hamilton, J. A., & Jensvold, M. (1992). Personality, psychopathol-
interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ogy, and depressions in women. In L. S. Brown & M. Ballou
Eagly, A. H. (1994). On comparing women and men. Feminism & (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology: Feminist reap-
Psychology, 4, 513–522. praisals (pp. 116–143). New York: Guilford Press.
Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of differ-
and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158. ence: Gender theory, postmoderism, and psychology. Amer-
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: ican Psychologist, 43, 455–464.
A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1994). IV. Asking the right
Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308. questions: Feminist psychology and sex differences. Femi-
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: nism & Psychology, 4, 531–537.
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. Harrington, C. C., & Boardman, S. K. (1997). Paths to success.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prej- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
udice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Prototypes and dimensions of masculinity
573–598. and femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 653–682.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive be- Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggres-
havior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological sion? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psy-
literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330. chology, 20, 722–736.
Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and oc- Hyde, J. S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender
cupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of differences. Signs, 16, 55–73.
achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quar- Hyde, J. S. (1996). Half the human experience (5th ed.). Lexington,
terly, 18, 585–609. MA: Health.
Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differ-
attitudes and performance. Signs, 11, 367–380. ences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psy-
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy chological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.
and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131. Hyde, J. S., & Frost, L. A. (1993). Meta-analysis in the psychol-
Feingold, A. (1993). Cognitive gender differences: A developmen- ogy of women. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.),
tal perspective. Sex Roles, 29, 91–112. Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories
Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and (pp. 67–103). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 237–254. Hyde, J. S., & Plant, E. A. (1995). Magnitude of psychologi-
Fox, M. F., & Ferri, V. C. (1992). Women, men, and their attribu- cal gender differences. American Psychologist, 50, 159–
tions for success in academe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 161.
55, 257–271. Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in
Gallant, S. J., & Derry, P. S. (1995). Menarche, menstruation, and empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential moti-
menopause: Psychosocial research and future directions. vation? Personal Relationships, 7, 95–109.
In A. L. Stanton & S. J. Gallant (Eds.), The psychology Ingram, K. M., Corning, A. F., & Schmidt, L. D. (1996). The
of women’s health: Progress and challenges in research and relationship of victimization experiences to psychologi-
application (pp. 199–259). Washington, DC: American Psy- cal well-being among homeless women and low-income
chological Association. housed women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 218–
Geis, F. L. (1993). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A social psychological 227.
view of gender. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Kahn, A. S., & Yoder, J. D. (1989). The psychology of women and
psychology of gender (pp. 9–54). New York: Guilford Press. conservatism: Rediscovering social change. Psychology of
Gerber, G. L. (1996). Status in same-gender and mixed-gender Women Quarterly, 13, 417–432.
police dyads: Effects on personality attributes. Social Psy- Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New
chology Quarterly, 59, 350–363. York: Basic.
Gervasio, A. H., & Crawford, M. (1989). Social evaluations of as- Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, mo-
sertiveness: A critique and speech act reformulation. Psy- tivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to under-
chology of Women Quarterly, 13, 1–25. stand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 720–
Goudsmit, E. M. (1994). All in her mind! Stereotypic views and the 730.
psychologisation of women’s illness. In S. Wilkinson & C. Lee, S. (1995). Self-starvation in context: Towards a culturally sen-
Kitzinger (Eds.), Women and health: Feminist perspectives sitive understanding of anorexia nervosa. Social Science and
(pp. 7–12). London: Taylor & Francis. Medicine, 41, 25–36.
Making Gender Comparisons More Meaningful 289

Lightdale, J., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). Rethinking sex differences Pugh, M. D., & Wahrman, R. (1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-
in aggression: Aggressive behavior in the absence of social sex groups: Do women have to be better than men? Amer-
roles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 34– ican Journal of Sociology, 88, 746–762.
44. Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in or-
Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale ganizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bul-
University Press. letin, 105, 51–88.
Lott, B. (1985). The devaluation of women’s competence. Journal Reid, P. T., & Comas-Dı́az, L. (1990). Gender and ethnicity: Per-
of Social Issues, 41(4), 43–60. spectives on dual status. Sex Roles, 22, 397–408.
Madden, M. E. (1994). The variety of emotional reactions to mis- Reskin, B. F. (1988). Bringing the men back in: Sex differentiation
carriage. Women & Health, 21, 85–104. and the devaluation of women’s work. Gender & Society, 2,
Manstead, A. (1992). Gender differences in empathy. In A. Gale & 58–81.
M. W. Eysenck (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences: Riger, S. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices: Sci-
Biological perspectives (pp. 355–387). Chichester, UK: ence, social values, and the study of women. American Psy-
Wiley. chologist, 47, 730–740.
Marecek, J. (1995). Gender, politics, and psychology’s ways of Riger, S. (1997). From snapshots to videotape: New directions
knowing. American Psychologist, 50, 162–163. in research on gender differences. Journal of Social Issues,
Marecek, J., & Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1991). A short history of the 53(2), 395–408.
future: Feminism and clinical psychology. Psychology of Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in management: An ex-
Women Quarterly, 15, 521–536. ploration of competing paradigms. American Psychologist,
Martin, C. L., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race 35, 902–910.
differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, Root, M. P. P. (1990). Disordered eating in women of color. Sex
45–57. Roles, 22, 525–536.
McMahan, I. D. (1982). Expectancy of success on sex-linked tasks. Root, M. P. P. (1991). Persistent, disordered eating as a gender-
Sex Roles, 8, 949–958. specific, post-traumatic stress response to sexual assault.
Mednick, M. T., & Thomas, V. G. (1993). Women and the psy- Psychotherapy, 28, 96–102.
chology of achievement: A view from the eighties. In F. L. Root, M. P. P. (1992). Reconstructing the impact of trauma on
Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A personality. In L. S. Brown & M. Ballou (Eds.), Personality
handbook of issues and theories (pp. 585–626). Westport, and psychopathology: Feminist reappraisals (pp. 229–265).
CT: Greenwood Press. New York: Guilford Press.
Mendes-de-Leon, C. F., Rapp, S. S., & Kasl, S. V. (1994). Financial Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures
strain and symptoms of depression in a community sample and the justification of knowledge in psychological science.
of elderly men and women: A longitudinal study. Journal of American Psychologist, 44, 1276–1284.
Aging and Health, 6, 448–468. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation:
Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (1981). This bridge called my back: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Writings by radical women of color. New York: Kitchen Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism
Table: Women of Color Press. in performance evaluation: The effects of work group rep-
Morokoff, P. J., Harlow, L. L., & Quina, K. (1995). Women and resentation on male-female and White-Black differences
AIDS. In A. L. Stanton & S. J. Gallant (Eds.), The psychol- in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
ogy of women’s health: Progress and challenges in research 263–267.
and application (pp. 117–169). Washington, DC: American Santor, D. A., Ramsay, J. O., & Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Nonpara-
Psychological Association. metric item analyses of the Beck Depression Inventory:
Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double stan- Evaluating gender item bias and response option weights.
dard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women’s Psychological Assessment, 6, 255–270.
communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, Schneider, J. A., O’Leary, A., & Jenkins, S. R. (1995). Gender,
15, 447–461. sexual orientation, and disordered eating. Psychology and
Osipow, S. H., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Unemployment and Health, 10, 113–128.
mental health: A neglected relationship. Applied and Pre- Scott, J. W. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or,
ventive Psychology, 2, 59–63. the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist
Oswald, D., & Harvey, R. (2000). Hostile environments, stereo- Studies, 14, 39–50.
type threat, and math performance among undergradu- Sen, K. R. (1993). Factors predicting depression among Korean-
ate women. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, American women in New York. International Journal of
Personality, Social, 19, 338–356. Nursing Studies, 30, 415–423.
Paterson, R. J. (2000). The assertiveness workbook. Oakland, CA: Shackelford, S., Wood, W., & Worchel, S. (1996). Behavioral styles
New Harbinger Publications. and the influence of women in mixed-sex groups. Social
Pettigrew, T. F. (1991). Toward unity and bold theory: Popperian Psychology Quarterly, 59, 284–293.
suggestions for two persistent problems of social psychol- Sharps, M. J., Price, J. L., & Williams, J. K. (1994). Spatial cogni-
ogy. In C. W. Stephan, W. G. Stephan, & T. F. Pettigrew tions and gender: Instructional and stimulus influences on
(Eds.), The future of social psychology: Defining the re- mental image rotation performance. Psychology of Women
lationship between sociology and psychology (pp. 13–27). Quarterly, 18, 413–426.
New York: Springer-Verlag. Sherif, C. W. (1979). Bias in psychology. In J. A. Sherman & E. T.
Prilleltensky, I. (1989). Psychology and the status quo. American Beck (Eds.), The prism of sex (pp. 93–133). Madison, WI:
Psychologist, 44, 795–802. University of Wisconsin Press.
290 YODER AND KAHN

Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychol- Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of
ogy of women: A study in social myth. American Psycholo- gender (pp. 102–147). New Haven, CT: Yale University
gist, 30, 739–754. Press.
Shih, M., Pittensky, T., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype suscep- Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex
tibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative perfor- differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consider-
mance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83. ation of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–
Shumaker, S. A., & Smith, T. R. (1995). Women and coronary 270.
heart disease: A psychological perspective. In A. L. Stanton Wagner, D. G., Ford, R. S., & Ford, T. W. (1986). Can gender
& S. J. Gallant (Eds.), The psychology of women’s health: inequalities be reduced? American Sociological Review, 51,
Progress and challenges in research and application (pp. 25– 47–61.
49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wallston, B. S. (1981). What are the questions in psychology of
Siever, M. D. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in women? A feminist approach to research. Psychology of
socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction Women Quarterly, 5, 597–617.
and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Weisstein, N. (1968). Psychology constructs the female, or the
Psychology, 62, 252–260. fantasy life of the male psychologist. In J. S. Bohan (Ed.),
Spelman, E. (1988). The inessential woman: Problems of exclusion Seldom seen, rarely heard: Women’s place in psychology
in feminist thought. Boston: Beacon Press. (pp. 61–78). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Stanton, A. L., & Danoff-Burg, S. (1995). Selected issues in Weisstein, N. (1993). Power, resistance and science: A call for a
women’s reproductive health: Psychological perspectives. revitalized feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 3,
In A. L. Stanton & S. J. Gallant (Eds.), The psychology 239–245.
of women’s health: Progress and challenges in research and West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender
application (pp. 261–305). Washington, DC: American Psy- & Society, 9, 8–37.
chological Association. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender &
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape Society, 1, 125–151.
intellectual identity and performance. American Psycholo- White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth
gist, 52, 613–629. of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist analysis. Psychol-
Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relation- ogy of Women Quarterly, 18, 487–508.
ship: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psycholog- Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages
ical Bulletin, 104, 236–250. for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39,
Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (1998). Stability and change in gender- 253–267.
related differences on the College Board Advanced Place- Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction
ment and Achievement Tests. Current Directions in Psy- style as a product of perceived sex differences in compe-
chological Science, 7, 192–196. tence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
Swim, J. K., Borgida, E., & Maruyama, G. (1989). Joan McKay ver- 341–347.
sus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond num-
Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409–429. bers. Gender & Society, 5, 178–192.
Swim, J. K., & Sanna, L. J. (1996). He’s skilled, she’s lucky: A meta- Yoder, J. D. (2003). Women and gender: Transforming psychology
analysis of observed attributions for women’s and men’s (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
successes and failures. Personality and Social Psychology Yoder, J. D., & Berendsen, L. L. (2001). “Outsider within” the
Bulletin, 22, 507–519. firehouse: African American and White women firefighters.
Thompson, B. W. (1992). “A way outa no way”: Eating problems Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 27–36.
among African-American, Latina, and White women. Gen- Yoder, J. D., & Kahn, A. S. (1993). Working toward an inclusive
der & Society, 6, 546–561. psychology of women. American Psychologist, 48, 846–850.
Unger, R. K. (1988). Psychological, feminist, and personal episte- Yoder, J. D., Schleicher, T. L., & McDonald, T. W. (1998). Em-
mology. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the powering token women leaders: The importance of orga-
structure of knowledge (pp. 124–141). New York: New York nizationally legitimated credibility. Psychology of Women
University Press. Quarterly, 22, 209–222.
Unger, R. K. (1990). Imperfect reflections of reality: Psychology Zimmer, L. (1988). Tokenism and women in the workplace: The
constructs gender. In R. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), limits of gender-neutral theory. Social Problems, 35, 64–77.