The Psychology of Gender 4th Edition

Sex-Related Comparisons: Theory 179

the sex of the person with whom one is

interacting—influenced how adolescent boys

and girls described their personality in terms

of masculinity and femininity (Leszczynski &

Strough, 2008). Two weeks before the ex-

periment, seventh and eighth grade girls and

boys completed a measure of trait masculin-

ity and femininity. During the experiment,

they played the game Jenga with a same-sex

or other-sex person. Afterward, they were

asked to complete state measures of mascu-

linity and femininity. Both girls and boys

reported more feminine selves when working

with a female than a male and when coop-

erating than competing. When cooperating,

males reported more masculine selves than

females, but when competing masculinity

scores were equal.

TAKE HOME POINTS

■ Unlike the other theories in this chapter, the Deaux and

Major (1987) model emphasizes the more proximal

causes of sex differences, highlighting the impact of the

situation.

■ Perceivers influence whether sex differences are ob-

served through cognitive and behavioral confirmation.

■ Targets influence whether sex differences are observed

through self-verification and self-presentation.

■ Features of the situation that influence the observance

of sex differences are behavioral constraints, whether

the situation calls for self-presentation, and the strength

of one’s views on the subject of interest.

are appropriate for girls and boys. If the

father has spent little time around the

daughter, he, too, might be less certain

about the toys she will like. Those who

have the strongest stereotypes are most

likely to have them confirmed. The

situation also determines constraints

on behavior. Playtime at day care is

likely to be a situation with low behav-

ioral constraints. Finally, the extent to

which the target is concerned with self-

presentation (i.e., pleasing her father)

versus adhering to her self-concept

(i.e., playing with what she really likes)

will influence behavior.

Although the diagram may seem com-

plicated at first glance, the interaction we

just described is actually overly simplified.

In every interaction, the perceiver is also a

target, and the target is also a perceiver. So

we could talk about how the daughter influ-

ences her father’s behavior. We could also

talk about how the other children and the

teacher influence the father–daughter inter-

action. Each person has expectancies for self

and others. The point is that in any given

situation, many proximal variables deter-

mine whether a behavior occurs, specifically

whether women and men display differ-

ences in behavior.

Numerous studies have supported

this model by demonstrating situational

influences on behavior. One such study

showed that two features of the situation—

instructions to cooperate or compete and

M05_HELG0185_04_SE_C05.indd 179 6/21/11 8:03 AM