The Effect of Feminine and Masculine Gender Expression on Attribution of Traits Differentiate Humans from Animals and Robots

Abstract

İnsanları Hayvanlardan ve Robotlardan Ayıran Özelliklerin Atfedilmesinde Kadınsı ve Erkeksi Cinsiyet İfadesinin...668Psikoloji Çaliımalari - Studies in Psychology Cilt/Volume: 42, Sayi/Issue: 3, 2022EXTENDED ABSTRACTThis research aims to investigate whether gender-related variables affect perceived humanness. More specifically, do gender, gender expression, and sexual orientation influence how a person is humanized? To assess perceived humanness, this study relies on the approach of Nick Haslam and colleagues, who examined human trait attribution to other individuals/groups (e.g., Bain et al., 2009). Haslam et al.’s (2005) model differentiate between two dimensions of (de)humanization: 1) attributing human nature traits to a person or group differentiates humans from machines and robots (denying these traits results in mechanistic dehumanization), and 2) attributing human uniqueness traits to a person or group differentiates humans from animals (denying them results in animalistic dehumanization).Research on gender has revealed the characteristics of human nature to be attributed more to women than to men (Bain et al., 2009; Diekman & Goodfriend, 2006; Fiske et al., 2007; Haslam et al., 2007; Heflick et al., 2011). Although ample studies have been conducted on dehumanization so far, little is known about the effect of gender expression in terms of perceived humanness. Gender expression is the way one expresses one’s gender through physical appearance (e.g., haircut, outfit) and behaviors.Do gender-related variables affect perceived humanness? To test the hypotheses derived from this research question, the study conducts two experiments using the three-way (2x2x2) between-subjects factorial design where the independent variables are gender (female name vs. male name), gender expression (feminine appearance vs. masculine appearance), and information about sexual orientation (name of the target person’s partner; a male or female name). Perceived humanness was obtained by assessing the extent to which human nature vs. human uniqueness traits were attributed to the target person. A total of 131 participants (Mage = 20.05, SD = 2.12; 59 women, 72 men) were reached in the first experiment. The findings revealed the main effect of gender expression to be significant. Participants attributed human nature traits significantly more to the target person who had a feminine gender expression than a masculine one. In the second experiment, a total of 146 university students (Mage = 21.59, SD = 1.69; 105 women, 41 men) participated in the study. The results showed gender expression and information about sexual orientation to have significant main effects on human traits attribution. More human nature traits were attributed to the target person whose gender expression was depicted as feminine than masculine, as well as who is said to be more homosexual than heterosexual. In addition, the interaction effect between gender and gender expression was significant. Participants attributed more human uniqueness traits to the target person who was depicted as a masculine man (gender congruence) compared to a masculine woman (gender incongruence). Using pictures instead of vignettes in the second study revealed support for the hypotheses regarding the interaction effect of gender and gender expression as well as the effect of sexual orientation. All findings concur with the literature, which suggests that women are associated with nature and emotionality, whereas men are associated with culture and rationality. The most important contribution of this research is that gender expression as a variable is distinct from gender and sexual orientation. Gender expression occurs through one’s physical appearance (e.g., haircut, outfit) and affects one’s perceived humanness.

Keywords

• Gender Expression
• Perceived Humanness
• Dehumanization
• Human Nature
• Human Uniqueness

İnsanları Hayvanlardan ve Robotlardan Ayıran Özelliklerin Atfedilmesinde Kadınsı ve Erkeksi Cinsiyet İfadesinin Etkisi

Abstract

Cinsiyetle ilgili değişkenlerin insanlık algısı üzerinde etkisi var mıdır? Bu araştırma sorusundan türetilen hipotezleri test etmek amacıyla 2 (cinsiyet: kadın ismi veya erkek ismi) x 2 (cinsiyet ifadesi: kadınsı görünüm veya erkeksi görünüm) x 2 (cinsel yönelim bilgisi: kadın sevgili ismi veya erkek sevgili ismi) gruplararası faktöryel desenin kullanıldığı iki deney yapılmıştır. İnsanlık algısı, insanı hayvanlardan (insan biricikliği) ve robotlardan (insan doğası) ayıran özelliklerin hedef kişiye ne derece atfedildiği üzerinden elde edilmiştir. Toplamda 131 üniversite öğrencisinin (Ortyaş = 20.05; SS = 2.12; 59 kadın, 72 erkek) yer aldığı birinci deneyde, sadece cinsiyet ifadesinin temel etkisinin anlamlı olduğu bulunmuştur. Buna göre, kadınsı cinsiyet ifadesine (yani kadınsı görünüme) sahip kişilere erkeksi cinsiyet ifadesine (yani erkeksi görünüme) sahip olanlara kıyasla insan doğasına ait özellikler anlamlı şekilde daha fazla atfedilmiştir. Toplam 146 üniversite öğrencisinin (Ortyaş = 21.59 SS = 1.69, 105 kadın, 41 erkek) katıldığı ikinci deneyde ise hem cinsiyet ifadesinin hem de cinsel yönelim bilgisinin temel etkileri anlamlı farklar ortaya çıkarmıştır. Kadınsı cinsiyet ifadesine sahip olacak şekilde betimlenen koşuldaki bireylere erkeksi cinsiyet ifadesine sahip olacak şekilde betimlenenlere kıyasla ve eşcinsel olduğu söylenen koşuldaki kişilere heteroseksüel olduğu söylenen koşuldaki kişilere kıyasla insan doğasına ait özellikler anlamlı şekilde daha fazla atfedilmiştir. Ayrıca ikinci çalışmada, cinsiyet ve cinsiyet ifadesinin ortak etkisinin anlamlı olduğu; insan biricikliğine ait özelliklerin, erkeksi cinsiyet ifadesine sahip olan erkeklere (cinsiyetle uyumlu cinsiyet ifadesi) erkeksi cinsiyet ifadesine sahip olan kadınlara (cinsiyetle uyumsuz cinsiyet ifadesi) kıyasla daha çok atfedildiği bulunmuştur. İkinci çalışmada yazılı materyal (vinyet) yerine görsel materyalin (fotoğraf) kullanılması, cinsiyet ve cinsiyet ifadesinin ortak etkisine ve cinsel yönelime ilişkin hipotezlerin desteklendiği bulgular ortaya çıkarmıştır. Genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde, mevcut bulguların kadınsılığın doğayla ve duygusallıkla, erkeksiliğin ise kültürle ve rasyonellikle özdeşleştirildiğini ortaya koyan alan yazınla uyumlu yönde olduğu görülmektedir. Cinsiyet ifadesinin cinsiyetten ve cinsel yönelimden bağımsız bir değişken olduğunun ortaya konması, bu araştırmanın alana en önemli katkısıdır. Saç kesimi, giyim şekli gibi fiziksel görünümle dışa vurulan ve cinsiyetin önemli bir edimsel yönü olan cinsiyet ifadesi, insanlık algısında fark ortaya çıkarmaktadır.

Keywords

• Cinsiyet İfadesi
• İnsanlık Algısı
• İnsandışılaştırma
• İnsan Doğası
• İnsanın Biricikliği

References

1. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50(50), 195-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7
2. American Psychological Association Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance. (2009). Report of the task force on gender identity and gender variance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/gender-identity-report.pdf
3. Bain, P., Park, J., Kwok, C., & Haslam, N. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms of subtle dehumanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 789-805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209340415
4. Bain, P., Vaes, J., Kashima, Y., Haslam, N., & Guan, Y. (2012). Folk conceptions of humanness: Beliefs about distinctive and core human characteristics in Australia, Italy, and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 53-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111419029 Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.
5. Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.181
6. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
7. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322
8. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364-374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364

9. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
10. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354-365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
11. Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61(11-12), 783-793.
12. Bohan, J. S. (1996). Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms. Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
13. Bora, A. (2012). Toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı ayrımcılık. K. Çayır ve M. A. Ceyhan (Der.), Ayrımcılık: Çok boyutlu yaklaşımlar içinde (175-189). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
14. Boratav, H. B., Fişek, G. O., ve Eslen-Ziya, H. (2017). Erkekliğin Türkiye halleri. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
15. Braidotti, R. (2013). Posthuman humanities. European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2013.12.1.1
16. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665-692.
17. Butler, J. (2008). Cinsiyet Belası. İstanbul: Metis yayıncılık.
18. Casey, L. S., Reisner, S. L., Findling, M. G., Blendon, R. J., Benson, J. M., Sayde, J. M., & Miller, C. (2019). Discrimination in the United States: Experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer Americans. Health services research, 54(2), 1454-1466. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13229
19. Clark, F. (2014). Discrimination against LGBT people triggers health corcerns. The Lancet, 383(9916), 500-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60169-0
20. Clausell, E., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Social Cognition, 23(2), 161-181. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.23.2.161.65626
21. Coşkun, H., ve Uğur, Y. (2017). Resim, yazı ve resim ile birlikte yazıyla sunulan nesnelerin Almanca ve Türkçe hatırlamadaki etkisi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 17(1), 476-486.
22. Connell, R. W. (1998). Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve İktidar. (C. Soydemir, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
23. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & society, 19(6), 829-859.DOI: 10.1177/0891243205278639
24. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
25. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade's research on gender. American Psychologist, 39(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.105
26. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369
27. Devor, A. H. (1989). Gender blending: Confronting the limits of duality. Indiana University Press.
28. Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(4), 369-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00312.x
29. Dökmen, Z. Y. (2006). Toplumsal cinsiyet, sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar. Sistem Yayıncılık.
30. Eagly, A. H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1380–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1380.b
31. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.
32. Eagly, A. H., & S. (Eds.). (2019). Gender Roles in the Future? Theoretical Foundations and Future Research Directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1965. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01965
33. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
34. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
35. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613484767
36. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (p. 123-174). New York: Psychology Press.
37. Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What's so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. Sage Publications, Inc.
38. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(2), 77-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
39. Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis) respecting versus (dis) liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 473-489.
40. Foucault, M. (2003). Ölüm Üzerinde Hak ve Yaşam Üzerinde İktidar, Cinselliğin Tarihi. (H. U. Tanrıöver, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 99-118.
41. Floyd, K. (2018). Arzunun Şeyleşmesi: Queer Marksizme Doğru. (T. O. Çimen ve P. Büyüktaş, Çev.) İstanbul: NotaBene Kaos GL.
42. Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2019). Hate Crimes against the LGBTQ Community. The Encyclopedia of Women and Crime, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118929803.ewac0261
43. Gezici Yalçın, M. (hazırlık aşamasında). Hayvan, insan, robot: Türkiye’de insanlık algısı üzerine görgül bir inceleme.
44. Gezici Yalçın, M. ve Tanriverdi, V. (2020). Cinsiyet farklarının inşasında ve bu farkların ortadan kaldırılmasında cinsiyet ifadesinin rolü. Vira Verita E-Journal: Interdisciplinary Encounters, 11, 82-114.
45. Gill, M. J. (2004). When information does not deter stereotyping: Prescriptive stereotyping can foster bias under conditions that deter descriptive stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 619-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.12.001
46. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x
47. Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klumpner, S., & Weinberg, E. (2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles, 57(1-2), 55-59.
48. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252-264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
49. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual review of psychology, 65, 399-423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
50. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., Reynolds, C., & Wilson, S. (2007). Dehumanization: A new perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 409-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00030.x
51. Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Laham, S., & Loughnan, S. (2012). Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Herzliya series on personality and social psychology. The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (p. 203–218). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211012793
52. Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 937-950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
53. Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social Cognition, 26(2), 248-258. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248
54. Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Dehumanized perception: A psychological means to facilitate atrocities, torture, and genocide? Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 219(3), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000065
55. Heflick, N. A. & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). “Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence That Objectification Causes Women to Be Perceived as Less Competent and Less Fully Human”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45(3), 598–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008
56. Heflick, N. A., Goldenberg, J. L., Cooper, D. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 572-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020
57. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234
58. Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. (2019). The Multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: a current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. In Eagly, A. H., Sczesny, S., (Eds.), Gender roles in the future? theoretical foundations and future research directions (p. 8-26). Frontiers in Psychology 10:11. Doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011
59. Herek, M. (1993b), The context of antigay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. In L. Garnets & D. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectiveson lesbian and gay male experiences (p. 90–107).
60. Katz, P. A. (1986). Gender identity: Development and consequences. In R. D. Ash- more & F. K. Del Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male relations, (p. 21- 67). Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc.
61. Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29(4), 25-61.
62. Kimmel, S. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Body image concerns of gay men: the roles of minority stress and conformity to masculine norms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1185-1190.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1185
63. Kite, M. E., ve Deaux, K. (1986), “Attitudes toward Homosexuality: Assessment and Behavioral Consequences. Basic and Applied Psychology, 7(2) 137-162. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0702_4
64. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x
65. Koenig, A. M. (2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly. In Eagly, A. H., Sczesny, S., (Eds.), Gender Roles in the Future? Theoretical Foundations and Future Research Directions (p. 29-40). Frontiers in Psychology 9:1086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2018.01086
66. Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371-392.
67. Köylü, M. (Ed.). (2016). Aile ve sosyal politikalar bakanlığı için LGBT hakları el kitabı (1. Baskı). Ankara: KAOS GL Yayınları. 22 Temmuz 2018, http://www.kaosgldernegi.org/yayindetay.php?id=151
68. Leyens, J. P., Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Dovidio, J. F., Fiske, S. T., Gaunt, R., & Vaes, J. (2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism, The 2002 Tajfel Lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 703-717. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.170
69. Leyens, J. P., Paladino, P., Rodriguez, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez, A., vd. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
70. Loughnan, S., Pina, A., Vasquez, E. A., & Puvia, E. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 455-461. DOI: 10.1177/0361684313485718
71. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Sutton, R. M., & Spencer, B. (2014). Dehumanization and social class. Social Psychology, 45(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000159
72. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Murnane, T., Vaes, J., Reynolds, C., & Suitner, C. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(5), 709-717. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.755
73. MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2012). Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15(6), 725-743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212442419
74. Mitchell, R. W., & Ellis, A. L. (2011). In the eye of the beholder: Knowledge that a man is gay promotes American college students’ attributions of cross-gender characteristics. Sexuality & Culture, 15(1), 80-99.
75. Mize, T. D., & Manago, B. (2018). Precarious sexuality: How men and women are differentially categorized for similar sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 305-330. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0003122418759544
76. Morrow, D. F., & Messinger, L. (Eds.). (2006). Sexual orientation and gender expression in socialwork practice: Working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Columbia University Press.
77. Nutt, R. L. (2005). Prejudice and Discrimination against Women Based on Gender Bias. In J. L. Chin (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in psychology. The psychology of prejudice and discrimination: Bias based on gender and sexual orientation, 3 (p. 1–26). Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group
78. Oost, K. M., Livingston, N. A., Gleason, H. A., & Cochran, B. N. (2016). Gender performance stress and risk for psychopathology: Looking beyond sexual orientation. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(3), 231-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2015.1089807
79. Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x
80. Ortner, S. B., Rosaldo, M. Z., & Lamphere, L. (1974). Woman, culture, and society. Woman, Culture and Society, 67-87.
81. Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity oh physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4(1), 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.70
82. Puvia, E., & Vaes, J. (2013). Being a body: Women’s appearance related self-views and their dehumanization of sexually objectified female targets. Sex Roles, 68(7-8), 484-495. DOI 10.1007/s11199-012-0255-y
83. Reidy, D. E., Shirk, S. D., Sloan, C. A., & Zeichner, A. (2009). Men who aggress against women: Effects of feminine gender role violation on physical aggression in hypermasculine men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014794
84. Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender and Society, 18(4), 510-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269
85. Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. (2000). Disgust. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 637–653). New York, NY: Guilford.
86. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
87. Sánchez, F. J., & Vilain, E. (2012). “Straight-acting gays”: The relationship between masculine consciousness, anti-effeminacy, and negative gay identity. Archives of sexual behavior, 41(1), 111-119. DOI 10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z
88. Sedgwick, E. K. (1993). Tendencies. Duke University Press.
89. Shively, M. G., & De Cecco, J. P. (1993). Components of sexual identity. In Garnets L. D, Kimmel D. C. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences, (p. 80-88). https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v03n01_04
90. Sink, A., Mastro, D., & Dragojevic, M. (2018). Competent or warm? A stereotype content model approach to understanding perceptions of masculine and effeminate gay television characters. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(3), 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017706483
91. Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes what do they signify?. Psychology of women quarterly, 24(1), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x
92. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
93. Ünal, G. (2004). Bir grup üniversiteli gençte çekingenlik, aleksitimi ve benlik saygısının değerlendirilmesi. Klinik Psikiyatri, 7(4), 215-222.
94. Vaes, J., Paladino, P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 774-785. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.824
95. Vaughn, A. A., Teeters, S. A., Sadler, M. S., & Cronan, S. B. (2017). Stereotypes, emotions, and behaviors toward lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(13), 1890-1911. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1273718
96. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002