Gerade macht eine Studie die Runde, nach der alle in einem theoretischen Szenario lieber Männer opfern, unter anderem auch Feministinnen:
Der Abstract:
We examine women’s responses to subliminal gender stereotypes, that is, stereotypes present outside conscious awareness. Previous research suggests that subtle stereotypes elicit acceptance and assimilation, but we predict that subliminal exposure to gender stereotypes will trigger resistance in some women. Specifically, we expect resistance to occur among women who are relatively strongly identified with feminists, but not with the broader group of women. We predict that resistance takes the form of persistence in stereotypically masculine domains and (implicit) in-group bias. Indeed, we found that subliminal exposure to stereotypes (vs. counter-stereotypes) led women who identify relatively strongly with feminists, but less strongly with women, to (a) persist in a math task, (b) show increased willingness to sacrifice men in a Moral Choice Dilemma task, and (c) show implicit in-group bias on an evaluative priming task. This evidence of resistance suggests that members of devalued groups are more resilient than previously thought.
Quelle: Subliminal Gender Stereotypes: Who Can Resist? (Volltext)
Aus einem Bericht über die Studie:
The study—“Subliminal Gender Stereotypes: Who Can Resist?”—sought to explore how women’s perceptions of men change after exposure to subliminal stereotypes, which were predicted to “trigger resistance in some women.”
„[Women] who are strongly identified with feminists, but not other women, sacrificed men more readily after subliminal stereotype exposure.“
“We expect resistance to occur among women who are relatively strongly identified with feminists, but not with the broader group of women,” the researchers wrote, suggesting that feminists might try to resist gender norms by devaluing men.
Das ist ein interessanter Versuchsaufbau, der allerdings einige Vorannahmen verlangt, die man aus meiner Sicht nicht so ohne weiteres machen kann.
Sie „widerstehen Geschlechternormen“ indem sie den Wert der Männer niedriger ansetzen. Das ist bereits eine sehr schwierige Aussage. Denn Männer wurden ja über die ganze Geschichte der Menschheit eher geopfert und Frauen eher geschützt. Männer waren weitaus eher das „entbehrliche oder das entsorgbare Geschlecht“.
Es ist nichts emanzipiertes daran, an diesen Klischee, dass im Zweifelsfall der Mann zu opfern ist und die Frau zu beschützen, festzuhalten. Aber natürlich ist das in einer feministischen Vorstellung gar nicht denkbar. Da ist der Mann per se mehr Wert und deswegen opfern man ihn weniger.
Zum Versuchsaufbau:
To assess this, researchers led participants through a fictional Moral Choice Dilemma Task, which consisted of eight scenarios “in which sacrificing one person can save several others of unspecified gender.”
“In four scenarios, participants are asked to sacrifice a man to save several others (of unspecified gender), and in four other scenarios they are asked to sacrifice a woman,” the study explains.
While the researchers concede that the task may seem “extreme,” they note that other academics have found that it “can provide information about the social value given to different groups: Socially valued individuals are less likely to be sacrificed.”
Indeed, the authors say the study confirmed their suspicions, revealing that women “who are strongly identified with feminists, but not other women, sacrificed men more readily after subliminal stereotype exposure.”
Sie gehen also davon aus, dass dies eine Form des Widerstandes der Frauen ist. Die Ergebnisse sind insoweit ganz interessant:
Aus der Studie noch einmal der Aufbau:
In-group bias task. The third dependent variable was the MCD task (Bauman, McGraw, Bartels, & Warren, 2014; Thomson, 1986). This task examined women’s evaluations of men and women after subliminal exposure to stereotypes versus counter-stereotypes. Previous research has established that responses in the MCD task can provide information
about the social value given to different groups: Socially valued individuals are less likely to be sacrificed (Cikara, Farnsworth, Harris, & Fiske, 2010; De Dreu, Greer, Van Kleef, Shalvi, & Handgraaf, 2011). The task consists of eight short scenarios in which sacrificing one person can save a number of others. In each scenario, the gender of the protagonist is manipulated: In four scenarios, participants are asked to sacrifice a man to save several others (of unspecified gender), and in four other scenarios they are asked to sacrifice a woman. The scenarios in which men and women appeared were counterbalanced across participants. In each scenario, participants indicate whether they would sacrifice the protagonist by answering the Yes/No question, “Would you sacrifice this man [woman] to save the others?” Willingness to sacrifice was computed by summing the number of scenarios in which participants sacrificed the target individual. As such, the willingness to sacrifice in the MCD task can show evidence for in-group favoritism and/or out-group derogation. For instance, increased tendencies to sacrifice out-group members (men) would be indicative of out-group derogation (Brewer, 1999). We believe that the use of the MCD task as a measure of in-group bias has several benefits. First, the MCD task is an indirect measure, in which participants are not made aware
of the role played by gender. In the context of the current study, we consider this to be an important benefit, as it ensures that the gender component is not referred to explicitly until the very end of the procedure and any effects of the subliminal manipulation are not altered by explicit reference to gender. Second, avoiding explicit reference to gender means that participants’ responses are less likely to be affected by conscious correction of gender bias. Third, the MCD task does not discourage out-group derogation. People are generally reluctant to derogate others because it is difficult to justify (Mummendey et al., 1992). The MCD task assuages this concern by the fact that sacrificing saves a greater number of others. Thus, although this task is extreme, sacrificing is morally justifiable in utilitarian terms.
Man hat also getestet, ob Frauen die sich entweder eher feminin oder nicht so feminin fanden, die eher feministisch oder nichtfeministisch eher in einem moralischen Dilemma Personen eines bestimmten Geschlechts opfern, und ob sich dies verändert, wenn sie vorher Bilder mit Frauen bzw Männern entweder mit dazu passenden Bildern von eher klischeehaften Tätigkeiten der Geschlechter finden.
Zu den letzteren findet sich das in der Studie:
The manipulation subliminally exposed participants to (counter-)stereotypical gender role divisions by combining subliminal gender primes with target pictures of stereotypically masculine and feminine activities, such as shopping or watching sports on television. Neither the prime nor the target picture was (counter-)stereotypical in isolation. Instead, (counter-)stereotypes were conveyed by the combination of certain primes with certain targets, such as “woman” paired with “cooking” or “cleaning.” The target pictures did not show actors of either gender. The pictures were pilot tested, and 20 pictures (five female-typical leisure activities, five female-typical chores, five male-typical leisure activities, and five male-typical chores) were chosen that were considered stereotypically masculine or feminine, but similar in valence. In the stereotype condition, the prime “woman” was paired with female stereotypical pictures and the prime “man” with male stereotypical pictures in 95% of trials. In the counter-stereotype condition, female primes were paired with male stereotypical pictures and male primes with female stereotypical pictures in 95% of trials. The manipulation consisted of 120 trials. The gender prime was presented for 42 ms, with supraliminal forward and backward masks (a random-letter string for 100 ms).
Then the target picture appeared, and participants answered a question about the target picture (“Is this a leisure activity or a chore?”) that was unrelated to gender stereotypes. To control for the effort of response switching (Rogers & Monsell, 1995), the number of response switches was kept constant between participants.
Das Bild stellt sich dann wie folgt dar:
Feministinnen opfern eher Männer
Also: zeigt man Frauen, die sich nicht als sehr weiblich sehen und nicht sehr feministisch sind Stereotype Bilder, dann zögern sie eher den Mann für die anderen geschlechtsunbestimmten zu opfern, zeigt man ihnen Bilder, bei denen die Botschaften nicht zu dem Geschlecht passen, dann opfern sie eher.
Bei Frauen, die sich nicht sehr mit dem weiblichen Identifizieren, und die sehr feministisch sind, wird bei Stereotypen anscheinend die „Opferlust“ begünstigt, passen die Bilder nicht zu den Stereotypen scheinen sie eher zu denken, dass der Typ ja vielleicht doch ein Ally ist und opfern etwas seltener.
Sehr weibliche Frauen, die sich nicht als Feministinnen sehen opfern den Mann bei Stereotypen eher als nicht so weibliche, wahrscheinlich weil sie solidarischer zu ihrem eigenen Geschlecht sind.
Dagegen opfern weiblichere Feministinnen den Mann eher, wenn sie Botschaften erhalten, die sich gegen die Stereotypen richten. Wäre interessant, ob das andere feministische Richtungen vertreten werden und weiblichere Feministinnen schlicht sich bei den Stereotypen eher ihrem eigenen Geschlecht verbunden fühlen.
Bei den Frauen, die geopfert werden sollen ist es häufig relativ egal, welche Botschaft gesendet wird,
Wenn ich es richtig sehe scheinen Frauen sogar insgesamt eher die Frau, die gegen Geschlechtslose Personen aufgrechnet wird, zu opfern als sie Männer opfern.
Aus der Besprechung dazu:
Indeed, the authors say the study confirmed their suspicions, revealing that women “who are strongly identified with feminists, but not other women, sacrificed men more readily after subliminal stereotype exposure.”
“We argue that both these responses reflect resistance because they do not assimilate to but instead go against subliminal stereotypes, attempting to counteract them,” they explain, adding that this may be how feminists fight the notion that men are more socially valued than women.
Oder eher männliche Frauen erleben schlicht Geschlechterstereotype als störender, weil sie ihnen selbst nicht entsprechen und sind dann für einen Feminismus empfänglicher, der Männern an allem die Schuld gibt, während weiblichere Frauen sich in Stereotypen eher wiederfinden und daher weniger mit Hass auf diese reagieren.
The study was spearheaded by Jolien van Breen of the University of Exeter, and was published in the latest issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
In an interview with Campus Reform, van Breen said her team’s research is the first to show that feminists are more willing to sacrifice men, though previous studies have found similar results with other marginalized groups, such as racial minorities.
“If a person wanted to counteract that and ‘level the playing field’, that can be done either by boosting women or by downgrading men” van Breen told Campus Reform. “So I think that this effect on evaluations of men arises because our participants are trying to achieve an underlying aim: counteracting gender stereotypes.”
However, van Breen was quick to note that there’s “no evidence that feminists behave more negatively towards men” outside of a psychology research lab.
“To sum that up: I don’t think the finding says anything specifically about how these women view men, but rather this is a means to an end: the effect is produced by their desire to counteract the implications of stereotypes,” she explained.
Aus meiner Sicht eine sehr merkwürdige Studie, die sehr gewagte Schlüsse zieht.
Interessant wäre es, wenn sie Männer auch mitgetestet hätten.
Denn es ist zu vermuten, dass die noch weitaus eher „Geschlechterstereotypen“ widerstanden hätten und eifrig Männer geopfert hätten. Dazu aus einer anderen Studie auf die ich hingewiesen worden bin
In one experiment, study subjects read one of three versions of a “Trolley Dilemma”—a commonly used technique in psychology studies and akin to the “Lifeboat Question” (i.e., if you could save only three of five passengers in a lifeboat, whom would you choose?). In the trolley scenario, subjects read one of three versions of the dilemma, where each vignette described a man, woman, or gender-neutral bystander on the bridge. The participants were then asked how willing they were to “push the [man/woman/person] onto the path of the oncoming trolley” in order to save five others farther down the track.
The results showed that both female and male subjects were much more likely to push the male bystander or one of unspecified gender than they were the female bystander.
In a second experiment, a new group of subjects was given £20 and told that any money they held at the end of the experiment would be multiplied up to 10-fold, giving them as much as £200. However, there was a catch. In the experiment, the subjects interacted with other individuals—the researchers’ confederates. The subjects were told that if they decided to keep the money, these individuals would be subjected to mild electric shocks. However, if they gave up the money, it would prevent the shocks from being administrated.
As with the first experiment, women were less likely than men to be subjected to shocks, suggesting an aversion to harming females—even when this came at the subjects’ own financial expense. However, while both female and male subjects were less likely to shock females than they were males, women in particular were less willing to shock other women.
A third experiment was a survey in which a new set of more than 350 subjects was asked a series of questions relevant to the study’s focus—specifically, the researchers aimed to sort out the thought process that might explain the behaviors exhibited in the first two experiments.
The questions included the following: “On a sinking ship, whom should you save first? Men, women, or no order”; “According to social norms, how morally acceptable is it to harm (men/women) for money?”; “According to social norms, how fair is it to harm (men/women)?”; and, “According to social norms, how well do (men/women) tolerate pain?”
Overall, the answers of both female and male respondents suggested that social norms account for greater harming behavior toward a male than a female target—women are less tolerant to pain, it’s unacceptable to harm females for personal gain, and society endorses chivalrous behavior. Furthermore, these perspectives were not linked to emotion—subjects found harming men and women to be equally emotionally aversive.
“There is indeed a gender bias in these matters: society perceives harming women as more morally unacceptable,” explains co-author Dean Mobbs, an assistant professor of psychology at Columbia University.
Was die Autoren der oben genannten Studie dazu sagen würden wäre interessant.
Gefällt mir:
Gefällt mir Wird geladen …
Alles Evolution 