The role of lenses of gender in construction of sex in perception of gender-neutral images

Occupation: Translator from Chinese and English languages
Affiliation: Sankt-Petersburg State Institute for Psychology and Social Work
Address: Sankt-Petersburg, 12 line V.O., house 13 lit. A

A. Shhukina

Occupation: Head of general, age and differential psychology chair
Affiliation: Sankt-Petersburg State Institute for Psychology and Social Work
Address: 12 line V.O., house 13 lit

Journal name

Psikhologicheskii zhurnal

Edition

Volume 40 issue 5

Pages

48-61

Abstract

The study of described by S. Bem patterns of lenses of gender (androcentrism and polarization) in perception of gender-neutral images by Russian-speaking respondents (N=302, 218 females, aged 17-57) with different characteristics of gender identity and gender stereotypes is presented. The procedure includes experimental and diagnostic stages. 12 black-white gender-neutral pictures of animal (cat) next to objects that specify one of the gender contexts: neutral, feminine, masculine were presented successively at the experimental stage. At the diagnostic stage the following questionnaires were used: “Man’s normative attitudes” by I.S. Kletsina and E.V. Ioffe, “Structure of sexism” by E.S. Zizevskaya and M.А. Shhukina, “Masculinity, femininity and gender type of personality” by O.G. Lopuchova. It has been revealed that the enduing of animal with gender occurs in 97% cases. In this case the animal has been perceived as he-cat more often (7.3 times when all acts of perception have been considered and 8.8 times when analyzing perception in general) indicating that there are lenses of androcentrism in perception of gender-neutral images in Russian-speaking respondents. Respondents’ sex, gender structure and age have no significant influence on ascribing of sex to an animal. Lens of polarization was activated in 10% of respondents and manifested itself in gender colouring of contexts: such stimuli as “perambulator” and “embroidering” resulted in ascribing of female sex to an animal. Stereotype - feminine context as the first stimulus in the succession of presentations provides a significant effect on perception of animal’s sex only for men. Gender and sexist stereotypes in respondents regardless of their sex, age and gender identity facilitate activation of lens of polarization.

Keywords

Perception, sex, gender, lenses of gender, lens of androcentrism, lens of polarization, gender-neutral image.

Received

06.06.2019

Publication date

04.09.2019

Number of characters

35082

Cite

GOST
MLA	Zizevskaia, Еkaterina, Shhukina, A. "The role of "lenses of gender" in construction of sex in perception of gender-neutral images." Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 40.5 (2019):48-61. DOI: 10.31857/S020595920005417-4
APA	Zizevskaia Е., Shhukina A. (2019). The role of "lenses of gender" in construction of sex in perception of gender-neutral images. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 40(5), pp.48-61 DOI: 10.31857/S020595920005417-4

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 3, views: 2630

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bem S.L. Linzy gendera. Transformacija vzgljadov na problemu neravenstva polov, Moscow: Rossijskaja politicheskaja jenciklopedija (ROSSPJeN), 2004. (in Russian)

2. Bruner D. Psihologija poznanija. Za predelami neposredstvennoj informacii. Moscow: Progress, 1977. (in Russian)

3. Vekker L.M. Psihika i real'nost': edinaja teorija psihicheskih processov. Moscow: Smysl, 1998. (in Russian)

4. Kaneman D. Dumaj medlenno... Reshaj bystro. Moscow: AST, 2017. (in Russian)

5. Kelli D. Teorija lichnosti. Teorija lichnyh konstruktov. St.Petersburg: Rech', 2000. (in Russian)

6. Klecina I.S., Joffe E.V. Rezul'taty pervichnogo jetapa adaptacii rossijskogo analoga oprosnika “Muzhskie normativnye ustanovki” // Psihologicheskie issledovanija. 2013. T. 6. № 32. P. 6–19. (in Russian)

7. Lopuhova O.G. Oprosnik “Maskulinnost', feminnost' i gendernyj tip lichnosti” (rossijskij analog Bem Sex Role Inventory) // Voprosy psihologii. 2013. № 1. P. 147–154. (in Russian)

8. Chastoty slovoform i slovosochetanij: slovoformy. Nacional'nyj korpus russkogo jazyka. URL: http://ruscorpora.ru/corpora-freq.html (data obrashhenija: 15.02.2019). (in Russian)

9. Shhukina M.A., Zizevskaja E.S. Razrabotka metodiki psihologicheskoj diagnostiki struktury seksizma // Fundamental'nye i prikladnye issledovanija sovremennoj psihologii: rezul'taty i perspektivy razvitija / Ed. A.L. Zhuravljov, V.A. Kol'cova. Moscow: Izd-vo “Institut psihologii RAN”, 2017. P. 888–896. (in Russian)

10. Arthur A.G., White H. Children’s Assignment of Gender to Animal Characters in Pictures // The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1996. V. 157. № 3. P. 297–301.

11. Bailey A.H., LaFrance M. Anonymously male: Social media avatar icons are implicitly male and resistant to change // Cyberpsychology. 2016. V. 10. № 4. Art. 8.

12. Bem S.L. Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing // Psychological Review. 1981. V. 88, № 4. P. 354–364.

13. Bem S.L. The BSRI and gender schema theory: a reply to Spence and Helmreich // Psychological Review. 1981. V. 88, № 4. P. 369–371.

14. Bem S.L. The measurement of psychological androgyny // Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1974. V. 42. № 2. P. 155–162.

15. Bem S.L., Bem D.J. Does Sex-biased Job Advertising “Aid and Abet” Sex Discrimination? // Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1973. V. 3. № 1. P. 6–18.

16. Butler J. Undoing Gender. Routledge. 2004.

17. CoxW.T.L., AbramsonL.Y., DevineP.G., HollonS.D. Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective // Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012. V. 7. № 5. P. 427–449.

18. DeLoache J.S., Cassidy D.J., Carpenter C.J. The three bears are all boys: Mothers’ gender labeling of neutral picture book characters // Sex Roles. 1987. V. 17. № 3–4. P. 163–178.

19. Gastil J. Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics // Sex Roles. 1990. V. 23. № 11–12. P. 629–643.

20. Hamilton M.C. Masculine Bias in the Attribution of Personhood: People = Male, Male = People // Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1991. V.15. № 3. P. 393–402.

21. Hamilton M.C. Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery? // Sex Roles. 1988. V. 19. № 11–12. P. 785–799.

22. Hardin C., Banaji M.R. The Influence of Language on Thought // Social Cognition. 1993. V. 11. № 3. P. 277–308.

23. Harrison L. Cro-Magnon Woman—In Eclipse // Science Teacher. 1975. V. 42. № 4. P. 8–11.

24. Howell D.C. Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed). Belmont: Wadsworth, 2010.

25. Karniol R., Reichman S., Fund L. Children’s Gender Orientation and Perceptions of Female, Male, and Gender-Ambiguous Animal Characters // Sex Roles. 2000. V. 43. № 5–6. P. 377–393.

26. Khosroshahi F. Penguins don’t care, but women do: A social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem // Language in Society. 1989. V. 18. № 4. P. 505–525.

27. Lambdin J., Greer K., Jibotian K., Wood K., Hamilton M. S. The Animal = Male Hypothesis: Children’s and Adults’ Beliefs About the Sex of Non–Sex-Specific Stuffed Animals // Sex Roles. 2003. V. 48. № 11–12. P. 471–482.

28. Lund A., Lund M.Laerd Statistics // Statistical tutorials and software guides URL: https://statistics.laerd.com/ (data obrashhenija: 19.02.2018).

29. Luyt R. The Male Attitude Norms Inventory-II: A measure of masculinity ideology in South Africa // Men and Masculinities. 2005. V. 8. № 2. P. 208–229.

30. MacKay D.G., Fulkerson D.C. On the comprehension and production of pronouns // Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1979. V. 18. № 6. P. 661–673.

31. Martyna W. Beyond the “He/Man” Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language // Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 1980. V. 5. № 3. P. 482–493.

32. Martyna W. What Does ‘He’ Mean? // Journal of Communication. 1978. V. 28. № 1. P. 131–138.

33. Merritt R.D., Kok C.J. Attribution of gender to a gender-unspecified individual: An evaluation of the people = male hypothesis // Sex Roles. 1995. V. 33. № 3–4. P. 145–157.

34. Miller M.M., James L.E. Is the generic pronoun he still comprehended as excluding women? // American Journal of Psychology. 2009. V. 122. № 4. P. 483–496.

35. Moulton J., Robinson G.M., Elias C. Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren’t // American Psychologist. 1978. V. 33. № 11. P. 1032–1036.

36. Nass C., Moon Y., Green N. Are Machines Gender Neutral? Gender-Stereotypic Responses to Computers With Voices // Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1997. V. 27. № 10. P. 864–876.

37. Posard M.N. Status processes in human-computer interactions: Does gender matter? // Computers in Human Behavior. 2014. V. 37. P. 189–195.

38. Prentice D.A. Do Language Reforms Change Our Way of Thinking? // Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 1994. V. 13. № 1. P. 3–19.

39. Ritchie M.E. Alice Through the Statutes // McGill Law Journal. 1975. V. 21. P. 685–707.

40. Schneider J.W., Hacker S.L. Sex role imagery and use of the generic “man” in introductory texts: A case in the sociology of sociology // American Sociologist. 1973. V. 8. № 1. P. 12–18.

41. Silveira J. Generic masculine words and thinking // Women’s Studies International Quarterly. 1980. V. 3. № 2-3. P. 165–178.

42. Spence J.T. Gender-related traits and gender ideology: evidence for a multifactorial theory //Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993. V. 64. № 6. P. 624–635.

43. Spence J.T., Helmreich R.L. Androgyny versus gender schema: a comment on Bem’s gender schema theory // Psychological Review. 1981. V. 88. № 4. P. 365–368.

44. Starr C.R., Zurbriggen E.L. Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory After 34 Years: A Review of its Reach and Impact // Sex Roles. 2017. V. 76. № 9–10. P. 566–578.

45. Stout J.G., Dasgupta N. When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2011. V. 37. № 6. P. 757–769.

46. Van Fleet D.D., Atwater L. Gender Neutral Names: Don’t Be So Sure! // Sex Roles. 1997. V. 37. № 1–2. P. 111–123.

47. West C., Fenstermaker S. Doing difference // Gender and Society. 1995. V. 9. № 1. P. 8–37.

48. West C., Zimmerman D.H.DoingGender // GenderandSociety. 1987. V. 1. № 2. P. 125–151.

49. Yale University Press. The lenses of gender [webpage]. URL: http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300061635 (data obrashhenija: 15.02.2019).

50. Zizevskaia E., Shchukina M. Gender schemas in perception of gender-neutral images // Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 2018. V. 11. № 1. P. 151–163.