Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

The hers and his of prosociality across 10 countries.

Tytuł:
The hers and his of prosociality across 10 countries.
Autorzy:
Olsson MIT; UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Froehlich L; FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany.
Dorrough AR; University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Martiny SE; UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Źródło:
The British journal of social psychology [Br J Soc Psychol] 2021 Oct; Vol. 60 (4), pp. 1330-1349. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Mar 19.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: <2012-> : Chichester : Wiley-Blackwell
Original Publication: Letchworth Herts : British Psychological Society
MeSH Terms:
Altruism*
Prisoner Dilemma*
Female ; Humans ; Intention ; Male ; Sex Factors
References:
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586.
Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 881-909. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025354.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Beyer, S. (2018). Low awareness of occupational segregation and the gender pay gap: No changes over a 16-year span. Current Psychology, 37(1), 373-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9521-4.
Brañas-Garza, P., Capraro, V., & Rascon-Ramirez, E. (2018). Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters, 170, 19-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022.
Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (2006). Revisiting the different cultures thesis: An assessment of sex differences and similarities in supportive communication. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 137-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Buunk, A. P., & Massar, K. (2012). Intrasexual competition among males: Competitive towards men, prosocial towards women. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 818-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.010.
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for measuring adults' prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413-423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004002.
Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. (2002). Emotional intelligence and prosocial behaviors in adolescents. Psychological Reports, 90, 361-370. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2002.90.2.361.
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007.
Croft, A., Atkinson, C., Sandstrom, G., Orbell, S., & Aknin, L. (2020). Loosening the GRIP (Gender Roles Inhibiting Prosociality) to promote gender equality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(1), 66-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320964615.
Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 343-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789.
De Caroli, M. E., & Sagone, E. (2013). Self-efficacy and prosocial tendencies in Italian adolescents. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 239-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.666.
Diekman, A. B., & Clark, E. K. (2015). Beyond the damsel in distress: Gender differences and similarities in enacting prosocial behavior. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 376-391). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dorrough, A. R., & Glöckner, A. (2016). Multinational investigation of cross-societal cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 10836-10841. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601294113.
Dorrough, A. R., & Glöckner, A. (2019). A cross-national analysis of sex differences in prisoner's dilemma games. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12287.
Dorrough, A. R., & Glöckner, A. (2020). Sex differences concerning prosocial behavior in social dilemmas are (Partially) mediated by riskpreferences but not social preferences. Social Psychology, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000434.
Dorrough, A., Olsson, M. I. T., Froehlich, L., Martiny, S. E., & Glöckner, A. (2020). Does she compensate the victim while he punishes the perpetrator? No gender differences in anonymous economic games across 11 Nations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34, 261-274. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2208.
Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644-658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569-591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 458-476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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 (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121.
Espinosa, M. P., & Kovářík, J. (2015). Prosocial behavior and gender. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(88). 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00088.
Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362, eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899.
Froehlich, L., Olsson, M. I. T., Dorrough, A., & Martiny, S. E. (2020). Gender at work across nations: Men and women working in male-dominated and female-dominated occupations are differentially associated with agency and communion. Journal of Social Issues, 76, 484-511. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12390.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: New data without order effects. American Economic Review, 95, 902-912. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201459.
Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373-398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057.
Hyde, J. S., & Lindberg, S. M. (2007). Facts and assumptions about the nature of gender differences and the implications for gender equity. In S. S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (2nd ed., pp. 19-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kan, M. Y., Sullivan, O., & Gershuny, J. (2011). Gender convergence in domestic work: Discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology, 45, 234-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038510394014.
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, 371-392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215.
Kumru, A., Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., & Samper, P. (2012). Prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behavior among Turkish and Spanish adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 40, 205-214. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.2.205.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642.
Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86.
Meeussen, L., Van Laar, C., & Van Grootel, S. (2020). How to foster male engagement in traditionally female communal roles and occupations: Insights from research on gender norms and precarious manhood. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 297-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12060.
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771-781. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1804189.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365-392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141.
Piff, P. K., & Robinson, A. R. (2017). Social class and prosocial behavior: Current evidence, caveats, and questions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.003.
Rand, D. G., Brescoll, V. L., Everett, J. A., Capraro, V., & Barcelo, H. (2016). Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 389-396. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000154.
Rankin, L. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Is his heroism hailed and hers hidden? Women, men and the social construction of heroism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 414-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00455.x.
Shnabel, N., Bar-Anan, Y., Kende, A., Bareket, O., & Lazar, Y. (2016). Help to perpetuate traditional gender roles: Benevolent sexism increases engagement in dependency-oriented cross-gender helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000037.
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(1), 41-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::AID-EJSP976>3.0.CO;2-O.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719.
Sze, J. A., Gyurak, A., Goodkind, M. S., & Levenson, R. W. (2012). Greater emotional empathy and prosocial behavior in late life. Emotion, 12, 1129-1140. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025011.
van den Akker, O. R., van Assen, M. A., van Vugt, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2020). Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 81, 102329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102329.
WEF (2017). The global gender gap report 2017. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf.
Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3, 217-245. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512X649379.
Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635-646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.
Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523-535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.523.
Grant Information:
FernUniversität
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: communal; gender roles; prisoner’s dilemma; prosocial behaviour; social role theory
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20210319 Date Completed: 20211025 Latest Revision: 20211025
Update Code:
20240105
DOI:
10.1111/bjso.12454
PMID:
33739472
Czasopismo naukowe
Is there a 'more helpful' gender? The present research assessed gender differences in prosocial self-perceptions, prosocial behavioural intentions, and prosocial (transfer) behaviour in same- and other-gender interactions in 10 countries (N = 1,915). The present results showed negligible differences in the degree to which women and men saw themselves as prosocial. However, larger gender differences emerged in regard to prosocial behavioural intentions and prosocial (transfer) behaviours across different help contexts (i.e., same- vs. other-gender interactions). In a hypothetical work scenario, women reported greater prosocial behavioural intentions than men when the recipient of the help was of the same gender. In contrast, when the recipient of the help was of the other gender, men reported greater prosocial behavioural intentions than women. In addition, men transferred more than women to both same- and other-gender interaction partners in a prisoner's dilemma game. Taken together, the present findings suggest that there is no 'more helpful' gender. Instead, gender differences in prosociality are dynamic and contextual. Different theoretical perspectives are taken into consideration in discussing gender differences in the present research.
(© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.)
Zaloguj się, aby uzyskać dostęp do pełnego tekstu.

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies