4.3 Article

Who are you to me?: A relational approach to examining race-gender associations

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104562

关键词

Gender; Race; Intersectionality; Implicit association; Person perception

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study expands on previous research by considering the characteristics of both the perceptual target and the perceiver in relation to gender associations. The findings suggest that individuals have a cognitive association between racial in-group members and gender, which influences the processing of gender information. This association is observed across different racial groups and in various contexts.
Scholars have posited that characteristics of a perceptual target impact how readily gender is associated with them, arguing that cultural biases in the U.S. make it such that certain racial groups are more or less associated with womanhood and manhood. We provide a novel expansion on this work by integrating characteristics of the perceiver, suggesting that individuals have a fundamental cognitive association between racial in-group members and gender. In four studies, we find that exposure to racial in-group members (as opposed to racial outgroup members) facilitates the processing of gendered information relative to gender-irrelevant stimuli across both the familial (Studies 1-3) and employment (Study 4) contexts, suggesting that gender is indeed more strongly associated with racial in-group members. Using a sequential priming paradigm, we find this to be true among White (Studies 1-4), Asian (Studies 2-4), and Black (Studies 3-4) perceivers. The present work highlights the inherently relational nature of gender and gender roles, suggesting that theory about how gender intersects with race is incomplete without consideration of the psychological relationship between perceptual targets and perceivers. We thus provide an important expansion on theory about person perception at the intersection of gender and race.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据