This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]

On: 28 December 2014, At: 00:30

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Self and Identity

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psai20

Beyond nature and nurture: The

influence of lay gender theories on
self-stereotyping
a b
Jill M. Coleman & Ying-Yi Hong
a
Middlebury College , Middlebury, Vermont, USA
b
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Champaign, Illinois,
USA
Published online: 04 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Jill M. Coleman & Ying-Yi Hong (2008) Beyond nature and nurture: The
influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping, Self and Identity, 7:1, 34-53, DOI:
10.1080/15298860600980185

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860600980185

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Self and Identity, 7 (1): 34 53, 2008
http://www.psypress.com/sai
ISSN: 1529-8868 print/1529-8876 online
DOI: 10.1080/15298860600980185

Beyond Nature and Nurture: The Inuence of Lay

Gender Theories on Self-stereotyping

JILL M. COLEMAN
Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont, USA

YING-YI HONG
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA

Although the nature versus nurture debate about gender dierences has persisted for
decades, few studies have examined the implications of individuals nature versus
nurture beliefs. In the present research, we examined how womens beliefs that
gender is biologically determined or socially constructed aected their self-
stereotyping tendency. Specically, we hypothesized that holding a biological
gender theory would orient women to view possessing gender stereotypical
characteristics as inevitable, and thus would be linked to stronger gender self-
stereotyping (even for negative feminine traits) than would a social gender theory.
In two studies, using both correlational and experimental designs, we found as
predicted that the biological gender theory was linked to stronger gender self-
stereotyping tendency (as reected by greater endorsements of negative feminine
traits and slower reaction time in denying stereotypic feminine traits). Moreover,
this relationship holds even when the participants sexist attitudes were statistically
controlled. Implications of these ndings for maintenance of gender inequality were
discussed.

Not long ago, Lawrence H. Summers, the president of Harvard University, made a
comment at an economic conference suggesting that innate dierences between the
sexes could help explain why fewer women than men succeed in science and math
careers (Summers, 2005; cf. Spelke, 2005). When he was criticized for this comment,
he stated that he would prefer to believe that the dierences in performance
between the sexes are due to social factors but that these things need to be
studied. Summers has also come under re because the number of senior job oers
to women has dropped each year of his presidency at Harvard. While Dr Summers
comments and actions may not have been intended to revive the nature/nurture
debate when it comes to gender dierences, they certainly suggest it is possible that
the way individuals think about the origin of gender dierences is linked to gender-
related judgments and attitudes. It remains to be investigated if the gender theories
lay people hold could have any inuence on their self-perception. For instance, if a
woman believes that gender dierences are largely biologically determined, will that

Received 6 February 2006; accepted 17 August 2006; rst published online 10 July 2007.
Correspondence should be addressed to: Jill Coleman at the Psychology Department, McCardell
Bicentennial Hall, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753, USA. E-mail: jcoleman@middlebury.edu

2007 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
 Lay Gender Theories 35

woman also believe that she inevitably possesses abilities and traits that are
stereotypical for women and therefore believe that she is doomed to perform less well
than men in mathematics and sciences? To ll this gap, the present research sought to
examine whether the lay theories people hold pertaining to the origin of gender
dierencescaused by biological versus social factorsaect how women think and
feel about themselves. Our goal was to understand how the meaning of a particular
group membership, especially a membership in a less dominant group, such as
women, changes as a function of the persons own belief about the nature of the
group. While situational changes in womens identity have been considered from a
philosophical perspective (Bohan, 2002), a thorough social psychological examina-
tion of this issue has yet to be conducted.
When individual dierences in identication have been considered, researchers
often focused on the degree of identication with that group, that is, the extent to
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

which individuals consider a particular group membership as an important part of

the overall self-concept (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino, &
Sacchi, 2002; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997; Pickett, Bonner, & Coleman, 2002;
Schmader, 2002; Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997). While this quantitative view of
identity was inuential and undoubtedly informative, it neglected a more qualitative
view of identity, one which would take into account the ways people think about a
group and the nature of membership (cf. Condor, 1989). There has been a shift in
social identity research more recently, however, toward examining multidimensional
models of gender identity (e.g., Spence, 1993) and models that examine various facets
of gender identication (e.g., Deaux & Stewart, 2001). This research has allowed
psychologists to focus their attention on the myriad ways individuals may think
about a group to which they belong, and how these dierent ways of thinking might
subsequently inuence their self-perceptions.
Similar in spirit, the present research sought to examine how the lay theories
women hold about gender may set up dierent meaning frameworks for women to
understand themselves. We followed the theoretical tradition of the implicit theories
of human attributes to view people as nave scientists (Heider, 1958), who hold
theories about the nature of social groups and use the theories to guide their
perceptions of these social groups, including their own in-group. For instance,
previous research has shown that people who endorse an entity theory of personality
(i.e., personality attributes are xed and unalterable), in comparison to those who
endorse an incremental theory of personality (i.e., personality attributes are
malleable), were more likely to endorse stereotypes of social groups (Levy,
Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998), hold prejudiced attitudes toward a maligned out-group
(Hong et al., 2004), and use social identity to guide important aspects of their self
(Hong et al., 2003). Given these ndings, womens lay theories about gender may
also have implications for their adherence to gender-typed characteristics. We turn
next to discuss the lay theories that pertain specically to gender and how these
theories set up dierent meaning frameworks for their beholders.

Lay Theories of Gender

The nature versus nurture debate with regard to the origin of gender dierences is
without question one of the biggest issues facing researchers in psychology and other
sciences. While most psychologists would agree that behavior, including gender-
related behaviors and gender dierences in behavior (Eagly & Wood, 1991), is
multiply determined and is not the result of either biology or environment alone, lay
 36 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

people seem to dier in the extent to which they believe that biological or social
factors are more responsible for sex dierences (Martin & Parker, 1995; Taylor &
Gelman, 1991). Relating to this, it is important to examine if there are indeed two
distinct conceptions of the origin of gender dierences.
First, Eagly and Wood (1999) contrasted two main theories, namely the
evolutionary theory and the social structural theory, in their discussion of the
origin of sex dierences. The evolutionary theory contends that sex dierences are a
product of the strategies men and women adopted to ensure their survival and
reproductive success. While this theory is not tied completely to the physiological
dierences between men and women, it does rely to a rather large degree on the
biological aspects of gender, and may also imply some deep-seated, essentialistic
attributes associated with the sexes (Gelman & Wellman, 1990; Haslam, Rothschild,
& Ernst, 2000; Yzerbyt, Estrada, Corneille, Seron, & Demoulin, 2004). By contrast,
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

the social structural theory proposes that sex dierences originate primarily from the
contrasting social positions of women and men. It emphasizes the power of the
environment and social practices in shaping gender dierences. In this view, gender
dierences are seen as results of social constructions. Though these two theories
emphasize dierent factors related to gender and gendered behavior, the authors are
careful to note that the theories do not necessarily oppose each other. They are
dierent, but research can seemingly support one theory without completely
contradicting the other.
Second, parallel to Eagly and Woods (1999) review, Martin and Parker (1995)
have also shown that lay people hold two folk theoriesgender is biological-based
or socially constructed. The researchers not only examined how people thought
about gender as being the result of biological and social causes, they also examined
the extent to which these folk theories inuenced perceptions of men and women.
Their ndings indicated that the more the participants believed in biological factors,
the more they perceived dierences between the sexes, and the more they believed
that gender dierences were immutable and thereby dicult to eliminate. By
contrast, beliefs in social causation were related to perceptions of more variability
within each sex.
In sum, both Eagly and Wood (1999) and Martin and Parker (1995) converged to
two lay theories of gendera biological gender theory and a social gender theory.
The next question is how these two lay theories of gender would be related to
gender identity. Research on the lay theories has mainly focused on group
perceptions but rarely on self-perception (which motivated the present research).
For instance, it has been shown that when biological factors related to gender
dierences are highlighted, gender dierences are believed to be more stable,
immutable, and essentialistic (Unger, 1979). People who hold an essentialist view of
gender also tend to view gender groups as having stable, internal qualities that
characterize the groups regardless of contextual factors (Mahalingam & Rodriguez,
2003). Similar to the lay theory of gender, research on the lay theory of race has also
shown that a belief in race as genetically determined is related to more prejudice
toward maligned racial groups (Jayaratne et al., 2006; Keller, 2005; see the reverse
eect for homosexuality shown by Haslam & Levy, 2006).
Taken together, previous ndings suggest that the lay gender theoriesbiological
versus social gender theorywould be systematically linked to dierent conceptions
about social identity, such that a biological gender theory is linked to more xed,
stereotypical gender identication than a social gender theory. The present research
was designed to test these ideas.
 Lay Gender Theories 37

The Present Research

The main goal of the present research is to investigate how the two lay gender
theories (biological and social) set up dierent meaning frameworks within which
women think about themselves. To this end, two studies were conducted to
investigate how lay gender theories inuence individuals tendencies to self-
stereotype, or to attribute gender stereotypic traits to themselves.
Self-stereotyping is closely linked to the process whereby people come to
perceive themselves more as the interchangeable exemplars of a social category than
as unique personalities dened by their individual dierences from others (Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987, p. 50). Through this process mental
representations of personal identity and social group membership become
inextricably linked; that is, in-group attributes become part of the self (Smith &
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

Henry, 1996, p. 635).

Theory and research on essentialism have highlighted the relation between
essentialist theories and stereotyping of groups and group members (Haslam,
Rothschild, & Ernst, 2002; Yzerbyt, Rocher, & Schadron, 1997). Yzerbyt and
colleagues (1997) argued that stereotypes comprise the list of attributes that not only
help describe a target group but also help provide an underlying explanation that
links these attributes together. Haslam and his colleagues (2002) demonstrated that
essentialist beliefs were also associated with prejudice toward stigmatized groups. It
follows from this work that a lay biological theory of gender, which possesses several
of the same properties as essentialist theories, could be associated with heightened
levels of stereotyping when activated, particularly levels of self-stereotyping using
gender-relevant traits. If one believes that there are innate properties or
characteristics associated with ones gender and that these are biologically linked,
possessing traits that are gender-stereotypic might seem inevitable. Therefore,
women who endorse this viewpoint might be more likely to use gender stereotypes to
describe themselves, even when these stereotypes are considered negative. By
contrast, women who hold more of a lay social theory and believe that gender is the
result of environmental conditioning might not view possession of gender-stereotypic
traits as inevitable or necessary, and therefore might be less likely to use gender
stereotypes to describe themselves.
Alternatively, the lay theories of gender can also be the consequences of gender-
related processes. That is, it is possible that in order to justify the inequality between
the sexes in a society, social agents would disseminate and promote a biological
gender theory and at the same time would censor and reject a social gender theory.
By the same token, at an individual level, individuals who endorse gender inequality
may have a high need to justify the status quo and thus nd the biological gender
theory convenient in explaining why women occupy lower social status or possess
less social power than men. As such, the endorsement of the biological gender theory
may be given rise by the female participants sexist attitudes. While acknowledging
that the links between lay gender theories and self-stereotyping could be bi-
directional, we sought to focus only on the inuence of lay gender theories on self-
stereotyping in the present research as a start. To this end, in two studies, we tested
the correlational and causal role of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping while
statistically controlling for the female participants sexist attitudes.
Study 1 used a correlational method to examine the link between biological versus
social gender theory and self-stereotyping tendency among female participants.
Study 2 used an experimental method to induce, at least temporarily, a biological
 38 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

versus social gender theory on female participants and then to assess the
participants subsequent self-stereotyping tendency. Both studies revealed evidence
that supported our hypothesis that the biological gender theory evoked a greater
tendency to self-stereotype among female participants than did a social gender
theory. More important, the links between lay gender theories and self-stereotyping
tendency remain signicant after controlling for the female participants sexist
attitudes.

Study 1
As noted, the primary goal of this study was to test the association between the
endorsement of biological and social lay gender theories and the tendency to endorse
stereotypically feminine attributes. In addition, we also examined whether biological
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

and social lay theories overlapped with other well-researched beliefs of human
attributes (i.e., implicit theories of the malleability of personality and intelligence).
Because it has been shown that biological beliefs can be dierentiated from implicit
theories of the malleability of human attributes (Bastian & Haslam, 2006; Keller,
2005), we predict that lay gender theories should be distinctive from the implicit
theories of human attributes.
In addition, as we argued, the lay gender theories could be a result of participants
sexist attitudes as well. Therefore, to get a clear picture of the links between lay
gender theories and self-stereotyping tendency, we statistically controlled the eects
of female participants sexist attitudes on their self-stereotyping tendency. We
assessed participants attitudes using the ambivalent sexism model developed by
Glick and Fiske (1996). Specically, Glick and Fiske have proposed two types of
sexist attitudes, hostile and benevolent. Hostile sexism is an adversarial view of
gender relations in which women are perceived as seeking to control men, whereas
benevolent sexism recognizes forms of gender relations that are subjectively
benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected,
supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete (Glick
& Fiske, 1996). While it is unlikely that women would be willing to characterize their
in-group in blatant negative terms (such as endorsing hostile sexism), it is possible
that some women would endorse benevolent sexism. In particular, it is possible that
women who admit possessing stereotypically feminine attributes (being gullible,
weak, loving) themselves would nd the gender roles portrayed in benevolent
sexism (to be protected and adored by men, and to provide care and love for men)
justiable. Therefore, we included participants endorsement of benevolent sexism as
a covariate in the main analysis.

Method
Participants
The participants were 60 female students at a large Midwestern university. The
participants received credit toward their introductory psychology course in exchange
for their participation in the study.

Measures and Procedure

Participants arrived at the experiment and were informed that the session would
involve several dierent types of tasks and questionnaires. As part of a larger
questionnaire packet on social attitudes and perceptions, participants completed the
 Lay Gender Theories 39

following measures: the Gender Theory Questionnaire, the Bem Sex Role Inventory,
the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, and the Implicit Theories of Personality Measure
or Implicit Theories of Intelligence Measure.

Gender theory questionnaire. Participants completed an 11-item questionnaire

that was designed to assess three aspects of lay gender theory endorsement. Each
item consisted of a statement about gender, and participants were asked to rate
their agreement with the item on a 6-point scale (from 1 strongly disagree to
6 strongly agree). As shown in Table 1, the rst four items on the questionnaire
were designed to assess participants endorsement of a biological theory of gender
(e.g., When men and women dier in some way, it is likely that the dierence is
due to biological factors). The next three items were designed to assess
participants endorsement of a social theory of gender (e.g., If social situations
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

change, the characteristics we attribute to gender categories will change as well).

Finally, because we were interested in how the participants favor one theory over
the other, we included four items at the end of the measure wherein the two
theories were pitted against each other. Specically, the rst two of these items
were written favoring the social theory (e.g., Gender is the result of nurture
more than nature), while the other two items were written favoring the
biological theory (e.g., Gender is more directly linked to biology than the way a
person is socialized).

Implicit theories of personality and intelligence measures. To provide further

evidence that lay gender theories operate independently of other conceptually
relevant implicit theories, questionnaires measuring implicit personality theories
(Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997) and implicit intelligence theories (Dweck, Chiu, &
Hong, 1995) were included. Because we did not want participants to become
suspicious regarding the nature of the study, participants completed either the
Implicit Personality Theory Questionnaire or the Implicit Intelligence Theory
Questionnaire, but not both.

Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). The complete BSRI (Bem, 1974) was presented
to participants. The inventory contains sixty traits (20 masculine, 20 feminine, 20
neutral) and participants were asked to rate the extent to which each trait described
them, using a 7-point scale (from 1 never or almost never true to 7 always or
almost always true). As described above, it was hypothesized that support for the lay
biological gender theory would be signicantly positively correlated with feminine
self-stereotyping. Alternatively, endorsement of the lay social theory of gender
should be negatively associated with feminine self-stereotyping.
One concern with the BSRI is that although it was designed to consist entirely of
positive stereotypic traits of men and women at its inception in 1974, it is doubtful
whether all these traits are considered positive or might be looked on favorably at
the present time over thirty years later. In order to investigate this concern, a pilot
study was conducted to assess the positivity or negativity of the individual traits on
the BSRI. Forty-three participants, who did not participate in either of the main
studies, were asked to report how positive or negative they believed each of the traits
to be, using a 5-point scale (from 72 highly negative to 2 highly positive, with
0 neutral). Average ratings were calculated for each of the sixty traits, with these
averages ranging from 71.60 to 1.95, suggesting that not all the traits are seen as
positive.
 40 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

In light of the variations in the valence of the BSRI traits, it is important to

separate positive and negative feminine and masculine traits when examining the
inuence of lay gender theories. To such end, we rst rank ordered the 20 feminine
traits from the most negative (gullible, M 71.2, SD 0.63) to the most positive
(loyal, M 1.80, SD 0.45). The six traits that were rated most negatively (yielding,
shy, feminine, soft-spoken, gullible, and childlike) were scored as the variable for
negative feminine traits, while the six traits that were rated most positively (cheerful,
loyal, sympathetic, sensitive, understanding, compassionate) were scored as the
variable for positive feminine traits. An identical procedure was used to create
variables for negative masculine traits (forceful, dominant, masculine, aggressive,
competitive, analytical) and positive masculine traits (self-reliant, defends own
beliefs, independent, has leadership abilities, self-sucient, ambitious). Follow-up
analyses conrmed that the negative feminine traits were rated as more negative
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

(M 70.37, SD 0.33) than were the positive feminine traits (M 1.62, SD 0.35),
t(82) 715.80, p 5 .01; the negative masculine traits were rated as more negative
(M 0.01, SD 0.42) than were the positive masculine traits (M 1.52, SD 0.46),
t(83) 718.31, p 5 .01.
In the data analysis, we tested whether the endorsement of biological gender
theory was related to the extent to which the four types of traits (positive feminine,
negative feminine, positive masculine, negative masculine) were viewed as self-
descriptive.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. All 22 items from the Ambivalent Sexism

Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) were included to examine individuals tendencies
to hold two types of sexist attitudes, hostile and benevolent. As noted, participants
endorsement of benevolent sexism was included as a covariate in the main analysis.

Results and Discussion

Gender Theory Questionnaire
A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on
the 11 items of the lay gender theory measure and results revealed a two factor
solution. The rst and second factor accounted for 34.3% and 20.4% of the total
variance, respectively. As shown in Table 1, the rotated factor loadings indicated
strong positive loadings for ve of the items on factor 1 (social theory items) and ve
of the items on factor 2 (biological theory items). Only one item (item 2) did not load
highly on either of the two factors (which was subsequently dropped from the
measure). These results support conceptualizing the biological and social lay theories
as two separate factors. We therefore computed each participants endorsement of
social gender theory by averaging their scores toward the items loaded on factor 1
(items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), and endorsement of biological gender theory by averaging the
scores toward the items loaded on factor 2 (items 1, 3, 4, 10, 11). Internal reliabilities
of the social gender theory scale and the biological gender theory scale were a .73
and .77, respectively. There was a signicant negative correlation between
participants scores on the two theory scales (r 7.25, p .05).

Implicit Theories of Personality and Intelligence

Participants endorsement of the biological gender theory was not signicantly
related to their endorsement of either an entity theory of personality (N 33; r .23,
ns) or a xed theory of intelligence (N 27; r .08, ns). Likewise, endorsement of the
 Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

TABLE 1 Rotated Factor Loadings for Items on the Gender Theory Questionnaire
Loadings
Item Factor 1 Factor 2
1. To a large extent, a persons gender biologically determines his or her abilities and traits .14 .68
2. It is hard if not impossible to change the innate dispositions of a persons gender .08 .31
3. When men and women dier in some way, it is likely that the dierence is due to biological factors 7.04 .67
4. The innate properties of a persons gender determine what the person is like 7.13 .73
5. The properties of gender are constructed totally for economic, political, and social reasons .54 .32
6. If social situations change, the characteristics we attribute to gender categories will change as well .61 .13
7. Gender is not set in stone and can be changed .82 7.05
Lay Gender Theories

8. Gender is a result of nurture more than nature .78 7.24

9. A persons gender has more to do with a persons social environment than with an individuals disposition .78 7.18
10. Gender is more directly linked to biology than to the way a person is socialized 7.54 .57
11. Peoples displays of gender behaviors are based more on biological factors than on the social climate 7.32 .68
Note: Values in bold indicate items that were included as Factor 1 (social theory) and Factor 2 (biological theory) for subsequent analyses.
41
 42 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

social gender theory was also not signicantly related to either implicit personality
theory (r 7.12, ns) or implicit intelligence theory (r .09, ns). These results suggest
that the lay gender theories are independent of the implicit theories of the
malleability of human attributes.

Self-stereotyping
Tests of the key hypothesis revealed that, as predicted, the more the participants
endorsed the biological lay gender theory, the greater they rated the feminine traits
as self-descriptive (r .32, p 5 .05). By contrast, the endorsement of the social
gender theory was not signicantly associated with participants endorsement of
feminine traits as self-descriptive (r .06, ns).
Interestingly, dierent patterns of associations emerged for the pre-selected
positively versus negatively valenced feminine traits. While participants endorse-
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

ments of biological gender theory were not signicantly associated with greater
endorsements of positively valenced feminine traits (r .14, ns), they were associated
with greater endorsements of negatively valenced feminine traits at a marginally
signicant level (r .25, p 5 .07). Although this pattern of results was tentative, it
supported our hunch that it is important to separate positive and negative feminine
and masculine traits when examining the inuence of lay gender theories. More
important, these ndings suggest that the hypothesized relation between endorse-
ment of the biological gender theory and self-stereotyping might be stronger when
negative stereotypic traits are considered than when positive stereotypic traits are
considered. This makes sense because, aside from gender theory, women may be
motivated to describe themselves as cheerful, loyal, sympathetic, sensitive, under-
standing, and compassionate (the positive feminine stereotypic traits) for self-
enhancement or impression management reasons. By contrast, describing oneself as
yielding, shy, feminine, soft-spoken, gullible, and childlike (the negative feminine
traits) is not something that every woman necessarily would be motivated to do.
However, when they believe that there are innate properties or characteristics
associated with ones gender and that these are biologically linked, possessing the
negative gender-stereotypic traits might seem inevitable. Therefore, the biological
gender theory can predict better the participants self-stereotyping in terms of
negative feminine traits than positive feminine traits. This prediction will be
examined again in Study 2.
Neither participants endorsement of the biological lay theory (r 7.03, ns) nor
the social lay theory (r .19, ns) was signicantly correlated with using stereo-
typically masculine traits to describe the self. However, when the masculine traits
were divided into positive and negative groups, there was a signicant positive
correlation between endorsement of the social gender theory and positively valued
masculine traits (r .27, p 5 .05). Because these traits are considered desirable, it is
possible that people who support the social theory nd gender more malleable, and
therefore are more inclined to use positive traits to describe themselves even if they
do not conform to feminine stereotypes. Rather than prioritizing feminine
characteristics or attributes, they prioritize things that are viewed positively in
order to create a more positive self-image.

Ambivalent Sexism
Items from both the hostile and benevolent sexism subscales of the Ambivalent
Sexism Inventory showed a high degree of reliability (a .83 and a .77,
respectively). Hostile and benevolent sexism scores were computed for each
 Lay Gender Theories 43

participant by averaging their ratings on the items on each scale. As in other work
(Glick & Fiske, 1996), participants scores for hostile and benevolent sexism were
signicantly positively correlated (r .34, p 5 .01), indicating that individuals who
hold hostile sexist attitudes are also likely to hold benevolent sexist attitudes.
Correlational analyses also revealed a marginally signicant positive relation
between participants endorsement of the biological lay theory and benevolent
sexism (r .24, p 5 .07), and a signicant negative relation between endorsement
of the social lay theory and benevolent sexism (r 7.26, p 5 .05). In addition,
the correlation between benevolent sexism and self-stereotyping was also
signicant (r .29, p 5 .05). However, as we predicted, hostile sexist attitudes
were not related to participants gender theories (r .11, ns, for biological gender
theory; r 7.07, ns, for social gender theory) and was only marginally correlated
with their self-stereotyping tendency (r .22, p .09), supporting our decision to
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

include only the participants scores on benevolent sexism in the partial

correlation analysis.
Pertaining to our main prediction, the link between the participants biological lay
gender theory and endorsement of feminine traits remains signicant after the
participants benevolent sexist attitudes were controlled (partial r .26, p .05).
In sum, the ndings support our main hypothesis that a stronger endorsement of
the biological gender theory was associated with greater gender self-stereotyping
tendency among women, and this relationship remained signicant even when the
participants sexist attitudes were controlled. Although these correlational results are
consistent with our contention that lay gender theories set up dierent meaning
frameworks within which the self is understood, they are not conclusive. Therefore
we sought to examine the causal link between the lay gender theories and self-
stereotyping tendency among women in Study 2.

Study 2
To test the possible causal inuence of lay theory endorsement on self-stereotyping,
we manipulated female participants gender theory and then assessed their
subsequent self-stereotyping tendency. Specically, borrowing the manipulation
method from the implicit theories literature (Chiu et al., 1997; Hong, Chiu, Yeung, &
Tong, 1999), we presented female participants with an essay, which convincingly
argued for either a biological theory or a social theory for gender. Then, we
measured participants subsequent self-stereotyping tendency using the same
measure we used in Study 1. In addition, adapting Smith and Henrys (1996)
method, we examined participants response latency toward endorsing the feminine
traits as self-descriptive. Specically, to examine how an in-group becomes part of
the self, Smith and Henry (1996) rst asked participants to rate how descriptive some
traits were for the self, an in-group, and an out-group. Then, the participants rated
whether each of the previously shown traits could be used to describe themselves on
a computer while their response latencies toward the traits were measured. Results
revealed that responses matching the in-group traits were faster than mismatching
responses. Response latency toward out-group traits, however, were not system-
atically dierent. Extending these ndings to the present study, if a biological gender
theory is more likely to evoke a self-stereotyping tendency than a social gender
theory, participants in the biological gender theory manipulation condition should
also be quicker in admitting feminine traits (i.e., display faster yes responses
toward feminine traits) and slower in denying feminine traits (i.e., display slower
 44 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

no responses toward feminine traits) than do participants in the social gender

theory manipulation condition.
Finally, we argued at the outset that the lay theories should set up meaning
frameworks that are independent of participants degree or strength of identica-
tion with the group. In a pilot study which involved 98 female participants
(who did not participate in any of the main studies), we found that participants
strength of gender identication, adapted from the identity subscale of Luhtanen
and Crockers (1992) collective self-esteem measure, was neither related to their
endorsement of the biological gender theory (r .04, ns) nor the social gender
theory (r .07, ns). The present study tested again if the two gender theory
manipulations were indeed independent of the strength of gender identication.
In addition, as in Study 1, we tested whether the link between the lay theories
and self-stereotyping would hold even if participants sexist attitudes were
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

controlled.

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 57 female students at a large Midwestern
university. The participants all received credit toward their introductory psychology
course in exchange for their participation in the study.

Materials
Lay gender theory manipulation. As in previous studies (Hong et al., 2004; Levy
et al., 1998), a reading comprehension exercise was used to manipulate participants
lay theories of gender. The participants were given a short article to read, which
allegedly was published in a scientic magazine. The essay was on the subject of
gender dierences, and the content of the essay varied based on the condition to
which the participants had been assigned (see Appendix). In the biological theory
condition, participants read an essay stating that gender and gender dierences were
primarily linked to biological dierences between men and women. In the social
theory condition, participants read a similar essay, but in this case it stated that the
dierences observed between men and women were primarily associated with
environmental and societal causes.
The goal of having participants read these articles was to manipulate their lay
theories of gender, or make either the biological or social theory activated
throughout the experimental session. Theoretically, as biological and social
perspectives of gender are present in the folk (lay) theories (Martin & Parker,
1995), individuals should have knowledge about both the biological and social
perspectives of gender, even if there is one theory that they themselves endorse more
strongly than the other. Reading an article that advocates one of the lay gender
theories should render the theory at least temporarily more accessible in the
participants minds. The purpose of this manipulation is not necessarily to
permanently persuade the participants to endorse a particular theory but rather to
make accessible the ideas that they already possess about one of the two theories.
When one of these theories is made accessible, the theory should guide their self-
judgments.

Strength of gender identication measure. The identity subscale of Luhtanen

and Crockers (1992) collective self-esteem measure was adopted to assess the
 Lay Gender Theories 45

participants identication with their gender group (e.g., The gender group I
belong to is an important reection of who I am). Participants were asked to rate
each item on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree).
Again, we predicted that the lay biological and social theories of gender
manipulation would not induce signicant dierences in participants strength of
gender identication.

Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). The 60-item BSRI was used once again as a
measure of feminine self-stereotyping. It was expected that participants in the
biological gender theory condition would be more likely to use stereotypically
feminine traits to describe themselves than would participants in the social gender
theory condition.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

Computerized self-stereotyping task. Adapting Smith and Henrys (1996)

method, the 60 traits from the BSRI were presented randomly one at a time at
the center of a computer screen. Participants were asked to judge, as quickly as
possible, whether each trait described them or not by pressing the assigned yes
and no keys, respectively, on the keyboard. It was hypothesized that
participants in the biological theory condition would be more ready to accept
feminine traits (resulting in shorter reaction time in pressing yes for feminine
traits) but more reluctant to reject feminine traits (resulting in longer reaction
time in pressing no for feminine traits) than participants in the social theory
condition.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske,
1996) was included to assess participants benevolent sexist attitude, which was used
as a covariate in the analysis of the eects of the gender theory manipulations on
self-stereotyping.

Procedure
Participants arrived at the experimental session and were informed that the
session was comprised of two separate studies. In the rst study they were
asked to perform a reading comprehension task. Participants were instructed that
they were going to randomly pick an article to read and later they would be
asked to answer a few questions about what they read. In reality, the articles
were distributed so that they corresponded to the condition of the study to
which participants were randomly assigned (biological theory or social theory
condition). To check whether the participants had comprehended the bio-
logical versus social theory correctly, the participants were asked to briey
describe the main points of the article they read shortly after the reading task.
All of the participants correctly recalled the central theme of the article,
indicating that they understood the ideas being expressed in the article they had
read.
Next, participants completed a paper-and-pencil version of the BSRI, and then
completed the computer self-stereotyping task. Following these, participants lled
out the reading comprehension questionnaire (rst manipulation check), the
Strength of Gender Identication Measure, and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
among other ller questionnaires. At the end of the experimental session,
participants lled out the Gender Theory Questionnaire that was developed in
Study 1 (the second manipulation check).
 46 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check
Gender theory questionnaire. The items making up the biological and social
theory subscales of the Gender Theory Questionnaire showed a high degree of
internal consistency (a .91 and .79, respectively). According to the same method
used in Study 1, participants endorsements of the biological and social gender
theories were calculated. To test the eects of the theory manipulations on
participants endorsements of the two gender theories, a 2 (Manipulation
Condition)62 (Theory Endorsement: biological and social) repeated measures
ANOVA was performed and the results revealed a signicant interaction between
theory endorsements and manipulation conditions, F(1, 54) 14.91, MSE 1.37,
p 5 .001. Specically, participants in the biological theory manipulation condition
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

displayed greater endorsement of the biological subscale (M 4.09, SD 0.77) than

did participants in the social theory manipulation condition (M 2.96, SD 1.01),
t(54) 4.40, p 5 .001. Conversely, participants in the social theory manipulation
condition displayed greater endorsement of the social subscale (M 4.15, SD 1.03)
than did participants in the biological theory manipulation condition (M 3.54,
SD 0.77), t(55) 72.55, p 5 .05. On the one hand, these ndings suggest that both
theory manipulations were eective in inducing the corresponding lay theory of
gender. On the other hand, it seems that the social theory manipulation was slightly
more eective (with participants endorsing 4.15 on the social theory measure and
only 2.96 on the biological theory measure) than the biological theory manipulation
(with participants endorsing 4.09 on the biological theory measure and 3.54 on the
social theory measure). It is possible that people would prefer, as Lawrence Summers
himself stated, to believe that gender is more rooted in social causes, and peoples
eagerness to accept the social gender theory may render the social theory
manipulation more persuasive than the biological theory manipulation.1 In any
case, these ndings show that the theory manipulations were operating as planned
and we proceeded to test the main hypotheses.

Strength of Gender Identication

As predicted, participants who read the biological theory article showed a
similar degree of gender identication (M 5.36, SD 1.11) to participants who
read the social theory article (M 5.26, SD 1.13), F(1, 55) 0.12, MSE 1.26, ns.
The lay gender theories did not induce dierences in strength of gender
identication.

Self-stereotyping and Response Latencies

Responses to Bems Sex Role Inventory. Participants endorsements of the traits
were submitted to a 2 (Theory: manipulation condition)62 (Traits: feminine vs.
masculine) ANOVA. First, there was a signicant main eect for gender such that
participants were in general more likely to endorse feminine than masculine traits,
F(1, 54) 9.46, MSE 0.41, p 5 .01. Pertaining to our hypothesis, the Theory6
Trait interaction was signicant, F(1, 54) 5.01, MSE 0.410, p 5 .05. Specically,
consistent with our prediction, participants in the biological theory condition
endorsed stereotypically feminine traits to a greater extent (M 5.11, SD 0.46)
than did their counterparts in the social theory condition (M 4.82, SD 0.57),
t(54) 2.14, p 5 .05. Again consistent with our prediction, participants in the
 Lay Gender Theories 47

biological theory condition endorsed stereotypically masculine traits to a lesser

extent (M 4.48, SD 0.77) than did participants in the social theory condition
(M 4.71, SD 0.70), although this dierence did not reach statistical signicance,
t(55) 71.19, ns.
As in Study 1, we tested whether the link between the biological gender theory
manipulation and self-stereotyping would still hold after controlling for the
participants benevolent sexist attitudes. Specically, we conducted a Theory6Trait
ANCOVA with the participants benevolent sexism as the covariate. Results revealed
that the predicted Theory6Trait interaction remained signicant, F(1, 53) 4.03,
MSE 0.423, p .05, even after benevolent sexism was controlled, indicating that
the causal link between biological (vs. social) gender theory and self-stereotyping
tendency exists independent of the participants own sexist attitudes.
Based on the rationale discussed in Study 1, it would be informative to examine
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

the manipulation eects on the pre-selected positive versus negative feminine traits.
Indeed, replicating the ndings in Study 1, participants in the biological gender
theory condition endorsed the negative feminine traits signicantly more strongly
(M 4.35, SD 0.63) than did participants in the social gender theory condition
(M 3.96, SD 0.74), t(55) 2.15, p 5 .05. This dierence remained signicant
after participants benevolent sexism was statistically controlled, F(1, 54) 3.99,
MSE 0.466, p .05. There was also a signicant main eect of trait valence,
indicating that participants overall were more likely to endorse positive than
negative traits, F(1, 54) 312.35, MSE 0.45, p 5 .001.
Again as in Study 1, participants in the two theory conditions did not signicantly
dier in their endorsements of positive feminine traits, t(54) 1.08, ns. For masculine
traits, regardless of valence, participants in the two theory conditions again did not
dier in their endorsements signicantly.

Responses to the computerized self-stereotyping task. The computerized self-

stereotyping task provided two additional ways of assessing participants self-
stereotyping tendencies. First, participants endorsements of the feminine versus
masculine traits, using a categorical yes or no response, were examined. Second,
participants response latencies toward matching and mismatching trials were
examined.
First, a repeated measures ANOVA was performed, looking at yes versus no
endorsements of feminine and masculine traits among participants in the two theory
manipulation conditions. Findings replicated the patterns found using the BSRI task
in both Studies 1 and 2. Specically, participants in the biological theory condition
accepted a greater number of feminine traits (M 16.7, SD 2.22) as self-descriptive
than did participants in the social theory condition (M 14.5, SD 3.54),
F(1, 55) 7.88, MSE 8.68, p 5 .01. More important, the eect of the theory
manipulation remained signicant after benevolent sexist attitudes were statistically
controlled, F(1, 54) 7.84, MSE 8.83, p 5 .01.
Because there was a signicant eect for negative self-stereotyping when the
paper-and-pencil BSRI was analyzed, we further analyzed the pre-selected positive
versus negative feminine traits. Here again, participants in the biological theory
condition accepted a greater number of the negative feminine traits (M 4.07,
SD 1.22) as self-descriptive than did participants in the social theory condition
(M 3.14, SD 1.48), F(1, 55) 6.63, MSE 1.84, p 5 .05; this eect remained
signicant after the benevolent sexism was statistically controlled, F(1, 54) 5.86,
 48 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

MSE 1.81, p 5 .05. Again, no signicant dierences were found between the two
theory conditions in their endorsements of the positive feminine traits or masculine
(positive and negative) traits.
Second, participants response times toward the stereotypically feminine traits
were compared across the two theory manipulation conditions. Consistent with our
predictions, participants in the biological theory condition were slower to reject
feminine traits (M 1510 ms, SD 425 ms) as self-descriptive than were participants
in the social theory condition (M 1286 ms, SD 333 ms), F(1, 55) 4.88,
MSE 146627.14, p 5 .05. Again, this eect remained signicant after the benevolent
sexism was statistically controlled, F(1, 54) 4.50, MSE 148672.86, p 5 .05.
Contrary to our predictions, however, participants who had a biological theory
activated did not respond faster when accepting feminine traits as self-descriptive
(M 1113 ms, SD 239 ms) than did participants who had a social theory activated
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

(M 1033 ms, SD 242 ms). We also examined the response latency of participants
towards the positive versus negative feminine traits in the two theory manipulation
conditions but did not nd any systematic dierences. As a whole, these results
provide partial support for our hypothesis that activating lay gender theories would
inuence the speed with which women made self-stereotypic judgmentsa biological
gender theory would render women slower in denying stereotypic feminine traits
than a social gender theory.
A noteworthy pattern is that although participants made quicker yes responses
than no responses toward feminine traits, F(1, 55) 9.10, MSE 61950.78,
p 5 .01, they made quicker no responses than yes responses toward masculine
traits, F (1, 55) 35.1, MSE 103323.76, p 5 .01. This suggests that the subject of
gender might have been made salient in both theory manipulation conditions,
leading all participants to respond in a gender stereotyped way (admitting feminine
traits and denying masculine traits quickly), and therefore the theory manipulations
did not render the predicted reaction time dierence when participants admitted
feminine traits. Yet, the fact that participants in the biological theory condition were
signicantly slower to reject feminine traits compared to participants in the social
theory salience condition provides some support that lay theories would still make a
dierence in participants self-stereotyping processes even when gender was salient to
everyone.
In sum, the results of this study provide general support for the key hypothesis
that manipulating individuals lay theories of gender would produce a dierence in
gender self-stereotyping, such that participants in biological gender theory condition
were more likely to endorse negative feminine traits and were more reluctant to reject
feminine traits (as reected by their slower reaction time) than were participants in
the social theory condition. Similar to Study 1, these patterns still hold even when
participants benevolent sexist attitudes were statistically controlled.

General Discussion
The main goal of the present research was to test a link between the lay gender
theories and self-stereotyping, and in general this link was supported by our ndings.
In Study 1, we rst identied a biological gender theory and a social gender theory,
and then showed that participants endorsement of the biological gender theory was
related to a greater tendency to endorse feminine gender traits, especially more
negative feminine gender traits. Using a manipulation method in Study 2, we further
demonstrated a causal link between a biological (versus social) gender theory and
 Lay Gender Theories 49

(a) self-reported endorsements of negative feminine traits, and (b) slower reaction
time in rejecting feminine traits. As a whole, these ndings support our contention
that the lay gender theories set up meaning frameworks within which women
understand their gender role identity, something that for many women is a central
aspect of their self-concepts.
It is interesting to note that the self-stereotyping tendency was particularly
strong when negative feminine traits were considered rather than positive traits.
While anyone might want to describe themselves as loyal or compassionate
(both of which are positive feminine traits on the BSRI), describing oneself as
gullible or childlike (both negative feminine traits) might require one believing
that possession of those traits is inevitable, or a given. Previous research on social
identity has demonstrated that individuals do self-stereotype in a selective manner,
meaning that they have some exibility in which traits they may adopt or reject as
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

self-descriptive (Biernat, Vescio, & Green, 1996). Although individuals general

motivation is to view themselves and their groups positively (Hogg & Abrams,
1988), with the proper motivation individuals can and will choose to describe
themselves using negative stereotypic traits. For instance, when individuals are
experiencing a heightened need for assimilation into an in-group or dierentiation
from an out-group, endorsing negative group-stereotypic traits can provide one
way for people to satisfy these needs (Pickett et al., 2002). It may be the case in the
present research that an individuals perspective on the group as a whole inuences
the stereotypic traits they choose to take on, and that the salience of the biological
gender theory provides a sucient impetus for individuals to adopt negative
stereotypic traits. More important, a fundamental question, it is unclear whether
the participants who hold a biological gender theory would indeed view the
negative feminine traits as less negative than the participants who hold a social
gender theory. For one, we found in Study 1 that the endorsement of social gender
theory was negatively correlated with benevolent sexism, whereas the endorsement
of biological gender theory was marginally positively correlated with benevolent
sexism. This suggests that the idea of being a woman who needs protection from
men may be more palatable for participants who hold a biological gender theory
than for those who hold a social gender theory. In addition, we also found a
positive association between benevolent sexism and self-stereotyping tendency,
suggesting that women who endorse the gender roles portrayed in benevolent
sexism (to be protected and adored by men) may not necessarily nd gullible or
childlike traits as demeaning self-descriptions, but instead nd these descriptions
supportive of their view about gender roles. This idea can be tested in future
research.
The eects of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping observed in the present
research provide a tangible example of how broad theories of gender from the
philosophical level are translated to the level of individual experience. For centuries
women have faced discrimination, lower social status, and limitations in the roles
oered to them, oftentimes because of the stereotypes associated with being female.
The research presented here oers one possible explanation as to why women would
willingly take on elements of these stereotypesit is because of the lay theories they
hold about their own gender. For people who endorse a biological theory of gender,
gender stereotypic traits may be largely seen as manifestations of an essentialist core.
Therefore there is no option but to acknowledge that these traits are in fact self-
descriptive. As such, lay gender theories set up a subjective reality within which the
individuals operate.
 50 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

That being said, we do not deny the possibility that the lay theories of gender can
also be the consequences of gender-related processes as we have noted at the outset.
The present research has only focused on testing the inuences of lay gender theories
on self-stereotyping tendency and has not tested the reverse link (i.e., the endorsement
of either type of lay theories of gender could be given rise by the extent to which the
theories can serve the beholders social goals). The reverse causal role of the lay
theories of gender can generate interesting predictions to be tested in future research.
For example, a woman who subjectively recognizes female stereotype traits (both
positive and negative ones) in herself may infer from her self-perception a biological
gender theory. As such, women who possess (or subjectively perceive to possess)
more feminine characteristics may be more likely than those who possess less
feminine characteristics to endorse a biological gender theory. This hypothesis
could be tested by manipulating female participants self-perception (wherein
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

participants were led to believe that they are more or less feminine) and then
assessing their subsequent endorsements of biological gender theory.
Take another example. It has been widely shown that men have a stronger
social dominance orientation than do women (Foels & Pappas, 2004; Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999) and thus men may be more motivated than women to justify gender
inequality. Therefore, men would be more likely than women to hold a biological
gender theory but less likely to hold a social gender theory. More important, to the
extent that the biological gender theory is a means for men to justify their
dominant status over women, men should endorse it more strongly when their
status is being challenged than when it is not. These predictions can be tested in
future research.
To conclude, although a great deal of social identity research has focused on the
eects of strength and salience of group identication on individuals thoughts and
behaviors, there has not been as much work dealing with how individuals understand
that the nature of their identity could inuence their self-perception. The present
research was intended to examine one specic facet of group identication,
individuals theories about the nature of the group, and investigate how these
theories produce dierent eects on individuals thoughts about themselves as group
members. As such, this research has provided new insights toward a qualitative
perspective on social identity.

Note
1. In addition, the correlation between participants scores on the biological theory
measure and the social theory measure was strongly negative(r 7.55, p 5 .001),
suggesting that the manipulations may have polarized participants attitudes in
responding to explicit measures of the gender theories. Given this possibility, we
treated participants scores on the two theory measures as manipulation checks only
and did not expect that these scores would necessarily predict participants self-
stereotyping tendency.

References
Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 228 235.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155 162.
 Lay Gender Theories 51

Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Green, M. L. (1996). Selective self-stereotyping. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1194 1209.
Bohan, J. S. (2002). Sex dierences and/in the self: Classic themes, feminist variations,
postmodern challenges. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 74 88.
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup
derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 24, 641 657.
Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M.-P., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist:
Ingroup identication, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 135 143.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 19 30.
Condor, S. (1989). Biting into the future: Social change and the social identity of women. In
S. Skevington & D. Baker (Eds.), The social identity of women. London: Sage.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

Deaux, K., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Framing gendered identities. In R. K. Unger (Ed.),
The handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 84 97). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Dweck, C., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267 285.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex dierences in social behavior: A meta-
analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 306 315.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex dierences in human behavior: Evolved
dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408 423.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Ingroup
identication as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual
mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 617 626.
Foels, R., & Pappas, C. J. (2004). Learning and unlearning the myths we are taught: Gender
and social dominance orientation. Sex Roles, 50(11 12), 743 757.
Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. (1990). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-
obvious. Cognition, 38, 213 244.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Dierentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491 512.
Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and
implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 471 485.
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113 127.
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with
prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87 100.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identications: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hong, Y. Y., Chan, G., Chiu, C., Wong, R. Y. M., Hansen, I. G., Lee, S., et al. (2003). How
are social identities linked to self-conception and intergroup orientation? The moderating
eect of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1147 1160.
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C., Yeung, G., & Tong, Y. (1999). Social comparison during the political
transition: Interaction of entity versus incremental beliefs and social identities.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 257 279.
Hong, Y. Y., Coleman, J. M., Chan, G., Wong, R. Y. M., Hansen, I. G., Chiu, C., et al.
(2004). Predicting prejudice: The interactive role of implicit theory and social identity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1035 1047.
Jayaratne, T. E., Ybarra, O., Sheldon, J. P., Brown, T. N., Feldbaum, M., Pfeer, C. A., et al.
(2006). White Americans genetic lay theories of race dierences and sexual orientation:
Their relationship with prejudice toward Blacks, and gay men and lesbians. Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 77 94.
 52 J. M. Coleman & Y.-Y. Hong

Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism

and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88(4), 686 702.
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement:
The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421
1436.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of ones
social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302 318.
Mahalingam, R., & Rodriguez, J. (2003). Essentialism, power and cultural psychology of
gender. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3(2), 157 174.
Martin, C. L., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race dierences. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 45 57.
Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping:
Heightened assimilation and dierentiation needs result in increased levels of self-
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 543 562.

Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identication moderates stereotype threat eects on womens
math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 194 201.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time
evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(6), 635 642.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group
status and distinctiveness: The role of group identication. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538 553.
Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex dierences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?
American Psychologist, 60, 950 958.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624 635.
Summers, L. (2005, January). Remarks at NBER Conference on diversifying the science and
engineering workforce. Cambridge, MA.
Taylor, M. G., & Gelman, S. A. (1991, April). Childrens beliefs about sex dierences: The role
of nature versus nurture. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redenition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34,
1085 1094.
Yzerbyt, V. Y., Estrada, C., Corneille, O., Seron, E., & Demoulin, S. (2004). Subjective
essentialism in action: Self-anchoring and social control as consequences of fundamental
social divides. In V. Y. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of
group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism. Hove, UK:
Psychology Press.
Yzerbyt, V. Y., Rocher, S. J., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A
subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers,
& S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20 50).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
 Lay Gender Theories 53

Appendix
Excerpts from the Article Used to Activate the Biological Gender Theory
. . . This is just one example of gender-typed behavior among the eight hundred and
twelve cases that researchers collected at the Gender and Personality Development
Unit (GPDU) at Princeton University.
Researchers at the GPDU were interested in the origin of gender characteristics
and gender dierences and how they develop over an individuals life. Thus, a large
scale longitudinal study (over 25 years) was launched to investigate this topic. Over
eight hundred individuals were identied at birth, and elaborate data on them was
collected. Sources of data included birth and school records, extensive observations
at home, and in-depth interviews . . .
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 00:30 28 December 2014

. . . These studies, together with many others, have made clear the fact that
masculine and feminine characteristics as well as gender dierences are largely
connected to biology and are dicult to change.
According to Dr Medin, external social inuences play a secondary role in the
emergence of gender dierences. They are not able to completely transform innate
predispositions, but these inuences may be able to aect other characteristics such as
specic skills or isolated habits. Yet, the changes due to social factors will be relatively
consistent with the individuals underlying genetic and physical predispositions . . .
. . . To conclude, research ndings from a wide range of studies, including large-
scale longitudinal studies, rigorous experiments, education intervention programs
and historical analyses, converge to one major conclusion: Gender characteristics
and gender dierences are primarily the result of biological factors.

Excerpts from the Article Used to Activate the Social Gender Theory
. . . This is just one example of gender-typed behavior among the eight hundred and
twelve cases that researchers collected at the Gender and Personality Development
Unit (GPDU) at Princeton University.
Researchers at the GPDU were interested in the origin of gender characteristics
and gender dierences and how they develop over an individuals life. Thus, a large
scale longitudinal study (over 25 years) was launched to investigate this topic. Over
eight hundred individuals were identied at birth, and elaborate data on them was
collected. Sources of data included birth and school records, extensive observations
at home, and in-depth interviews . . .
. . . These studies, together with many others, have made clear the fact that
masculine and feminine characteristics as well as gender dierences are largely
connected to social factors and are susceptible to change.
According to Dr Medin, internal biological inuences play a secondary role in the
emergence of gender dierences. They may set up some sort of predisposition toward
certain masculine or feminine traits and behaviors, but this predisposition is consequently
aected by the social environment surrounding an individual. The changes due to social
factors may or may not remain consistent with a biological predisposition . . .
. . . To conclude, research ndings from a wide range of studies, including large-
scale longitudinal studies, rigorous experiments, education intervention programs
and historical analyses, converge to one major conclusion: Gender characteristics
and gender dierences are primarily the result of social factors.