Toplumsal Cinsiyet Kalıpyargılarıyla Uyumsuz Kadınlara Karşı Olumsuz Tutumların Nedenlerinin Sosyal Kimlik Kuramı Kapsamında İncelenmesi

Öz

Ana akım sosyal psikolojide kabul edilen temel toplumsal cinsiyet kalıpyargıları, kadınları düşük yetkinlikle ve yüksek sevecenlikle tanımlayan kalıpyargıların yanı sıra erkeklerin düşük sevecenlikle ve yüksek yetkinlikle tanımlandığı kalıpyargılardır. Cinsiyet kalıpyargılarıyla uyumsuz kadınlar genel bir örüntü olarak olumsuz tutumlara maruz kalmaktadır. Olumsuz tutumlara maruz kalan grupların üyelerinin psikolojik iyi oluş halleri negatif yönde etkilenmektedir. Sosyal grupların üyelerinin düşük sosyal statülerinin devam etmesinde bu grupların üyelerine yönelik kalıpyargıların ve olumsuz tutumların etkisi söz konusudur. Cinsiyet kalıpyargılarıyla uyumsuz kadınlara karşı olumsuz tutumların nedenlerinin açıklanması, anaakım sosyal psikolojide ihmal edilmiş bir konudur. Kadınların erkeklere kıyasla dezavantajlı statüye sahip olduğu süregelen toplumsal cinsiyet sisteminde değişimin sağlanması, kalıpyargılarla uyumsuz kadınlara yönelik olumsuz tutumların nedenlerinin anlaşılmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Sosyal Kimlik Kuramının önerilerinden ve çalışma bulgularından yola çıkılarak kalıpyargılarla uyumsuz kadınlara karşı olumsuz tutumlara ilişkin açıklamalar sunulmuştur. Çoğu erkek sosyal kimliğini yetkinlik gibi statüyle ilintili özellikler üzerinden tanımlamaktadır. Erkeklerin sosyal kimliğinin yetkinliği yüksek olan kadınlar tarafından tehdit edilmesi nedeniyle bu kadınlara karşı erkeklerin çoğu tarafından olumsuz tutumların açığa çıkarıldığı sonucuna kuramsal önerilerden yola çıkılarak ulaşılmaktadır. Kadınların cinsiyet kalıpyargılarıyla uyumsuz hemcinslerine karşı olumsuz tutumlarını açıklamada kuramın önerdiği kimlik yönetim stratejilerine başvurmak gerekmektedir. Kuramsal öneriler ve alanyazındaki çalışma bulguları doğrultusunda, bireysel hareketlilik ve sosyal yaratıcılık stratejilerinin benimsenmesinin kalıpyargılarla uyumsuz hemcinslere karşı olumsuz tutumları açığa çıkardığı sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Sosyal rekabet stratejisini benimseyen kadınların kalıpyargılarla uyumsuz hemcinslerine karşı olumlu tutumlar benimsemesi beklenilmekle birlikte, ilgili stratejinin benimsenme düzeyi düşüktür. Kuram kapsamındaki öneriler ve çalışma bulguları bir araya getirildiğinde, cinsiyet kalıpyargılarıyla uyumsuz kadınlara karşı toplum genelinde sürdürülen olumsuz tutumların nedenlerinin anlaşılması mümkün olmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Toplumsal cinsiyet
• sosyal kimlik
• kalıpyargı
• ayrımcılık

Investigation of the Causes of Negative Attitudes towards Women Incompatible with Gender Stereotypes within the Context of Social Identity Theory

Öz

The primary gender stereotypes accepted in mainstream social psychology describe women as low in competence and high in warmth, men as having low warmth and high competence. Women who are incompatible with stereotypes are exposed to negative attitudes. Exposure to negative attitudes damages the psychological well-being of these group members. Stereotypes and negative attitudes towards members of social groups contribute to the persistence of their low status. Explaining the causes of gender stereotypes and negative attitudes towards women incompatible with stereotypes is an overlooked topic in mainstream social psychology. In order to change the ongoing gender system, where women have a disadvantageous status compared to men, it is necessary to understand the reasons for negative attitudes towards women who are incompatible with stereotypes. Based on the suggestions and findings of Social Identity Theory, explanations about negative attitudes towards women who are incompatible with gender stereotypes are presented in this study. It is concluded that most men reveal negative attitudes towards these women because women with high competency threaten men who can affirm their social identity through competency. Most men define their social identity through status-related traits such as competency. Due to the threat to men's social identity by women with high competence, it is concluded that negative attitudes towards these women are revealed by most of the men, based on theoretical suggestions. It is necessary to understand the identity management strategies to explain women's negative attitudes towards their fellows who are incompatible with stereotypes. According to the theoretical suggestions and related studies, it is concluded that the adoption of individual mobility and social creativity strategies reveal negative attitudes toward fellows who are incompatible with stereotypes. Although it is expected that women who adopt the social competition strategy have positive attitudes towards their fellows who are inconsistent with gender stereotypes, the level of adoption of this strategy is low. When theoretical suggestions and study findings are brought together, it is possible to understand the reasons for the negative attitudes towards women who are incompatible with gender stereotypes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gender
• social identity
• stereotype
• attitude
• discrimination

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu D, Autor D, Lyle, D (2004). Midcentury women, war, and wages: The effect of female labor supply on the wage structure at midcentury. J Polit Econ, 112:497–551.
2. Akfirat S, Polat FC, Yetim U (2016). How the poor deal with their own poverty: A social psychological analysis from the social identity perspective. Soc Indic Res, 127:413-433.
3. Aktan T, Bilim G (2016). Kadınlara yönelik kalıpyargıların içerikleri: Kalıpyargı İçeriği Modeli çerçevesinde bir inceleme. Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi, 4:147-182.
4. Augoustinos M, Innes JM (1990). Towards an integration of social representations and social schema theory, Br J Soc Psychol, 29:213-231.
5. Augoustinos M, Walker I, Donaghue N (2014). Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction, 3rd ed. California, Sage Publishing.
6. Auyeung B, Baron-Cohen S, Ashwin E, Knickmeyer R, Taylor K, Hackett G (2009). Fetal testosterone and autistic traits. Br J Soc Psychol, 100:1–22.
7. Bettencourt B, Charlton K, Dorr N, Hume DL (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: a meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychol Bull, 127:520-542.
8. Blackwood LM, Louis WR (2012). If it matters for the group then it matters to me: Collective action outcomes for seasoned activists. Br J Soc Psychol, 51:72-92.

9. Breinlinger S, Kelly C (1994). Women's responses to status inequality: A test of social identity theory. Psychol Women Q, 18:1-16.
10. Brescoll VL, Uhlmann EL (2005). Attitudes toward traditional and nontraditional parents. Psychol Women Q, 29:436–445.
11. Brizendline L (2006). The Female Brain, 1st ed. New York, Broadway Books.
12. Cambon L, Yzerbyt V, Yakimova S (2015). Compensation in intergroup relations: An investigation of its structural and strategic foundations. Br J Soc Psychol, 54: 140-158.
13. Connell RW (2009). Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve İktidar (Çeviri Ed. C Soydemir). İstanbul, Ayrıntı Yayınları.
14. Connellan J, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Batki A, Ahluwalia J (2000). Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behav Dev, 23:113–118.
15. Correll SJ (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. Am Sociol Rev, 69:93–113.
16. Castano E, Paladino MP, Coull A, Yzerbyt VY (2002). Protecting the ingroup stereotype: Ingroup identification and the management of deviant ingroup members. Br J Soc Psychol, 41:365-385.
17. Coull A, Yzerbyt VY, Castano E, Paladino MP, Leemans V (2001). Protecting the ingroup: Motivated allocation of cognitive resources in the presence of threatening ingroup members. Group Process Intergroup Relat, 4:327-339.
18. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. J Soc Issues, 60:701–718.
19. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Kwan VSY, Glick P, Demoulin S, Leyens JP et al. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. Br J Soc Psychol, 48:1–33.
20. David B, Grace D, Ryan MK (2004). The gender wars: A self-categorization perspective on the development of gender identity. In The Development of The Social Self, 1st ed. (Eds M Bennett, F Sani):140-172. England, Psychology Press.
21. Derks B, Ellemers N, Van Laar C, De Groot K (2011a). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?. Br J Soc Psychol, 50:519-535.
22. Derks B, Van Laar C, Ellemers N, De Groot K (2011b). Gender-bias primes elicit queen-bee responses among senior policewomen. Psychological Science, 22:1243-1249.
23. DeWall C N, Altermatt TW, Thompson H (2005). Understanding the structure of stereotypes of women: Virtue and agency as dimensions distinguishing female subgroups. Psychol Women Q, 29:396-405.
24. Diamond MC (1991). Hormonal effects on the development or cerebral lateralization. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16:121-129.
25. Doosje B, Ellemers N, Spears R (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. J Exp Soc Psychol, 31:410-436.
26. Dovidio JF, Glick P, Rudman LA (2005). On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport. On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport, 1st ed. USA, Blackwell Publishing.
27. Eckes T (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47:153-167.
28. Eckes T, Trautner HM (2000). The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, 1st ed. England, Psychology Press.
29. Eidelman S, Biernat M (2003). Derogating black sheep: Individual or group protection?. J Exp Soc Psychol, 39:602-609.
30. Ellemers N, Bos AE (1998). Social Identity, Relative Deprivation, and Coping with the Threat of Position Loss: A Field Study among Native Shopkeepers in Amsterdam. J Appl Soc Psychol, 28:1987-2006.
31. Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B (2002). Self and social identity. Annu Rev Psychol, 53:161-186.
32. Ellemers N, Van den Heuvel H, De Gilder D, Maass A, Bonvini A (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?. Br J Soc Psychol, 43:315-338.
33. Ellemers N, Van Rijswijk W (1997). Identity needs versus social opportunities: The use of group-level and individual-level identity management strategies. Soc Psychol Q, 60: 52-65.
34. Ellis L J, Bentler PM (1973). Traditional sex-determined role standards and sex stereotypes. J Pers Soc Psychol, 25:28-34.
35. Finegan JAK, Niccols GA, Sitarenios G (1992). Relations between prenatal testosterone levels and cognitive abilities at 4 years. Dev Psychol, 28:1075-1089.
36. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J Pers Soc Psychol, 82:878–902.
37. Fiske ST, Durante F (2016). Stereotype content across cultures: Variations on a few themes. In Handbook of Advances in Culture and Psychology, 1st ed. (Eds MJ Gelfand, CY Chiu, YY Hong):209-258. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press.
38. Fiske ST, Xu J, Cuddy AC, Glick P (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (Dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. J Soc Issues, 55:473–489.
39. Geschwind N, Behan P (1982). Left-handedness: association with immune disease, migraine, and developmental learning disorder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79:5097–5100.
40. Gilmore JH, Lin W, Prastawa MW, Looney CB, Vetsa YSK, Knickmeyer RC, et al. (2007). Regional Gray Matter Growth, Sexual Dimorphism, and Cerebral Asymmetry in the Neonatal Brain. J Neurosci, 27:1255–1260.
41. Guimond S, Chatard A, Martinot D, Crisp RJ, Redersdorff S (2006). Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals. J Pers Soc Psychol, 90:221–242.
42. Guimond S, Dif S, Aupy A (2002). Social identity, relative group status and intergroup attitudes: When favourable outcomes change intergroup relations… for the worse. Eur J Soc Psychol, 32:739-760.
43. Heilman ME, Okimoto TG (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. J Appl Soc Psychol, 92:81–92.
44. Helgeson V (2012). The Psychology of Gender. 4th ed. England, Psychology Press.
45. Hines M (2006). Prenatal testosterone and gender-related behaviour. Eur J Endocrinol, 155:115-121.
46. Iacoviello V, Lorenzi-Cioldi F, Chipeaux M (2019). The identification-similarity relationship as a function of ingroup status: A social identity perspective. Self Identity, 18:685-708.
47. Jackson LA, Sullivan LA, Harnish R, Hodge CN (1996). Achieving positive social identity: Social mobility, social creativity, and permeability of group boundaries. J Pers Soc Psychol, 70:241-254.
48. Kervyn N, Yzerbyt V, Judd CM (2010). Compensation between warmth and competence: Antecedents and consequences of a negative relation between the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. Eur Rev Soc Psychol, 21:155-187.
49. Klandermans B (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansisons of resource mobilization theory. Am Sociol Rev, 49:583-600.
50. Lewis AC, Sherman SJ (2010). Perceived entitativity and the black-sheep effect: When will we denigrate negative ingroup members?. J. Soc. Psychol, 150:211-225.
51. Macunovich DJ (1996). Relative income and price of time: Exploring their effects on US fertility and female labor force participation. Popul Dev Rev, 22:223-257.
52. Marques JM, Yzerbyt VY (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter‐and intra‐group situations. Eur J Soc Psychol, 18:287–292.
53. Marques JM, Yzerbyt VY, Leyens JP (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. Eur J Soc Psychol, 18:1–16.
54. Mason MA, Goulden M (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci, 596:86-103.
55. Mummendey A, Kessler T, Klink A, Mielke R (1999a). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. J Pers Soc Psychol, 76:229-245.
56. Mummendey A, Klink A, Mielke R, Wenzel M, Blanz M (1999b). Socio‐structural characteristics of intergroup relations and identity management strategies: Results from a field study in East Germany. Eur J Soc Psychol, 29:259-285.
57. Odenweller KG, Rittenour CE (2017). Stereotypes of stay-at-home and working mothers. South Commun J, 82: 57-72.
58. Okimoto TG, Brescoll VL (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 36:923–936.
59. Okimoto TG, Heilman ME. (2012). The “bad parent” assumption: How gender stereotypes affect reactions to working mothers. J Soc Issues, 68:704-724.
60. Opp KD, Roehl W (1990). Repression, micromobilization, and political protest. Social Forces, 69: 521-547.
61. Outten HR, Schmitt MT (2015). The more “intergroup” the merrier? The relationship between ethnic identification, coping options, and life satisfaction among South Asian Canadians. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47: 12–20.
62. Ouwerkerk JW, de Gilder D, de Vries NK (2000). When the going gets tough, the tough get going: Social identification and individual effort in intergroup competition. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 26:1550-1559.
63. Park B, Smith JA, Correll J (2008). “Hawing it all” or “doing it all”? perceived trait attributes and behavioral obligations as a function of workload, parenthood, and gender. Eur J Soc Psychol, 38:1156–1164.
64. Parks-Stamm EJ, Heilman ME, Hearns KA (2008). Motivated to penalize: Women's strategic rejection of successful women. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 34:237-247.
65. Pinto IR, Marques JM, Levine JM, Abrams D (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect?. J Pers Soc Psychol, 99: 107-119.
66. Quinn DM, Crocker J (1999). When ideology hurts: effects of belief in the protestant ethic and feeling overweight on the psychological well-being of women. J Pers Soc Psychol, 77:402-414.
67. Schmitt MT, Branscombe NR, Postmes T, Garcia A (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull, 140:921-948.
68. Schneider DJ (2004). The Psychology of Stereotyping, 1st ed. New York, Guilford Press.
69. Shields S (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women. Am Psychol, 30:739-754.
70. Spence JT, Helmreich R, Stapp J (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. J Pers Soc Psychol, 32:29-39.
71. Stevens GW, Thijs J (2018). Perceived group discrimination and psychological well‐being in ethnic minority adolescents. J Appl Soc Psychol, 48:559-570.
72. Tajfel H (1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change: Notes on the social psychology of intergroup relations. Social Science Information, 14:101-118.
73. Tajfel H (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annu Rev Psychol, 33:1–39.
74. Tajfel H, Wilkes AL (1963). Classification and quantitative judgement. Br J Soc Psychol, 54:101–114.
75. Tichenor V (2005). Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles, 53:191–205.
76. Van Zomeren M, Postmes T, Spears R (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol Bull, 134:504-535.
77. Verkuyten M, Reijerse A (2008). Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: The interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability. Eur J Soc Psychol, 38:106-127.
78. Xiong A, Tao J, Li H, Westlund H (2022). Will female managers support gender equality? The study of “Queen Bee” syndrome in China. Asian J Soc Psychol, 1-12.
79. Yzerbyt V, Cambon L (2017). The dynamics of compensation: When ingroup favoritism paves the way for outgroup praise. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 43:587–600.
80. Yzerbyt V, Provost V, Corneille O (2005). Not competent but warm. Really? Compensatory stereotypes in the French-speaking world. Group Process Intergroup Relat, 8:291–308.