A test of three hypotheses to explain the dominance penalty for sexually agentic women
Citation & Export
Hide
Simple citation
Fetterolf, Janell Cora.
A test of three hypotheses to explain the dominance penalty for sexually agentic women. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T36975V0Export
Description
TitleA test of three hypotheses to explain the dominance penalty for sexually agentic women
Date Created2016
Other Date2016-10 (degree)
Extent1 online resource (vii, 63 p.)
DescriptionThe sexual double standard is often investigated as unequal tolerance for sexual experience, but recent research has found resistance to female sexual agency as well (i.e., enjoyment of being sexualized; Infanger, Rudman, & Sczesny, 2016). This pattern imitates rejection of female agency in employment contexts (e.g., competing for leadership roles; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012). Female agency, whether sexual or professional, evokes perceptions that targets are “too dominant,” which results in social or economic penalties. The current study sought to conceptually replicate Infanger et al.’s findings while examining three potential moderators of the dominance penalty for sexually powerful women. Specifically, sexually powerful women may be viewed as too dominant because they (1) threaten men’s higher status (the status incongruity hypotheses; Rudman et al., 2012), (2) decrease the value of other women’s sexual favors (sexual economics theory; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004), or (3) threaten women’s protected status, which depends on women being chaste and submissive (the male protection hypothesis). However, results did not support a dominance penalty for female sexual power. Instead, male and female targets who espoused a powerful, manipulative form of sexuality, compared to those who did not, were (1) viewed as more dominant and less communal, (2) disliked, and (3) sabotaged on a future task. Further, results of mediation analyses were consistent with the idea that sexually powerful targets, compared to low power targets, were sabotaged because they were disliked, and disliked because they were viewed as less communal, not too dominant.
NotePh.D.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Noteby Janell Cora Fetterolf
Genretheses, ETD doctoral
Languageeng
CollectionGraduate School - New Brunswick Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Statistical Profile