Graphing the order of the sexes: Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs.

Hegarty, Peter; Lemieux, Anthony F.; McQueen, Grant

doi:10.1037/a0018590

Cited by 53 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 113 publications

(169 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Again, it is likely that lower‐status groups define themselves as different, but for different motivations than higher‐status groups. Whilst our work on linguistic framing has found little evidence of effects of group identity on explanation content, there are suggestive findings that people engage with science in ways that are affected by social identity concerns (e.g., Hegarty, Lemieux, & McQueen, 2010; Morton, Haslam, Postmes, & Ryan, 2006). More work is needed on this question of how the focus of attention might shift when people explain group differences as individuals, and when they explain group differences as members of higher‐ and lower‐status social groups.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Asymmetric Explanations of Group Differences: Experimental Evidence of Foucault’s Disciplinary Power

Hegarty

Bruckmüller

2013

Social & Personality Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Author Version Hegarty, P., & Bruckmüller, S. (2013). Asymmetric explanations of group differences:Experimental evidence of Foucault's disciplinary power in social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 176-186. AbstractWhilst the same group differences can be explained in many ways, explanations of group differences tend to spontaneously figure the distinctive attributes of lower-status groups against a background norm of high-status groups' attributes. We suggest that this asymmetry occurs in the explanations of scientists and laypeople because of 'disciplinary power' and works to disempower lower-status people by making them visible to the human sciences. We argue that social groups who are habitually studied first in research programs, more commonly encountered social groups, and prototypical social groups are all less likely than their counterparts to be marked in spontaneous explanations of empirical group differences. We present evidence that groups who are explicitly mentioned in such explanations are assumed to be lower in power. We describe some limitations to current knowledge about such asymmetric explanations and suggest some directions for further research, including our thoughts about how to integrate existing findings with the possibility of formulating cognitive alternatives to the status quo among minority groups.

show abstract

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Asymmetric Explanations of Group Differences: Experimental Evidence of Foucault’s Disciplinary Power

Hegarty

Bruckmüller

2013

Social & Personality Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, studies across a number of domains have shown that people are less mindful of more prototypical social groups, and particularly so when such groups are of high-status (Hegarty, Lemieux, & McQueen, 2010). For instance, research in social cognition has demonstrated that individuals asked to categorize others by race are slower to do so for White targets-the more prototypical group-than they are for Black targets (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005;Stroessner, 1996).…”

Section: Proposition 2: Homogeneity Is Also An Effect In Need Of Explmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research

Apfelbaum

Phillips

Richeson³

2014

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often surprisingly difficult to make definitive scientific statements about the functional value of group diversity. We suggest that one clear pattern in the group diversity literature is the prevailing convention of interpreting outcomes as the effect of diversity alone. Although work in this arena typically compares diverse groups with homogeneous ones, we most often conceive of homogeneous groups as a baseline—a reference point from which we can understand how diversity has changed behavior or what type of response is “normal.” In this article, we offer a new perspective through a focus on two propositions. The first proposition is that homogeneity has independent effects of its own—effects that, in some cases, are robust in comparison with the effects of diversity. The second proposition is that even though subjective responses in homogeneous groups are often treated as a neutral indicator of how people would ideally respond in a group setting, evidence suggests that these responses are often less objective or accurate than responses in diverse groups. Overall, we believe that diversity research may unwittingly reveal important insights regarding the effects of homogeneity.

show abstract

“…Across the front of the cover we see a sequence of images, made up of various combinations of the standard male ♂ and female ♀ symbols. Hegarty, Lemieux and McQueen (2010) have found that the ordering of gender and sexuality in psychological graphs and diagrams reflects dominant cultural hierarchies of acceptability and normality, with data from men generally presented before that of women, and from heterosexuals before that of bisexual, lesbian or gay (BLG) people. This is reflected in this cover which first (left to right) presents an interlocked male and female symbol, presumably representing heterosexuality.…”

Section: The Book and Its Covermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We consider the ways in which this is inherent in both the structure and content of the book (see Hegarty, Lemieux & McQueen, 2010). We asked questions throughout the analysis such as: How are gender and sexuality represented (both visually and textually)?…”

Section: Analysing the Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

What does Bancroft’s Human Sexuality and its Problems tell us about current understandings of sexuality?

Barker

Richards

2013

Feminism & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human Sexuality and its Problems is an influential text in the arenas of sex research and psychosexual medicine. The current edition specifically aimed to incorporate the full range of perspectives on human sexuality. However, an analysis of the book found that sociological, social psychological, feminist and queer perspectives were still marginalised or lacking. In additional to this, the text was heteronormative in its construction of sexuality and sexual practice. An in-depth analysis of coverage of vaginismus and trans highlights problematic understandings of gender roles and their involvement in sexual difficulties, as well as little awareness of the diversity of gender identities and experiences.Key words: Sexuality textbook, sexual problems, trans, vaginismus. Corresponding AuthorMeg Barker, Psychology in Social Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AAIn this brief report we provide an analysis of the most recent edition of John Bancroft's (2009) Human Sexuality and its Problems. This book is reflective of mainstream understandings of human sexuality more broadly: both in the academy and in professional practice. Cited in thousands of articles and books, including those instrumental in informing revisions of the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (e.g. Graham, 2010), the text is viewed as compiling the full sweep of theory and research on human sexuality and as fully representing changes in this over time with each new edition (Guirguis, 1991). It is hailed as the 'bible of sex research' (Hartmann, 2010, p.507) and 'a staple of psychosexual therapy and medicine' (Read, 2010, p.234), and recommended as core reading for therapeutic and medical students and professionals (e.g. Gregoire, 1999; University of Warwick, 2011).

show abstract

Graphing the order of the sexes: Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs.

Cited by 53 publications

References 113 publications

Asymmetric Explanations of Group Differences: Experimental Evidence of Foucault’s Disciplinary Power

Asymmetric Explanations of Group Differences: Experimental Evidence of Foucault’s Disciplinary Power

Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research

What does Bancroft’s Human Sexuality and its Problems tell us about current understandings of sexuality?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About