Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:12:14.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender and Intergroup Helping: Forms of Prosocial Behavior as Differential Social Control Mechanisms for Women and Men

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2016

Silvia Abad-Merino ,
John F. Dovidio ,
Carmen Tabernero  and
Ignacio González
Silvia Abad-Merino*
Affiliation:
Yale University (USA)
John F. Dovidio
Affiliation:
Yale University (USA)
Carmen Tabernero
Affiliation:
Universidad de Cordoba (Spain)
Ignacio González
Affiliation:
Universidad de Cordoba (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Silvia Abad-Merino. Yale University – Psychology. New Haven. Connecticut (USA). 06520. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present research, drawing on the Intergroup Helping as Power Relations Model (Nadler, 2002), investigated the ways in which different forms of helping behavior can strategically affect responses to women and men who display socially valued or devalued characteristics. Participants read scenarios about concrete problems faced by a woman or man in need, who displayed positive (i.e., prosocial) or negative (i.e., antisocial) characteristics, and indicated the extent to which they would be willing to support small tax increases if that money were used to help address the target’s issues. The predicted Target Gender × Target History × Type of Support interaction, controlling for political orientation, was obtained, F(1, 149) = 6.49, p = .012, ηp2 = .04. Participants tended to give less autonomy-oriented (i.e., empowering) help to a man displaying antisocial (vs. prosocial) characteristics, F(1, 36) = 3.39, p = .074, ηp2 = .09.; they also tended to off more dependency-oriented (i.e., disempowering) help to a woman women exhibiting prosocial (vs. antisocial) qualities, F(1, 38) = 3.42, p = .072, ηp2 = .08. The role of seemingly positive forms of social behavior as a mechanism for social control and the relation of helping to processes of group-hierarchy and system-justifying processes are considered.

Keywords

gender rolesintergroup helpingpower relationsprosocial behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E70
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abad Merino, S., Newheiser, A., Dovidio, J. F., Tabernero, C., & González, I. (2013). The dynamics of intergroup helping: The case of subtle bias against Latinos. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, 445–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032658 Google Scholar
Becker, J. C., Glick, P., Ilic, M., & Bohner, G. (2011). Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t: Consequences of accepting versus rejecting patronizing help for the female target and male actor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 761–773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.823 Google Scholar
Biernat, M., Ma, J. E., & Nario-Redmond, M. R. (2008). Standards to suspect and diagnose stereotypical traits. Social Cognition, 26, 288–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.3.288 Google Scholar
Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s benched: Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 66–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167202281006 Google Scholar
Bowles, H. R., & Babcock, L. (2012). How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 80–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312455524 Google Scholar
Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science, 19, 268–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x Google Scholar
Carter, J. S., Corra, M., & Carter, S. K. (2009). The interaction of race and gender: Changing gender-role attitudes, 1974–2006. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 196–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00611.x Google Scholar
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36001-6 Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P., & Rudman, L. A. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19–35). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154008 Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes, T. & Trautner, H. M. (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
European Commission (2012). Discrimination in the EU in 2012 [Special Eurobarometer 393]. Retrieved from European Comision Website http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., & Silvera, D. H. (1996). Overhelping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 678–690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.678 Google Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 Google Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 530–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684311414832 Google Scholar
Halabi, S., Dovidio, J. F., & Nadler, A. (2008). When and how high status groups offer help: Effects of social dominance orientation and status threat. Political Psychology, 29, 841–858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00669.x Google Scholar
Halabi, S., Dovidio, J. F., & Nadler, A. (2012). Responses to intergroup helping: Effects of perceived stability and legitimacy of intergroup relations on Israeli Arabs’reactions to assistance by Israeli Jews. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 295–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.12.002 Google Scholar
Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (2005). Playing the race card in the post–Willie Horton era: The impact of racialized code words on support for punitive crime policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 99–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi004 Google Scholar
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jackman, M. R. (2005). Rejection or inclusion of outgroups? In Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P., & Rudman, L. A. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 89–105). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackson, L., & Esses, V. M. (2000). Effects of perceived economic competition on people’s willingness to help empower immigrants. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 419–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430200003004006 Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). System justification: A motivational process with implications for social conflict. In Kals, E. & Maes, J. (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 315–327). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19035-3_19 Google Scholar
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015997 Google Scholar
Kervyn, N., Bergsieker, H. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). The innuendo effect: Hearing the positive but inferring the negative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 77–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.001 Google Scholar
Kteily, N., Ho, A. K., & Sidanius, J. (2012). Hierarchy in the mind: The predictive power of social dominance orientation across social contexts and domains. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 543–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.007 Google Scholar
Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2010). Next gen ambivalent sexism: Converging correlates, causality in context, and converse causality: An introduction to the special issue. Sex Roles, 62, 395–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9747-9 Google Scholar
Livingston, R. W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23, 354–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611428079 Google Scholar
Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, F., de Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1421–1434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207304790 Google Scholar
Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups though helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00272 Google Scholar
Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 97–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.97 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, A. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2009). The nature of contemporary prejudice: Insights from aversive racism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 314–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00183.x Google Scholar
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counter stereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157 Google Scholar
Saucier, D. A., Miller, C. T., & Doucet, N. (2005). Differences in helping whites and blacks: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 2–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_1 Google Scholar
Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 944–960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.944 Google Scholar
Schneider, M. E., Major, B., Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1996). Social stigma and the potential costs of assumptive help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 201–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296222009 Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C. M., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In Jost, J. T. & Major, B. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice and intergroup relations (pp. 307–331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J. (1999). Ideological and attributional boundaries on public compassion: Reactions to individuals and communities affected by natural disaster. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 793–808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025007003 Google Scholar