Kristin J. Anderson

Meta-Analyses of Gender Effects on Conversational Interruption: Who, What, When, Where, and How

Meta-analyses of 43 published studies comparingadult womens and mens interruptions duringconversations were conducted. Combined significancelevels and combined effect sizes were analyzed. Acrossstudies, men were significantly more likely than womento use interruptions. This difference, however, wasassociated with a negligible effect size (d = .15). Amore substantial effect size (d = .33) was found when studies looking specifically at intrusive typesof interruption were analyzed separately. Othermoderator variables were found to be related to gendereffects on the use of intrusive interruptions. Most notably, reports of gender differences inintrusive interruptions were more likely and larger inmagnitude when either women (versus men) were firstauthors, participants were observed in naturalistic(versus laboratory) settings, or participants wereobserved interacting in groups of three or more persons(versus in dyads). These results lend support to acontextual-interactive model of gender that emphasizes the importance of situational moderators ongender-related variations in social behavior.

Students’ Preconceptions of Professors: Benefits and Barriers According to Ethnicity and Gender

The present study examined the influence of professor and student characteristics on students’ preconceptions of college professors. Course syllabi for a politically charged social science course were constructed with versions varying by teaching style, professor gender, and professor ethnicity. A total of 633 (44% Latino; 34% African American; 22% Anglo) undergraduates rated the course and the instructor on professor warmth, professor capability, and political bias. Among several findings associated with professor ethnicity and teaching style, Latina professors were viewed as more warm when they had a lenient teaching style andless warm when they hada strict teaching style when compared with Anglo women professors with respective styles. Anglo men students perceived professors as more politically biased than did other students. Results are discussed in the context of aversive racism and a double standard of evaluation for Latino professors.

`Real' Boys? Manufacturing Masculinity and Erasing Privilege in Popular Books on Raising Boys

In recent years an analysis of gender that includes understanding the condition of men and boys in society has garnered considerable attention. We examine four highly promoted pop-psychology books about raising boys. Although such an endeavor could help critically inspect false universalities about gender and examine the ways in which boys and men both benefit from and are constrained by gender polarization and male privilege, we find that these books suffer from three limitations. First, they subscribe to essentializing and universalizing assumptions about gender and parenting that make for a faulty foundation from which to examine gender. Next, these books build their arguments on the unsubstantiated assertion that boys are disadvantaged. Finally, these arguments rest on a fundamental failure to address the institutions and social arenas in which gender is acquired and expressed. These authors fail to examine the forces of privilege and power informing gender identity.

Feminist identity among women and men from four ethnic groups.

Objective: Multiracial feminist theory proposes that the meaning of feminism and the pathways to feminist identity may differ on the basis of cross-cutting social categories such as ethnicity and gender. However, there is currently little research that has included systematic examination of feminist identity among women and men from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Method: We examined feminist orientations among 1,140 undergraduates (70% women) at a Hispanic-Serving Institution who identified as African American, Asian American, European American, or Latina/o. Three related research aims were assessed through a combination of closed- and open-ended questions. First, we examined whether the meaning of the term feminism differed depending on participants’ ethnicity or gender. We then tested for ethnic and gender variation in rates of feminist identity. Lastly, we examined participants’ reasons for either identifying or not identifying as feminists. Results: Ethnic and gender differences were obtained across each of the 3 research aims. For example, there were significant ethnic differences in rates of feminist identity among women, but not among men. Conclusion: Relative to past research, through the current study, we have provided an especially comprehensive examination of how ethnicity and gender interact to shape feminist attitudes. Consistent with multiracial feminist theory, findings demonstrated that attitudes about feminism vary as a function of both gender and ethnicity, yet key ethnic and gender similarities also emerged.