Primed Social Roles on Gender Differences in Conformity

1293 Words3 Pages

Conformity is defined as “a change in one’s behavior due to he real or imagined influence of other people.” Research has shown that impersonating a certain group or persons ideas, or conforming to their beliefs, happens so quickly and without thought that it’s mechanical and the reason that conformity is constantly present because it is habitual (Griskevicius, 2006). While assessing a situation we are uncertain about, we can find more precise information by adhering to others, eventually leading to correct decision-making. Everybody conforms (men, women, children, etc.), it’s just a part of living, but what tells us if we should conform or not? Specifically, does gender determine our level of conformity, or is it the social roles we take as individuals? This paper reviews studies on primed social roles on gender differences in conformity, performed by Cassie Ann Hull Eno, sex differences in human behavior, performed by Alice H. Eagly and company, fundamental motives that facilitate strategic conformity, performed by Vladas Griskevicus and company, along with others cited in the “resources”.
Let’s first start with “The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior” (Eagly 1999). Eagly’s social structure origin theory proposes that men and women are psychologically different because their social roles generally differ. For example, historically, men have taken on the role of providing for their family with money and protection, playing the patron of the family. Women, however, have taken on the role of a nurture-giving guardian, playing a lesser part than their partner in making decisions regarding the family. For the most part, men are seen as the “man of the house” who puts dinner on the table and clothes on our backs while women...

... middle of paper ...

...Strategic (Non)Conformity. Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 281-294.
Eagly and Wood. (1999). The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior. American Psychologist, 51(6), 408-432.
Buss and Reeve. (2003). Evolutionary Psychology and Development Dynamics: Comment on Lickliter and Honeycutt. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 848-853.
Steinfeldt J., Zakrajsek, Carter, and Steinfeldt M. (2011). Conformity to Gender Norms Among Female Student-Athletes: Implications for Body Image. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(4), 401-416.
Eno, C. (2010). The Influence of Primed Social Roles on Gender Differences in Conformity (Doctoral dissertation). http://acumen.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000398/u0015_0000001_0000398.pdf
Burn and Ward. (2005). Men’s Conformity to Traditional Masculinity and Relationship Satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(4), 254-263.

More about Primed Social Roles on Gender Differences in Conformity

Open Document