Abstract
Previous research indicates that the stereotype of women can be considered to have 3 subgroups: housewife, career woman, and sex object. In 2 samples (N = 19 and 35), we found evidence that these subgroups can be reliably distinguished in terms of 2 dimensions: agency and virtue. Participants sorted 27 feminine traits and then rated these traits in terms of their agency and virtue. Cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling with property fitting were used to identify subgroups, to fit virtue and agency dimensions to the subgroups, and to test for differences among the subgroups in terms of virtue and agency. Across both samples, agency and virtue fit the subgroups well (average R 2 = .75), produced many significant differences among the subgroups, and are consistent with a system-justification perspective of sexism (Glick & Fiske, 2001) in which a belief in women's virtue and lack of agency reflects and maintains status differences between men and women.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altermatt, T. W. (2001). Chivalry: The relation between a cultural script and stereotypes about women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F., & Wohlers, A. (1986). Gender stereotypes. In R. D. Ashmore & F. Del Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of female–male relations: A critical analysis of central concepts (pp. 69-119). New York: Academic Press.
Beyer, L. (1999, January 18). The price of honor. Time, p. 55.
Bloch, R. (1987). The gendered meanings of virtue in Revolutionary America. Signs, 13, 37-58.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Wick, B. (1976). Stereotypes of woman: A single category? Sex Roles, 2, 135-148.
Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, T., & Mount, L. (1996). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 25-38.
Deaux, K. (1995). How basic can you be? The evolution of research on gender stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues 51, 11-20.
Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., & Lewis, L. (1985). Level of categorization and content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3, 145-167.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.
Eckes, T. (1994a). Features of men, features of women: Assessing stereotypic beliefs about gender subtypes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 107-123.
Eckes, T. (1994b). Explorations in gender cognition: Content and structure of female and male subtypes. Social Cognition, 12, 37-60.
Eckes, T. (1996). Linking female and male subtypes to situations: A range-of-situation effect. Sex Roles, 35, 401-426.
England, E. M. (1988). College student stereotypes of female behavior: Maternal professional women and assertive housewives. Sex Roles, 19, 365-385.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereoty**, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & L. Gardner (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 357-411). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, 878-902.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323-1334.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
Green, R. J., & Ashmore, R. D. (1998). Taking and develo** pictures in the head: Assessing the physical characteristics of eight gender types. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1609-1636.
Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. (1994). Preferring "housewives" to "feminists": Categorization and the favorability of attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 18, 25-52.
Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 163-179). New York: Guilford Press.
Hunter, J. (1976). Images of woman. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 7-17.
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jost, J., & Banaji, M. (1994). The role of stereoty** in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lott, B. (1985). The devaluation of women's competence. Journal of Social Issues, 41(4), 43-60.
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50, 159-179.
Mook, D. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.
Noseworthy, C. M., & Lott, A. J. (1984). The cognitive organization of gender-stereotypic categories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 474-481.
Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). The Peter principle. New York: Morrow.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideology. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 257-277). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9, 283-294.
Rosenberg, S., & Olshan, K. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 619-626.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004-1010.
Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315-1328.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870-883.
Six, B., & Eckes, T. (1991). A closer look at the complex structure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 57-71.
Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (1984). The longest war: Sex differences in perspective. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Vonk, R., & Olde-Monnikhof, M. (1998). Gender subgroups: Intergroup bias within the sexes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 37-47.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 2: Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89-113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Altermatt, T.W., DeWall, C.N. & Leskinen, E. Agency and Virtue: Dimensions Underlying Subgroups of Women. Sex Roles 49, 631–641 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000003133.90488.71
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000003133.90488.71