政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/152916

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/152916

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51610125 Online Users : 679

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大典藏 > College of Science > Department of Psychology > Theses > Item 140.119/152916

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152916

Title:	促進性別平等：性平政策之敘述對政策支持度與性平意識的影響 Promoting Gender Equality: The Impact of Narrative of Gender Equality Policy on Policy Support and Gender Awareness
Authors:	林靖芸 Lin, Ching-Yun
Contributors:	孫蒨如林靖芸 Lin, Ching-Yun
Keywords:	性別平等政策政策論述性別平等意識群際威脅公平性 gender equality policy policy discourse gender awareness intergroup threat fairness
Date:	2024
Issue Date:	2024-08-05 14:48:53 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	性別平等政策經常受到人們──尤其是男性的反對。過去研究發現，當政策敘述強調女性權益時（性別敏感敘述），相較於強調個人化需求而不提及性別需求（性別中立敘述），人們對後者的接受度更高（Cundiff等人，2018；Windscheid等人，2017）。然而，這些研究無法確定人們對性別敏感敘述的負向態度，是否源自於性別敏感敘述本身，還是聯想到高保障強度（如優先錄取女性）的政策而導致。因此，本研究旨在探討性別敏感敘述對於政策支持度與性平意識的影響，預期性別敏感敘述能提升女性的政策支持度及性平意識，但對於男性則會引起群際威脅，對其態度產生負向影響。研究一為3（敘述方式：性別中立／性別敏感／兼容式性別敏感）× 2（性別：男／女）的受試者間設計，並設定政策類型為公平待遇（匿名書審制度）。結果發現不論是性別敏感敘述或兼容式性別敏感敘述，皆能提高人們的性平意識（感知議題重要性），但性別敏感敘述並未對男性造成群際威脅，引起負面態度。研究二為2（政策類型：模糊／公平）× 2（敘述方式：性別中立／性別敏感）× 2（性別：男／女）的受試者間設計。透過調節中介分析，研究二發現，只有在模糊的政策情境中，性別敏感敘述會提升男性的群際威脅（不公平感受），進而負向影響政策支持度與性平意識（感知議題重要性）。總結而言，我們發現敘述方式能間接影響政策支持度，且僅在政策內容不明確時，性別敏感敘述才會對男性造成負面感受，凸顯了政策公平的重要性。此外，性別敏感敘述能穩定提升人們對該議題的重要性感知，卻無法影響他們對於性別不平等的看法，或提升對其他性別相關議題的支持，顯示性別相關論述對性平意識所造成的影響有其針對性及侷限性。 Gender equality policies often face opposition, particularly from men. Previous research has shown that policy descriptions emphasizing women's rights (gender-sensitive) are less accepted compared to those focusing on individualized needs without mentioning gender (gender-neutral) (Cundiff et al., 2018; Windscheid et al., 2017). However, these studies leave a gap in understanding the source of negative attitudes toward gender-sensitive descriptions. This study aims to explore the impact of gender-sensitive descriptions on policy support and gender awareness. We hypothesize that gender-sensitive descriptions will enhance policy support and gender awareness among women, but decrease them among men due to perceived intergroup threat. Study 1 employed a 3 (description: gender-neutral/gender-sensitive/gender-inclusive) × 2 (gender: male/female) between-subjects design, with the policy type set as fair treatment (anonymous review system). The results indicate that both gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive descriptions enhance participants' gender awareness (perceived importance of the issue). However, contrary to expectations, men did not exhibit negative attitudes toward gender-sensitive descriptions. Study 2 was a 2 (policy type: ambiguous/fair) × 2 (description: gender-neutral/gender-sensitive) × 2 (gender: male/female) between-subjects design. Through moderated mediation analysis, Study 2 revealed that only in ambiguous policy situations do gender-sensitive descriptions increase men's intergroup threat (perceived unfairness), thereby negatively affecting policy support and gender awareness (perceived importance of the issue). Overall, we found that the framing of narratives can indirectly influence policy support, and gender-sensitive narratives provoke negative reactions among men only when the policy content is ambiguous, highlighting the importance of policy fairness. Additionally, gender-sensitive descriptions consistently enhance the perceived importance of the issue but do not significantly alter views on gender inequality or increase support for other gender-related issues. This suggests that the impact of gender-related discourse on gender awareness has its specificity and limitations.
Reference:	行政院性別平等會.(2021).〈性別平等政策綱領〉取自 https://gec.ey.gov.tw/File/900DA1E5D22687D8?A=C 李怡青. (2020). 性別平權與婚姻平權:從研究結果反思社會正義 [Gender equality and marriage equality: From research findings to reflections upon social justice]. 應用心理研究(72), 47-89. https://doi.org/10.3966/156092512020060072002 許品鵑, & 謝秉弘. (2017). 25 年來臺灣大專校院學生及教師數、學制及職級之性別比例變化趨勢. 評鑑雙月刊(65), 36-37. 黃囇莉. (2007). M 型政黨 vs.鐘型意識-台灣國族認同之意識型態及其心理基礎 [M Shape vs. Bell Shape: The Ideology of National Identity and Its Psychological Basis in Taiwan]. 中華心理學刊, 49(4), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.6129/cjp.2007.4904.08 Aberson, C. L. (2003). Support for RaceBased Affirmative Action: Selfinterest and Procedural Justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1212-1225. Aberson, C. L. (2007). Diversity, Merit, Fairness, and Discrimination Beliefs as Predictors of Support for AffirmativeAction Policy Actions 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2451-2474. Aberson, C. L. (2016). Policy type and justification influences on support for affirmative action policies. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 90. Alfonso-Benlliure, V., & Alonso-Sanz, A. (2023). Efficacy of Artistic Actions in Raising Awareness of Gender Equality and Sexual Diversity in University Contexts. Journal of Homosexuality, 1-26. Ballinger, T., & Crocker, J. (2021). Understanding Whites' perceptions of multicultural policies: A (non)zero-sum framework? J Pers Soc Psychol, 120(5), 1231-1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000315 Banaszak, L. A., Liu, S.-J., & Tamer, N. B. (2013). Learning gender equality: Women's movement influence on youth attitudes in a comparative perspective. APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper, American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting, Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the Unseen: Attention to Daily Encounters With Sexism as Way to Reduce Sexist Beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310397509 Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: Differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology, 43(3), 127. Becker, J. C., Zawadzki, M. J., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Confronting and reducing sexism: A call for research on intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 603-614. Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J. (2018). Investigating right wing authoritarianism with a very short authoritarianism scale. Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. Social identity: Context, commitment, content, 35- 58. Carlsson, R., & Sinclair, S. (2021). Selected or rejected: Men and women's reactions to affirmative action procedures in hiring. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21(1), 874-888. Case, K. A. (2007). Raising male privilege awareness and reducing sexism: An evaluation of diversity courses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 426-435. Chaney, K. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Remedios, J. D. (2016). Organizational identity safety cue transfers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11), 1564-1576. Collier, C. N. (2012). Feminist and gender-neutral frames in contemporary child-care and anti-violence policy debates in Canada. Politics & Gender, 8(3), 283-303. Corcoran, K. E., Pettinicchio, D., & Young, J. T. N. (2015). Perceptions of Structural Injustice and Efficacy: Participation in Low/Moderate/High-Cost Forms of Collective Action. Sociological Inquiry, 85(3), 429-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12082 Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1189-1197. Cundiff, J. L., Ryuk, S., & Cech, K. (2018). Identity-safe or threatening? Perceptions of women-targeted diversity initiatives. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 745-766. Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T., McElreath, R., & Smirnov, O. (2007). Egalitarian motives in humans. nature, 446(7137), 794-796. Dover, T. L. (2022). Not all inequalities are created equal: Inequality framing and privilege threat for advantaged groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 746-767. England, P., Levine, A., & Mishel, E. (2020). Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 117(13), 6990-6997. Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. nature, 454(7208), 1079-1083. Flood, M., Dragiewicz, M., & Pease, B. (2021). Resistance and backlash to gender equality. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 393-408. Fox, M. F., Sonnert, G., & Nikiforova, I. (2009). Successful Programs for Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Adapting versus Adopting the Institutional Environment. Research in Higher Education, 50(4), 333-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9120-4 Good, J. J., Bourne, K. A., & Drake, R. G. (2020). The impact of classroom diversity philosophies on the STEM performance of undergraduate students of color. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104026. Handley, I. M., Brown, E. R., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Smith, J. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 112(43), 13201-13206. Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. J Appl Psychol, 91(5), 1013- 1036. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013 Hideg, I., & Wilson, A. E. (2020). History backfires: Reminders of past injustices against women undermine support for workplace policies promoting women. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156, 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.001 Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(6), 1003. Iyer, A. (2022). Understanding advantaged groups' opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(5), e12666. Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., & van der Zee, K. I. (2015). Being part of diversity: The effects of an all-inclusive multicultural diversity approach on majority members’ perceived inclusion and support for organizational diversity efforts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 817-832. Jiménez-Moya, G., Carvacho, H., Álvarez, B., Contreras, C., & González, R. (2022). Is Support for Feminism Enough for Change? How Sexism and Gender Stereotypes Might Hinder Gender Justice. Frontiers in psychology, 13. Kaiser, C. R., & Hagiwara, N. (2011). Gender identification moderates social identity threat effects on working memory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 243- 251. Kirton, G., & Greene, A.-M. (2021). The Dynamics of Managing Diversity and Inclusion: A Critical Approach. Routledge. KosakowskaBerezecka, N., Besta, T., Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Vandello, J. A., Best, D. L., Wlodarczyk, A., Safdar, S., Zawisza, M., Z# adkowska, M., Sobiecki, J., Agyemang, C. B., Akbaş, G., Ammirati, S., Anderson, J., Anjum, G., Aruta, J. J. B. R., Ashraf, M., Bakaitytė, A., Bi, C., Becker, M., Bender, M., Bërxulli, D., Bosak, J., Daalmans, S., Dandy, J., Lemus, S., Dvorianchikov, N., Etchezahar, E., Froehlich, L., Gavreliuc, A., Gavreliuc, D., Gomez, Á., Greijdanus, H., Grigoryan, A., Hale, M. L., Hämer, H., Hoorens, V., Hutchings, P. B., Jensen, D. H., Kelmendi, K., Khachatryan, N., Kinahan, M., Kozlowski, D., Lauri, M. A., Li, J., Maitner, A. T., Makashvili, A., Mancini, T., Martiny, S. E., Đorđević, J. M., MorenoBella, E., Moscatelli, S., Bryan Moynihan, A., Muller, D., Ochoa, D., Adebayo, S. O., Pacilli, M. G., Palacio, J., Patnaik, S., Pavlopoulos, V., Piterová, I., Puzio, A., PyrkoszPacyna, J., RenteríaPérez, E., Rousseaux, T., Sainz, M., Salvati, M., Samekin, A., GarcíaSánchez, E., Schindler, S., Sherbaji, S., Sobhie, R., Sulejmanović, D., Sullivan, K. E., Torre, B., Torres, C. V., Ungaretti, J., Valshtein, T., Laar, C., Noll, J., Vasiutynskyi, V., Vohra, N., ZapataCalvente, A. L., & Z+ ukauskienė , R. (2020). Countrylevel and individuallevel predictors of men's support for gender equality in 42 countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1276-1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2696 Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Puryear, C. (2018). Zero-Sum Thinking and the Masculinity Contest: Perceived Intergroup Competition and Workplace Gender Bias. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 529-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12281 Lewis, J., & Campbell, M. (2008). What's in a Name?‘Work and Family’or ‘Work and Life’Balance Policies in the UK since 1997 and the Implications for the Pursuit of Gender Equality. Social policy & administration, 42(5), 524-541. Lilly, J. D., & Wipawayangkool, K. (2018). When fair procedures don’t work: A self- threat model of procedural justice. Current Psychology, 37, 680-691. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-318. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Molenda, A. K., & Cramer, C. R. (2015). Can evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gender bias in STEM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 194-209. Perrigino, M. B., Dunford, B. B., & Wilson, K. S. (2018). Work–family backlash: The “dark side” of work–life balance (WLB) policies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 600-630. Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites' reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(2), 337. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(4), 741. Radke, H. R., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., Wright, S. C., & Becker, J. C. (2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291-315. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336-353. Rivera-Rodriguez, A., Larsen, G., & Dasgupta, N. (2022). Changing public opinion about gender activates group threat and opposition to feminist social movements among men. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 811-829. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359-371. Ruthig, J. C., Kehn, A., Gamblin, B. W., Vanderzanden, K., & Jones, K. (2017). When women’s gains equal men’s losses: Predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles, 76(1), 17-26. Scarborough, W. J., Sin, R., & Risman, B. (2019). Attitudes and the stalled gender revolution: Egalitarianism, traditionalism, and ambivalence from 1977 through 2016. Gender & society, 33(2), 173-200. Schmidt, M. F., & Sommerville, J. A. (2011). Fairness expectations and altruistic sharing in 15-month-old human infants. PloS one, 6(10), e23223. Skitka, L. J. (2003). Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 286-297. Smithson, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). Discourses of work–life balance: negotiating ‘genderblind’terms in organizations. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(2), 147-168. Starmans, C., Sheskin, M., & Bloom, P. (2017). Why people prefer unequal societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0082 Stefaniak, A., Mallett, R. K., & Wohl, M. J. (2020). Zerosum beliefs shape advantaged allies’ support for collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1259-1275. Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., & Davis, M. D. (2008). The role of threat in intergroup relations. Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew, 55-72. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios, K. (2016). Intergroup threat theory. Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity: All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The journal of applied behavioral science, 44(1), 116-133. Stewart, R., Wright, B., Smith, L., Roberts, S., & Russell, N. (2021). Gendered stereotypes and norms: A systematic review of interventions designed to shift attitudes and behaviour. Heliyon, 7(4), e06660. Subaić, E., Hardacre, S., Elton, B., Branscombe, N. R., Ryan, M. K., & Reynolds, K. J. (2018). “We for She”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 707-724. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old- fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(2), 199. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political Psychology (pp. 276-293). Psychology Press. Tinkler, J. E. (2013). How do sexual harassment policies shape gender beliefs? An exploration of the moderating effects of norm adherence and gender. Social science research, 42(5), 1269-1283. Tinkler, J. E., Li, Y. E., & Mollborn, S. (2007). Can legal interventions change beliefs? The effect of exposure to sexual harassment policy on men's gender beliefs. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(4), 480-494. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2017). Gender Interventions in the Dutch Police Force: Resistance as a Tool for Change? Journal of Change Management, 18(3), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2017.1378695 Van den Brink, M., & Stobbe, L. (2014). The support paradox: Overcoming dilemmas in gender equality programs. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(2), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.07.001 Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J., & Morner, M. (2017). The paradox of diversity initiatives: When organizational needs differ from employee preferences. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 33-48.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學心理學系 109752003
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109752003
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Psychology] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
200301.pdf		2703Kb	Adobe PDF	0	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - Feedback