Social Concepts and Judgments: A Semantic Differential Analysis of the Concepts Feminist,Man,and Woman

Abstract

Male and female participants (N = 274) made judgments about the social concepts of feminist, man, and woman on 63 semantic differential items. Factor analysis identified three basic dimensions termed evaluative, potency, and activity as well as two secondary factors called expressiveness and sexuality. Results for the evaluative dimension showed that the concept feminist was rated negatively with male participants rating feminist more negatively than female participants. In terms of potency, feminist was judged higher than man whereas the concept woman was rated low on this dimension. Participants also judged the concept feminist as low in expressiveness and rated woman as the most expressive. Feminist received low ratings on the erotic-sexual dimension (sexuality) by female participants and negative sexuality ratings by men. These results are discussed in terms of social role theory, gender stereotypes, and the changes in women's roles and behavior.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aberle

A. E.

(2000). A dual-impact model of gender and career-related processes. In Eckes

Trautner

H. M.

(Eds.), The developmental social psychology of genders (pp. 361–388). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bem

S. L.

(1979). Theory and measurement of androgeny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1047–1054.

Bem

S. L.

(1981), Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.

Bem

S. L.

(1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Berryman-Fink

Verderber

K. S.

(1985). Attributions of the term feminist: A factor analytic development of a measuring instrument. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 51–64.

Broverman

I. K.

Vogel

S. R.

Broverman

D. M.

Clarkson

F. E.

Rosencrantz

P. S.

(1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59–78.

Caplan

P. J.

(1985). Anti-feminist women. Feminist Psychology, 8, 351–354.

Clements-Schreiber

M. E.

Rempel

J. K.

(1995). Women's acceptance of stereotypes about male sexuality: Correlations with strategies to influence reluctant partners. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 4, 223–234.

Cowan

Mestlin

Masek

(1992). Predictors of feminist self-labeling. Sex Roles, 27, 321–330.

10.

Eagly

A. H.

(1987). Sex differences in social behavior: Asocial-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Eagly

A. H.

Mladininc

(1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes and judgments of competence. In Stroebe

Hewstone

(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1–35). New York: Wiley.

12.

Eagly

A. H.

Mladinic

Otto

(1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? An analysis of attitudes, beliefs, and emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203–216.

13.

Eagly

A. H.

Steffen

V J.

(1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754.

14.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

15.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

Diekman

A. B.

(2000). Social role theory of sex difference and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes

Trautner

H. M.

(Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Edmondson

C. B.

Conger

J. C.

(1995). The impact of mode of presentation on gender differences in social perception. Sex Roles, 32, 169–183.

17.

Glick

Diebold

Bailey-Werner

Zhu

(1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes towards women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.

18.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent attitudes towards women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.

19.

Glick

Fiske

S. T

Mladinic

Saiz

J. L.

Abrams

Masser

(2000). Beyond prejudice and simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.

20.

Glick

Hilt

(2000). Sexual scripts and heterosexual aggression. In Eckes

Trautner

H. M.

(Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 243–272). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Goldberg

P. A.

Gottesdiener

Abramson

P. R.

(1975). Another put-down of women? Perceived attractiveness as a function of support for the feminist movement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 113–115.

22.

Green

S. B.

Salkind

N. J.

Akey

T. M.

(2000). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

23.

Guidon

(1998). Des opinions de jeunes femmes al'endroit du feminisme. Resources for feminist research/Documentation sur la recherche feministe, 26, 97–107.

24.

Haddock

Zanna

M. P.

(1994). Preferring ‘housewives’ to ‘feminists’: Categorization and the favorability of attitudes towards women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 25–52.

25.

Hamberger

M. E.

Hogben

McGowan

Dawson

L. J.

(1996). The hypergender ideology scale: Measurement and initial validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 157–178.

26.

Hannover

(2000). Development of self in gendered contexts. In Eckes

Trautner

H. M.

(Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 177–206). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Klein

S. B.

Loftus

Trafton

J. G.

Furhman

R. W.

(1992). Use of exemplars and abstractions in trait judgments: A model of trait knowledge about the self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 739–753.

28.

Korman

S. K.

(1983). The feminist: Familial influences on adherence to ideology and commitment to a self-perception. Family Relations, 3, 431–439.

29.

Krahe

(2000). Sexual scripts and heterosexual aggression. In Eckes

Trautner

H. M.

(Eds.), The development social psychology of gender (pp. 273–292). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Langford

Mackinnon

N. J.

(2000). The affective bases for the gendering of traits: Comparing the United States and Canada. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 34–48.

31.

Osgood

C. E.

Suci

G. J.

Tannenbaum

P. H.

(1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

32.

Parsons

Bales

(Eds.) (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

33.

Renzetti

(1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women towards feminism. Sex Roles, 7, 265–277.

34.

Sampson

E. E.

(1969). Studies in status incongruence. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 225–270). New York: Academic Press.

35.

Smith

E. R.

Zarate

M. A.

(1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 99, 3–21.

36.

Spence

J. T.

Buckner

C. E.

(2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62.

37.

SPSS Inc. (2002). SPSS^TM for Windows 11.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

38.

Tomich

P. L.

Schuster

P. M.

(1996). Gender differences in the perception of sexuality: Methodological considerations. Sex Roles, 34, 865–874.

39.

Twenge

J. M.

(1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.

40.

Twenge

J. M.

(2001). Changes in women's assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145.