Identity Implications of Conformity: Sex Differences in Normative and Attributional Judgments

Santee, Richard T.; Jackson, Susan E.

doi:10.2307/3033935

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results highlight the importance of examining gender roles in future conformity research. Overall, the results support recent research that indicates a subtle change in women's gender roles (Diekman & Eagly, 2000;Diekman & Goodfriend, 2006 A review of the literature on gender differences in conformity reveals a series of inconsistent results across studies (e.g., Collin, Di Sano, & Malik, 1994;Eagly, Wood, & Fishbaugh, 1981;Endler, 1966;Follingstad, 1979;Maslach, Santee, & Wade, 1987;Maupin & Fisher, 1989;Reysen & Reysen, 2004;Santee & Jackson, 1982;Sistrunk & McDavid, 1971) and meta-analyses (Cooper, 1979;Eagly, 1978;Eagly & Carli, 1981). While most researchers argue that there is little evidence to suggest that women always conform more than men, most researchers find at least some evidence to support the idea that women conform more than men sometimes or in some situations.…”

supporting

confidence: 69%

Influence of primed social roles on gender differences in conformity

Eno¹,

Guadagno²,

Rice³

2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An examination of the literature on gender differences in conformity reveals a string of inconsistent results (e.g., Cooper, 1979;Eagly, 1978;Eagly & Carli, 1981). Some studies support the idea that women conform more than men, while other studies find no gender differences. The current research examined the influence of participant gender, primed social roles, and gender role on conformity. It was hypothesized that women would conform more when primed with a communal social role compared to an agentic social role or a neutral prime, while men would conform less when primed with an agentic social role compared to a communal social role or a neutral prime. Studies 1 and 2 provided tests of the manipulations to be used in the primary studies. Study 3 primed social roles using a writing prime. The results revealed that individuals with gender-incongruent gender roles (i.e., masculine women and feminine men) exhibited more conformity on one item. However, the results did not support the primary hypothesis. Study 4 was a conceptual replication of Study 3 using a questionnaire prime. The results did not support the primary hypothesis, however an unexpected pattern of conformity emerged. Individuals with gender-incongruent gender roles showed an atypical pattern of conformity behavior when they were primed with an agentic social role. On one item men and women with gender-incongruent gender roles conformed more, whereas on two items, men with feminine gender roles conformed less than other groups. These results highlight the importance of examining gender roles in future conformity research. Overall, the results support recent research that indicates a subtle change in

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 69%

Influence of primed social roles on gender differences in conformity

Eno¹,

Guadagno²,

Rice³

2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note also that results are similar when including round dummies instead of having round enter linearly in the model, and when analyzing only behavior in round 1. may cause women to invest more than men. For example, women may be more likely than men to agree to requests to perform non-promotable tasks if they are more other-regarding and more concerned for the welfare of others (e.g., Eckel and Grossman 1998;Andreoni and Vesterlund 2001), if they are more agreeable and have a greater desire to be liked by the requestor (Braiker 2002), if they have a greater desire to conform to a norm of accepting such requests (e.g., Santee and Jackson 1982;Eagly, Wood, and Fishbaugh 1981), if they are more risk averse (e.g., Eckel and Grossman 2008), and more concerned about the consequences from declining the request (Heilman and Chen 2005). 18 Second, differences in beliefs about whether others will invest can cause women to invest more than men.…”

Section: Why Does the Rate Of Investment Differ By Gender?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability

Babcock

Recalde

Vesterlund

et al. 2017

American Economic Review

450

249

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender differences in task allocationsDespite significant female educational advances, we continue to see gender differences in labor market outcomes (Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko 2006; Bertrand, Goldin, and Katz 2010). Particularly striking is the persistent vertical gender segregation (Altonji and Blank 1999; Bertrand and Hallock 2001). To better understand the process by which men and women advance in the workplace, researchers have begun to examine whether the tasks that they perform at work vary, and whether such differences contribute to differences in advancement.Of particular interest is whether, relative to men, women spend less time on tasks that are likely to influence their performance evaluations (high-promotability tasks) and more time on tasks that, while benefiting the organization, are less likely to affect their evaluation and career advancement (low-promotability tasks). For example, in industry, revenue-generating tasks may be seen as more promotable than

show abstract

“…According to the situated identity theory, behaviors are enacted to claim particular identities. In this view, women tend to show greater conformity because they judge conformity as a more positive, self-defining act (Santee & Jackson, 1982). Therefore, when self-presentational focus was substantially weakened in anonymous interactions, women would no longer show greater conformity than men.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of the Influence Agent’s Sex and Self-Confidence on Informational Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication:

Lee¹

2005

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the effects of the influence agent's inferred sex and self-proclaimed competence on informational social influence in computermediated communication. In 2 (Participant Sex: Male vs. Female) 2 (Partner's Character: Male vs. Female) 2 (Partner's Self-Confidence: High vs. Low) mixed-design experiments, participants played a trivia game with an anonymous partner. When the partner's confidence was presented in quantitative form, its effect on conformity was more pronounced among men than among women (Experiment 1), whereas verbally expressed confidence induced stronger effects among women than among men (Experiment 2). In both experiments, where participants' own character mismatched their sex, partner's character did not affect conformity to partner's suggestions. By contrast, when participants' character correctly represented their sex (Experiment 3), partner's character, albeit arbitrarily assigned and thus not diagnostic of the person's sex, moderated conformity such that male-charactered partners elicited greater conformity than did female-charactered partners.Life is a process of recurrent problem solving that involves our sensory perceptions, knowledge about the environment, and/or intelligence. Among a variety of sources we rely on in search of the correct or at least the most 29 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, Vol. 32 No.

show abstract

Identity Implications of Conformity: Sex Differences in Normative and Attributional Judgments

Cited by 16 publications

References 11 publications

Influence of primed social roles on gender differences in conformity

Influence of primed social roles on gender differences in conformity

Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability

Effects of the Influence Agent’s Sex and Self-Confidence on Informational Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication:

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About