Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.
http://www.jstor.org
The study of sex and gender is concerned with documenting the existence
of differences between the sexes and explaining why those differences exist.
This paper first examines what we know about how women and men differ,
focusing on differences in social roles, and in the abilities and traits associated
with those roles. The paper then examines why women and men differ. In
addressing this question, the roles of both biological and social influences
are considered. Although there is reason to believe some sex differences in
behavior and attitudes have a biological basis, the existence of historical and
cross-cultural variation in gender role differentiation and stratification provides strong evidence that social influences play an important role in the determination of differences between the sexes. Both biological and social
factors have influenced the division of labor by sex, and the division of labor
provides the basis for gender stratification by affecting the degree to which
each sex is able to acquire and control the valuable resources of a society.
Reduction of gender inequality in contemporary societies therefore requires
reduction of gender differentiation in the division of labor.
KEY WORDS: gender; sex; social stratification; women.
INTRODUCTION
Within the past 15 years the study of gender has emerged as a major
research area in sociology. Scholars now use the term sex to refer to biologically based distinctions between the sexes and the term gender to refer to
the social construction of differences between women and men. The term
sex is also sometimes used when an individual's "sex category" constitutes
a basis for classification and differential treatment, even when the differen-
Marini
96
tial treatment is social in origin (Reskin, 1988). The purpose of this paper
is to review the current state of knowledge on sex and gender.
Since the study of sex and gender is concerned with documenting the
existence of differences between the sexes and explaining why those differences exist, the review has two sections. The first briefly considers what we
know about how women and men differ, focusing first on differences in social roles, and then on abilities and traits associated with those roles. The
second examines why women and men differ. It considers the role of both
biological and social influences, dividing the latter into influences operating
at the macro- and microlevels.
97
women have held even half the economic power above the level of the local
group. There is also no concrete evidence of any society in which women
have held half of the political power or more than a small percentage of the
power of force. No society has ever had an ideology of female supremacy,
although a few posit that women and men are equal (e.g., the Israeli kibbutz, the U.S.S.R.).
In modern industrial societies, work has largely become an activity performed away from home for monetary return. Initially, men specialized in
work in the market, earning wages to support the family, while women
specialized in work in the home, becoming economically dependent with
primary responsibility for child rearing. Although there are indications of
change in this division of labor as women now enter the labor market in increasing numbers, the predominant worldwide pattern remains one of gender
role differentation.
Today, the participation of adult women in the nonagricultural labor
force is generally highest in the Soviet bloc, the Scandinavian countries, the
countries of northwestern Europe, Canada, the United States, and Japan.
In these countries over 40%oof women aged 15 and over are working in
nonagricultural jobs. In no country, however, is the proportion of women
in the nonagricultural labor force greater than 60%o.In most of the southern
European countries, between 30%oand 40%oof adult women are in the
nonagricultural labor force, although in Spain and Greece the figure is less
than 20%o.In Latin America, on average less than 30%oof adult women are
employed in nonagricultural jobs -less than 15%1o
in some countries. In the
African and Middle Eastern Islamic countries, less than 10%oof adult women hold nonagricultural jobs (United Nations, 1986: Tables 26 and 28). The
proportion of the nonagricultural labor force that is made up of women follows a similar pattern across countries (International Labor Office, 1985:
Tables 2A and 2B). Among employed workers in all countries, women are
highly underrepresented in positions of power, authority, and prestige, and
their average earnings are considerably below those of men (Youssef and
Hartley, 1979; Epstein and Coser, 1981; Treiman and Roos, 1983). Women's labor force participation therefore represents only a first step toward
improvement of the status of women, since women workers are not equally
represented in high-level jobs.
In the United States, the most dramatic improvements in the status of
women have occurred in the last 20 years. Women are earning a higher percentage of educational degrees and are more highly represented at the entry
level of high-status occupations than in the past, although they still earn far
less than half of the highest degrees awarded and their overall representation in high-status occupations is low. Between 1970 and 1984, the percentage of bachelor's degrees earned by women increased from 41.5 to 49.1,
98
Marini
the percentage of master's degrees from 39.7 to 49.5, and the percentage of doctor's degrees from 13.4 to 33.3 (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1986). Although women earned 28% of the medical degrees and 37%o
of the law degrees awarded in 1984, only about 17Woof all physicians and
18%oof all lawyers in the United States in 1985 were women (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 1986). Similar patterns of change are occurring in other highstatus "male"occupations, although the percentages of women currently in
these occupations are still relatively low. To a large extent, women are employed in traditionally female occupations (Beller, 1984). The median annual earnings of women working full-time and year-round approach only
65-70% of those of men (Marini, 1989). Women are running for and winning
elective offices and being appointed to administrativeposts and major boards
of directors in greater number than ever before (Cocks, 1982; Steinem, 1983),
but they are still only a small minority of those in positions of power.
99
variance in verbal ability, between 1%oand 4%oof the variance in quantitative ability, and 4Woof the variance in visual-spatial ability (Maccoby and
Jacklin, 1974; Hyde, 1981; Plomin and Foch, 1981). The magnitude of these
differences has declined over time, with females making significant gains relative to males (Rosenthal and Rubin, 1982).
Evidence pertaining to sex differences in dispositional traits is weaker.
Among the most well-documented differences is the tendency for males to
be more aggressive. Even this sex difference, however, may account for only
about 5%oof the variance in aggression (Hyde, 1984) and may emerge in only
some situations (Frodi et al., 1977). Interpretations of the evidence on sex
differences in other traits differ (see Block, 1976). Research on achievement
motivation indicates a tendency for females to score higher in orientation
toward work, and for males to score higher in orientation toward mastery
and competition. Among males and females working for achievement in the
same field, however, gender differences in orientation toward work and
mastery decline, but men continue to score higher on competitiveness (Spence
and Helmreich, 1978, 1983). Gender differences have also been found in nonverbal behaviors, such as touching, gaze, posture, and personal space (Deaux,
1985), and there is evidence of female superiorityin both encoding and decoding nonverbal cues (Hall, 1979). Again, however, the amount of variance
explained in the latter is small.
Although relativelyfew sex differences in abilities and dispositional traits
have been documented, recent and controversial work by Gilligan (1982) suggests that women and men may have different images of themselves and how
the world works that are reflected in the way they resolve moral conflicts
and arrive at moral standards. According to Gilligan, male solutions to moral
dilemmas reflect concern with abstract standards of justice, fairness, and
the balancing of individual rights, whereas female solutions reflect concern
with caring for others, human attachments, and the balancing of conflicting
responsibilities. Because women and men have different modes of thinking
about relationships, they seem to have different moral premises and different approaches to choice and the resolution of conflict.
Research on sex differences in physical strength and ability indicates
that, on average, men are somewhat taller and stronger than women (FaustoSterling, 1985). Differences favor males in both upper and lower body strength
(Hudson, 1978). Males are more vulnerable to illness and disease, however,
and display higher mortality rates than females of comparable age. Females
show somewhat greater tolerance for heat than males and tend to have more
body fat, which gives them an advantage in some activities requiring endurance (Wood, 1980; Fausto-Sterling, 1985). Sex differences in dexterity depend on the task observed. Females have been found to have somewhat better
finger dexterity but do not have better overall manual dexterity (Maccoby
and Jacklin, 1974).
Marini
100
101
102
Marini
The age at which a sex difference emerges, however, does not provide
a clear indication of its source. There is increasing evidence that socializing
influences on males and females differ from the moment of birth. Parents
treat infant boys and girls differently (e.g., Moss, 1974; Seavey et al., 1975;
Condry and Condry, 1976), and grade-school teachers respond differently
to male and female students (e.g., Leinhardt et al., 1979). Thus, even sex
differences observed in infancy and early childhood can result from socialization. Sex differences that emerge later can also have a biological basis because physical maturation is associated with hormonal changes that can
produce sex differences. It can therefore be argued that sex differences appearing at any age can be a result of socialization, and sex differences that
appear only in late childhood and adolescence are not necessarily free of biological influence.
Research on gender differentiation in different societies, or cultures,
has been another important source of information on the biological and cultural basis of sex differences. Anthropological research indicates wide crosscultural variation in the behavior of females and males. With the exception
of a few tasks that are performed by males in nearly all societies and a few
that are performed mainly by females, there is considerablevariabilityin what
constitutes female and male labor and dispositional traits across societies (Sanday, 1981; Ashmore et al., 1986).
Other evidence that social learning is important comes from research
demonstrating relationships between environmental influences and the traits
on which males and females differ. The development of visual-spatial abilities, for example, has been demonstrated to be associated with practice. In
one study where first-grade boys had somewhat higher scores than girls on
tests of visual-spatial ability, girls improved with practice whereas boys improved little (Connor et al., 1978). This finding suggests that the boys had
already developed their skills to a point where additional practice did not
improve performance, but that with practice the girls were able to perform
as well as the boys. Studies of older children also show that visual-spatial
skills are related to courses taken (Fennema and Sherman, 1977; Johnson
et al., 1979) and to the range of an individual's environmental experiences
(Berry, 1971; Nerlove et al., 1971). Even when it comes to physical sex differences, such as height, there is evidence that behavior, such as activity levels,
affects development (Fausto-Sterling, 1985).
103
Marini
104
societies, it is still highly subordinate to the male role. In developing theories of gender stratification, Chafetz (1984) and Blumberg(1984) have sought
to identify the factors responsible for differences in women's productive role
in different types of societies.
The division of labor is related to the degree of gender inequality in
a society. In analyzing preindustrialsocieties, Sanday (1973) found that where
women did not contribute to production, their status was invariably low.
Even in societies where women did most of the production, however, their
status could also be low. Participation in production was a necessary but
not a sufficient condition for relatively high gender equality.
Development of a general understandingof why societies differ in degree
of gender inequality has become an important area of both theoretical and
empirical analysis, based heavily on analysis of preindustrial societies (e.g.,
Sanday, 1981; Rosaldo, 1974; Friedl, 1975; Chafetz, 1984). One reason for
this focus is that preindustrial societies encompass most of the known variation in the degree of gender stratification, from roughly egalitarian to highly male dominated. The foraging and horticultural societies in which women
tended to be the primary producers and where gender equality was relatively
high were in existence for over 99Woof our three- to four-million year history (Blumberg, 1984). Agrarian and pastoral societies and the industrial societies of the present day have all been highly male dominated.
The theories of gender stratification developed by Blumberg (1984) and
Chafetz (1984) converge on major points. Blumbergis more explicit about the
connection between power and privilege, but both see economic power as
the key determinant of women's access to the scarce, valued resources of a
society (e.g., possessions, perquisites, prerogatives, freedoms, honor, deference, prestige). Blumberg argues that the power of property is more important than the power of force, the power of political position, or the power
of ideology, although she acknowledges that the major sources of power are
interrelated. For example, when women's economic power is high, the use
of force against them tends to be restrained.
According to Blumberg and Chafetz, there is evidence to indicate that
women's relative control of the means of production and the allocation of
surplus or surplus value is an important determinant of the status of women
in a society. In societies with subsistence economies, Friedl (1975) argued
that the degree to which women control the distribution of the product of
their labor (usually food) strongly influences their relative status since it creates nonkin networks of mutual obligations that establish a basis for power
and prestige. Schlegel (1977) and Blumberg (1984), however, attach primary
importance to control of production rather than distribution, since control
of the means of production tends to be associated with control of the allocation of surplus. Both Blumberg and Chafetz argue that, in societies that
105
produce a surplus, those who profit will be the product owners or controllers,
who choose the manner in which the surplus is distributed.
Blumberg and Chafetz both discuss factors that enhance what Blumberg calls the "strategic indispensability" of women's work. They also see
characteristics of the family structure, such as lineality and locality, as affecting women's relative economic power and, therefore, the degree of gender
inequality. In addition, Chafetz views gender stereotypes and the degree to
which dominant religions or secular ideologies explicitly support gender
stereotyping and inequality as factors that buttress the system of gender
stratification.
Because women and men perform different social roles, they exhibit
different behavior repertoires. Gender differentiation in social roles therefore produces gender differences in behaviors, abilities, and dispositional
traits. These learned differences have little or no biological basis. Consensual beliefs about differences between the sexes also accompany gender role
differentiation. These stereotypes exaggerate actual differences and ascribe
them to biological factors. Although it is logically possible for the two sexes
to be "separate [different] but equal," the degree of gender role differentiation in a society is strongly related to the degree of gender inequality (Sanday, 1974). "Different" usually means unequal, since the roles filled by the
two sexes do not bring the same power and privilege.
106
Marini
107
to exert a large measure of control over their fertility and helped free them
from the constraintsof their reproductiverole. Labor-savingdevices and other
products for the home also became widely available, reducing the amount
of work required for the physical maintenance of a household. In addition,
improvements in medical care brought a significant increase in life expectancy, thereby reducing furtherthe proportion of a woman's life during which
there were young children in the home. Together, these changes produced
a marked increase in the employment of women outside the home. For example, 20% of U.S. women aged 18-64 were in the labor force in 1900 (Wertheimer, 1977:210), but this figure had risen to almost 60% by 1980 (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1986).
Prior to 1970, women's increased entry into the labor force occurred
primarilyin clerical and service jobs into which women had become segregated. Increases in women's educational attainment during the 1950s and 1960s
and a lack of opportunity for entry into high-level "male"occupations were
among the factors that gave impetus to the resurgence of the women's movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In the wake of this resurgence, women have increasingly been preparing for and moving into higher prestige
occupations.
Although the employment of married women outside the home began
to increase after World War II,little change occurred in the division of household labor in the United States prior to the 1970s. Studies of the amount
of time spent on housework between the 1920s and the 1960s showed no significant changes, although new technology resultedin the substitution of some
routine, repetitive work for more managerial types of activity (Vanek, 1974;
Robinson, 1980). Since the 1970s there have been some indications of change.
Between 1965 and 1975, there was a decrease in the amount of time spent
on family work by women, coupled with a small increase in the amount of
time spent on family work by men (Pleck, 1985; Robinson, 1980, 1988). The
decrease observed for women was associated with changes in women's labor
force participation and marital and fertility behavior over the decade (Robinson, 1980). The small increase observed for men, evident among both wifeemployed husbands and sole-breadwinninghusbands, resultedprimarilyfrom
men's spending more time on traditional male tasks such as household repairs
and lawn care (Pleck, 1985; Robinson, 1988). This pattern of change suggests a general value shift toward somewhat greater family involvement by
husbands rather than a response to the wife's employment in two-earner
households. As a result of these changes, the averageproportion of time spent
on family work by husbands increased.
Detailed U.S. surveys of work performed by husbands and wives in
the home in 1976 and 1977 indicate that wives continued to do most household work and child care (Berk and Berk, 1979; Robinson, 1980; Sanik, 1981;
Marini
108
Pleck, 1985). Employed wives spent only about half as much time on housework as nonemployed wives (Vanek, 1974), but even employed wives spent,
on the average, almost three times as much time on household work as their
husbands (Walker, and Woods, 1976; Robinson, 1977; Sanik, 1981; Pleck,
1985). Husbands of employed wives did not increase their family work in
the narrow sense (e.g., child care) but showed some increase in broader forms
of family participation (e.g., child contact) (Pleck, 1985).
When a broad range of child care and housework responsibilities was
considered, the employed wife spent a greater total number of hours working either in or outside the home than her husband or her nonemployed counterpart (Walker and Woods, 1976; Geerken and Gove, 1983; Pleck, 1985).
In contrast, the husbands of employed wives actually spent less time working than the husbands of nonemployed wives because their wives' earnings
enabled them to reduce their hours of market work, and they spent little additional time on housework (Walker and Woods, 1976; Geerken and Gove,
1983).
Recent evidence suggests that there has been further change in the division of household labor between 1975 and 1985, with men spending more
time on traditional female tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and laundry.
Whereas women did 920/0 of female tasks in 1965 and 890/0 in 1975, they
did only 80Woof such tasks in 1985 (Robinson, 1988). Overall, men did only
about 150/oof housework in 1965, but this had increased to about 330/oby
1985 (Juster, 1985; Gershunyand Robinson, 1988; Robinson, 1988). As would
be expected, evidence of change is greater among the young. Several studies
of fathers of young children reveal increased family work by fathers (Sanik,
1981; Daniels and Weingarten, 1981). Moreover, most high school seniors
now report a preference for sharing child care and housework in their own
prospective marriages, and this trend toward sharing increased slightly between 1976 and 1979 (Herzog et al., 1983).
Studies document a trend toward increased acceptance of women's participation in nonfamily roles since at least the 1930s when polling began (e.g.,
Erskine, 1971; Mason et al., 1976; Thornton and Freedman, 1979). These
changes appear to have occurred in response to increase in women's labor
force participation and, in turn, have brought about further participation.
Overall, the record of historical change since the coming of industrialization provides strong evidence of the malleability of gender roles and associated attitudes in response to social influences. Industrialization brought
about major changes in the roles of women and men. As subsequent changes
in technology increased the demand for female labor, changes in gender roles
began to occur again. Women have enteredthe labor market in ever-increasing
numbers, initiating a reduction in gender role differentiation. Barring unforeseen circumstances, this trend is likely to continue. Unlike women's ini-
109
tial entry into the labor market, the recent entry of women into high-level
male occupations has not been responsive to labor demand but has occurred
in competition with men. This change and its effect on the allocation of work
in the household are unlikely to be altered by a reduction in the demand for
labor in traditionally female jobs. What remains unknown is how far and
how fast the current trend toward gender equality will go.
110
Marini
the characteristics ascribed to males as more desirable than the characteristics ascribed to females and, therefore, that the overall evaluation of males
is higher than that of females (McKee and Sherriffs, 1957; Broverman et al.,
1972; however, see Ashmore et al., 1986, for a discussion of the limitations
of this evidence). Because the characteristics ascribed to males are also those
important for gaining access to positions of power and privilege, gender
stereotypes create expectations for performance that negatively affect evaluations of women's past and expected future performance in high-level jobs.
Allocation
Another process by which individuals come to adopt gender-specific
behavior, attitudes, and traits is through the allocation of individuals to institutional positions on the basis of sex, often to sex-typed positions. Whereas
socialization shapes the choices of individuals by conditioning their desires
and expectations, allocation involves action by others that channels individuals into positions on the basis of sex, irrespective of their desires and expectations.
Allocation is pervasive in the workplace. Recent analysis of sex segregation in the U.S. labor force indicates that more than half of the workers
of one sex would have to change detailed census occupational categories to
make the occupational distributionsof the two sexes equal (Beller, 1984; Blau,
1988; Jacobs, 1989). Within occupations, workers are also segregated within and between firms. It has been estimated that 960/0 of the workers of
one sex would have to change job titles to equalize the distributions of the
two sexes across jobs (Bielby and Baron, 1984). This high level of sex segregation arises in part from the allocation of workers to jobs by employers.
Exactly what motivates these allocation decisions is unclear. Economists have
suggested that they are affected by a process of "statistical discrimination,"
whereby employers attempt to maximize efficiency based on perceptions that
the marginal productivity of women and men differs on average for different lines of work (Phelps, 1972; Arrow, 1973). However, perceptions about
the suitabilityof women and men for different types of work are based largely
on gender stereotypes that are inaccurate (Kiesler, 1975). Moreover, given
that women and men sometimes perform the same work under different job
titles in different parts of the same organization (Bielby and Baron, 1986),
even perceived aggregate differences between women and men in marginal
productivity in a given type of work cannot explain all instances of job segregation within firms. It could be that both perceptions of gender differences
and perceptions of employee preferencesfor working with same-sex peers-in
particular, male preferences for working with males (Haefner, 1977; Hagen
and Kahn, 1975)- cause employers to discriminate or the basis of sex.
111
Marini
112
Emergent Interaction
Gender differences are maintained in part through the effects of gender
stereotypes and related performance expectations on emergent interaction.
As noted above, there is little evidence of sex differences in mental ability
and many other stable traits that have been studied. Nevertheless, in situations involving male-female interaction, sex differences in behavior emerge.
For example, males interruptfemales more than females interruptmales, and
more interruptions have been observed in cross-sex interaction than in samesex interaction (Zimmermanand West, 1975; Kollock et al., 1985). In a study
in which leaders of three-person groups were given information that followers did not have, male leaders were asked for information more often than
female leaders (Eskilson and Wiley, 1976). Males also have been observed
to talk more than females in task-oriented situations (Strodtbeck and Mann,
1956; Curtis et al., 1975; Lockheed and Hall, 1976), and females tend to
express less confidence than males in their future performance, even on tasks
where they are known to do as well or betterthan males (see researchreviewed
by Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974). Interestingly, there is evidence that females
talk more and solve problems better as the subject they are dealing with becomes more appropriateto their sex (Milton, 1959; Lockheed and Hall, 1976).
These sex-related differences emerging in interaction resemble differences in behavior associated with other status characteristics. Berger and his
colleagues (1980) have suggested that the effects of gender stereotypes are
a manifestation of a more general status-organizing process. Expectationstates theory postulates that status characteristics constitute a basis for the
formation of performance expectations, which affect group interaction even
113
114
Marini
(1986) examined the interaction between gender and power use in an experiment in which access to power was systematically varied. The results of her
study suggest that gender differences in power use arise largely from differential access to power in particularsituations ratherthan from a stable proclivity
toward compliance and giving by females.
CONCLUSION
Both biological and social influences play a role in producing gender
differentiation and stratification. Historically, biological factors-particularly
women's role in reproduction and, to a lesser degree, men's greater physical
strength-have constrained the division of labor. These constraints and economies of effort, or efficiency, operating within them produced a few universal principles of task differentiation that, although not absolute, formed
probabilisticconstraintson the division of labor. Although there is wide crosscultural variation in what constitutes male and female labor around these
constraints, the division of labor by sex has never permitted the emergence
of a female-dominated society. Because the division of labor puts men in
a better position to acquire and control the valuable resources of their societies, the division of labor gives rise to gender stratification.
Understanding social influences on gender roles and attitudes requires
that social scientists distinguish between processes operating at the macroand microlevels. Analysis of historical or cross-cultural variation in macrolevel units enables us to understand how gender differentiation and stratification arise, and why they take the forms they do. For example, there is
evidence that macrolevel characteristics such as the technological base of a
society and the labor demands it generates interact with biological sex differences in producing gender differentiation and stratification.
In contrast, analysis of variation at the microlevel enables us to understand how gender differentiation and stratification condition the life experiences of women and men within a society. Individuals born into a society
at a particular time come to fill gender-specific roles via processes of socialization and allocation that operate throughout life. They also internalize attitudes and beliefs, including gender stereotypes, that buttress existing gender
differentiation and stratification. Because institutionalized practices and the
beliefs that justify and reinforce their existence perpetuate the status quo,
identifying the practices and beliefs that perpetuate gender inequality makes
it possible for us to intervene to bring about change.
115
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was written while the author was supported by Grants
K04-AG00296 and RO1-AG05715from the National Institute on Aging. The
assistance of William Chan, Laurie J. Alioto, and Erica Finley is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Arrow, Kenneth
1973 "The theory of discrimination." In 0.
Ashenfelter and A. Rees (eds.), Discrimination in Labor Markets: 3-33.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Ashmore, Richard D., Frances K. Del Boca,
and Arthur J. Wohlers
1986 "Gender stereotypes." In R. D. Ashmore, and F. K. Del Boca (eds.), The
Social Psychology of Female-Male Relations: 69-119. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Bamberger, Joan
1974 "Themyth of matriarchy:Why men rule
in primitive society." In M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (eds.), Women,
Culture,and Society: 263-280. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Beller, Andrea
1984 "Trendsin occupational segregation by
sex and race, 1960-1981." In B. Reskin
(ed.), Sex Segregationin the Workplace:
Trends, Explanations, Remedies: 11-26.
Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Benbow, Camilla Persson and
Julian C. Stanley
1980 "Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?" Science
210: 1262-1264.
1983 "Sex differences in mathematical
reasoning: More facts." Science
222:1029-1031.
Berger, Joseph, Susan Rosenholtz, and
Morris Zeldith, Jr.
1980 "Status organizing processes." In A.
Inkeles, N. J. Smelser, and R. H. Turner (eds.), Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol.6: 479-508. Palo Alta, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Marini
116
Broverman, Inge K., Susan Raymond Vogel,
Donald L. Broverman, Frank E. Clarkson,
and Paul S. Rosenkrantz
1972 "Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal." Journal of Social Issues
28:59-78.
Brown, Judith K
1970 "A note on the division of labor by sex."
AmericanAnthropologist 72:1074-1078.
Burton, Michael, Lilyan A. Brudner,
and Douglas R. White
1977 "A model of the sexual division of
Ethnologist
American
labor."
4:227-251.
Burton, Michael L. and Douglas R. White
1984 "Sexualdivision of labor in agriculture.
American Anthropologist 86:568-583.
Caldwell, John C.
1976 "Toward a restatement of demographic transition theory." Population and
Development Review 2:321-366.
Chafetz, Janet Saltzman
1984 Sex and Advantage: A Comparative,
Macro-Structural Theory of Sex
Stratification. Totowa, NJ: Rowman
and Allanheld.
Cocks, Jay
1982 "How long till equality?" Time 12
(July): 20-29.
Condry, John and Sandra Condry
1976 "Sex differences: A study of the eye of
the beholder." Child Development
47:812-819.
Connor, Jane Marantz, Maxine Schackman,
and Lisa A. Serbin
1978 "Sex-related differences in response to
practice on a visual-spatial test and
generalization to a related test." Child
Development 49:24-29.
Curtis, Rebecca C., Mark P. Zanna, and
Woodrow W. Campbell, Jr.
1975 "Sex, fear of success and perceptions
and performance of law school students." American Educational Research
Journal 12:287-297.
Daniels, Pamela and Kathy Weingarten
1981 Sooner or Later: The Timing of Parenthood in Adult Lives. New York:
Norton.
Deaux, Kay
1985 "Sexand gender." In M. R. Rosenzweig
and L. W. Porter (eds.), Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 36: 49-81. Palo
Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Ehrhardt, Anke A. and H. Meyer-Bahlburg
1981 "Effects of prenatal sex hormones on
gender-related behavior." Science
211:1312-1318.
Ember, Carol R.
1983 "The relative decline in women's contribution to agriculture with intensification." American Anthropologist
85 :285-304.
Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs and
Rose Laub Coser, eds.
1981 Access to Power: Cross-National
Studies of Women and Elites. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Erskine, Hazel
1971 "The polls: Women's role." Public
Opinion Quarterly 35:275-290.
Eskilson, Arlene and Mary Glenn Wiley
1976 "Sex composition and leadership in
small groups." Sociometry 39:183-194.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne
1985 Myths of Gender: Biological Theories
About Women and Men. New York:
Basic Books.
Fedigan, Linda M.
1982 Primate Paradigms. Montreal: Eden.
Fennema, Elizabeth and Julia Sherman
1977 "Sex-related differences in mathematics achievements, spatial visualization
and affective factors." American
Educational ResearchJournal 14:51-71.
Friedl, Ernestine
1975 Women and Men: An Anthropologist's
View. Basic Anthropology Units. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Frodi, Ann, Jacqueline Macaulay, and Pauline
Rupert Thome
1977 "Arewomen always less aggressivethan
men? A reviewof the experimentalliterBulletin
Psychological
ature."
84:634-660.
Geerken, Michael and Walter R. Gove
1983 At Home and At Work: The Family's
Allocation of Labor. BeverlyHills, CA:
Sage.
Gershuny, Jonathan and John P. Robinson
1988 "Historicalchanges in the household division of labor." Demography
25 :537-552.
Gillen, Barry
1981 "Physicalattractiveness:A determinant
of two types of goodness." Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin
7:277-281.
Gilligan, Carol
1982 In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Haefner, James E.
1977 "Race, age, sex, and competence as factors in employed selection of the disadvantaged." Journal of Applied
Psychology 62:199-202.
117
118
Lao, Rosina, C., Wilhelmina H. Upchurch,
Betty J. Corwin, and William F. Crossnickle
1975 "Biased attitudes toward females as indicated by ratings of intelligence and
likeability." Psychology Reports
37:1315-1320.
Leinhardt, Gaea, Andrea Mar Seewald, and
Mary Engel
1979 "Learningwhat'staught: Sex differences
in instruction." Journal of Educational Psychology 71:432-439.
Lockheed, Marlaine E. and Katherine P. Hall
1976 "Conceptualizingsex as a status characteristic: Applications to leadership
training strategies." Journal of Social
Issues 32:111-124.
Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons and
Carol Nagy Jacklin
1974 The Psychology of Sex Differences.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
1980 "Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and reprise." Child Development 51:964-980.
Marini, Margaret Mooney
1978 "Sexdifferences in the determinationof
adolescent aspirations: A review of
research." Sex Roles 4:723-753.
1989 "Sex differences in earnings in the
United States." In W. R. Scott (ed.),
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.
15:343-380. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Marini, Margaret Mooney and Mary C.
Brinton
1984 "Sex typing in occupational socialization." In B. Reskin (ed.), Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends,
Explanations, Remedies: 192-232.
Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Mason, Karen Oppenheim, John L. Czajka,
and Sara Arber
1976 "Change in U.S. women's sex-role attitudes, 1964-1974."American Sociological Review 41:573-596.
McKee, John P. and Alex C. Sherriffs
1957 "The differential evaluation of males
and females." Journal of Personality
25:356-371.
Meeker, Barbara F. and P. A. Weitzel-O'Neill
1977 "Sex roles and interpersonal behavior
in task-oriented groups." American Sociological Review 42:91-105.
Milton, G. A.
1959 "Sex differences in problem solving as
a function of role appropriatenessof the
119
120
Marini