Write a paper about sex differences in social power using the social role theory approach & research.

Humanities

ATI College - Santa Ana

Question Description

This paper should be an analysis of the Social Role Theory and the attached research articles investigating sex differences in social power. The paper should include the Social Role Theory approach to understanding sex differences in behavior (see attached book pages for info), and descriptions of the attached research study investigating sex differences in behavior in social power. The paper should focus on questions that are relevant to the particular social role theoretical approach. You may use other sources for your paper but make sure to cite them in reference and not to plagiarize. The paper should be typed, double-spaced, with 1” margins on all sides (font size 12). Your paper must contain 8 pages of text; it should not exceed 10 pages of text. The paper should follow the outline below (approximately):

I.Introduction A. Introduce the and discuss what is generally known about differences between the sexes on social power. B. Introduce social role theory, and discuss explanations for sex differences provided by that theory (e.g., social role theory argues that men and women adopt different personality traits b/c of different role requirements)

II.Research A. Discuss The research article in terms of the following: 1.What is the specific purpose of the current study (i.e., how does it contribute to an understanding of the phenomena being investigated)? What are the specific hypotheses that are tested in the study? What variables are being investigated, and how are they operationalized? 2.Describe the Methods used in each study, including:a. Participants. Provide the number, type, mean age, sex breakdown, and any specific or unusual characteristics.b. Measures/Materials/Apparatus. Provide descriptions of operationalized variables (i.e., what are the measures or procedures used to define the variables of interest). c. Procedure. Provide specific descriptions of procedures followed in data collection, including random assignment of participants, research protocols, etc.3. Describe the Results of the study, specifically if hypotheses were confirmed or disconfirmed. What general conclusions are drawn by the researchers? Describe how the current results fit or do not fit with the findings of previous research. Do the current results add anything unique or important to understanding of the phenomena in question? [please note you do not have to report results of statistical tests; describe main results in words]

III.Personal evaluation/experiences A. In one paragraph, summarize your opinion of the research studies you reviewed, as well as the research findings in general on sex differences in the behavior you are investigating. Discuss which theoretical approaches (if any) you think provide the best explanation for sex differences.B. Describe your own experiences with sex differences in the behavior you are investigating, including whether your experiences are similar to those indicated by research.

Again, the paper should be typed, double-spaced, with 1” margins on all sides (font size 12). Your paper must contain 8 pages of text; it should not exceed 10 pages of text.

References that must be used:

Foels, R., & Reid, L. D. (2010). Gender differences in social dominance orientation: The role of cognitive complexity. Sex Roles, 62(9-10), 684-692. doi:http:/dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9775-5

Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 920–934. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.920

Lips, H.M.(2008). Sex and gender: An introduction(6thed.).New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 978-0-07-340553-7. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xgjaDw... (chpter 2, page #79)

Write a paper about sex differences in social power using the social role theory approach & research.
attachment_1
Write a paper about sex differences in social power using the social role theory approach & research.
attachment_2
Write a paper about sex differences in social power using the social role theory approach & research.
attachment_3

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Journal of Applied Psychology 1997, Vol. 82, No. 6, 920-934 Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/97/$3.00 Gender Differences in Ethical Perceptions of Business Practices: A Social Role Theory Perspective This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. George R. Franke, Deborah F. Crown, and Deborah F. Spake University of Alabama This study presents a meta-analysis of research on gender differences in perceptions of ethical decision making. Data from more than 20,000 respondents in 66 samples show that women are more likely than men to perceive specific hypothetical business practices as unethical. As suggested by social role theory (A. H. Eagly, 1987), the gender difference observed in precareer (student) samples declines as the work experience of samples increases. Social role theory also accounts for greater gender differences in nonmonetary issues than in monetary issues. T. M. Jones's (1991) issue-contingent model of moral intensity helps explain why gender differences vary across types of behavior. Contrary to expectations, differences are not influenced by the sex of the actor or the target of the behavior and do not depend on whether the behavior involves personal relationships or action vs. inaction. embedded in a theoretical rationale (e.g., Eagly, 1987, 1995). Meta-analysis has been used to explore gender differences in numerous dimensions, including personality (e.g., Feingold, 1994), leadership (e.g., Eagly & Johnson, 1990), and socialization (e.g., Becker, 1986). Gender differences have also been established for several characteristics that may relate to ethical perceptions and behaviors, such as moral development (e.g., Thoma, 1986). However, comparable analyses are not available for ethical perceptions as such. The purpose of our study is to use meta-analysis to investigate the role gender plays in perceptions of ethical decision making. Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) provides a theoretical explanation of how gender differences in perceptions are affected by work experience. T. M. Jones's (1991) moral intensity model, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel& Turner, 1985), and past empirical evidence are used to identify other potential moderators of gender differences in ethical perceptions. Ethical decision making has emerged as an important managerial concern in both academic literature and the business press (e.g., T. M. Jones, 1991; Labich, 1992; Paine, 1994). A growing body of research seeks to assess the role gender plays in perceptions of ethical decision making (e.g., Akaah, 1989; Schoderbek & Deshpande, 1996; Sikula & Costa, 1994). Regrettably, this research is largely atheoretical with respect to the role of gender. Even studies providing more comprehensive reviews of gender effects have been limited to descriptive "vote counting" without theoretical underpinnings (e.g., Ford & Richardson, 1994; Serwinek, 1992; Tsalikis & Fritzsche, 1989). As a result, the ethics literature has taken on a debate-like quality where the focus appears to center on whether gender differences exist, rather than exploring why such differences might occur. Meta-analytic procedures allow the examination of gender differences in a comprehensive, systematic fashion, George R. Franke, Deborah F. Crown, and Deborah F. Spake, Department of Management and Marketing, University of Alabama. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of individuals who provided data, working papers, bibliographies, and other help. Michele Bunn, Craig Childs, Chad Hilton, and Kristi Lamont contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. Charles Bodkin, Barbara Cole, Casey Donoho, and Anusorn Singhapakdi deserve special thanks for their efforts in providing valuable unpublished research findings. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to George R. Franke, 105 Alston Hall, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0225. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to gfranke@cba.ua.edu. Nature of Gender Differences in Ethical Perceptions Rationales for Gender Differences Several theories have been developed to account for gender differences in a variety of traits (see Feingold, 1994, for an overview). The cultural explanation (House, 1981) maintains that a permanent gender identity is established through the socialization processes people undergo in childhood (e.g., Chodorow, 1978; Stoller, 1964). This perspective contends that being of the same or the opposite sex as their mothers leads to different patterns of develop920 921 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ETHICAL PERCEPTIONS relent for girls and boys, such as the feminine emphasis on relationships and masculine emphasis on justice identified by Gilligan (1982). Dawson (1992) described gender socialization theory as building on the work of Freud, Piaget, and others to assert that gender identity is not susceptible to outside influences in adulthood. Socialization theory is held within the ethical decision-making literature to predict that because gender identity is unchanging, the different interests, traits, and values that men and women bring to the workplace should cause differences in ethical perceptions to be stable over time (Dawson, 1992). Conversely, the structural explanation (House, 1981) holds that social group differences arise from common positions in social structures such as organizations and families (e.g., the stereotypical male executive and female secretary, or breadwinning father and homemaking mother). Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) is an influential structural account of gender differences. This theory proposes that men and women behave according to the stereotypes associated with the social roles they occupy. In general, women are seen as more communal ("friendly, unselfish, concerned with others, and emotionally expressive"), whereas men are more agentic ("independent, masterful, assertive, and instrumentally competent''; Eagly & Wood, 1991, p. 309). The social role perspective is more flexible than the cultural/socialization perspective, because it acknowledges that people occupy multiple roles and may change behaviors accordingly. In fact, Eagly and Johnson (1990) argued that organizational roles should override gender roles. Regarding leadership, for example, they concluded that "male and female leaders who occupy the same organizational role should differ very little" (Eagly & Johnson, 1990, p. 234, original emphasis). Women may not face exactly the same organizational climate and culture as men, even when occupying nominally identical roles. Nevertheless, it is well established that structural mechanisms in organizations influence gender differences on an array of factors (Ranter, 1977). For example, Eagly and Johnson (1990) found men and women to have similar leadership styles in organizational studies but not in laboratory experiments or in studies that assessed the self-reported leadership styles of people not in leadership positions. Structural influences on gender differences in mentoring relations were indicated by Ragins and Cotton (1991) and Ragins and Scandura (1994). Milliken and Martins (1996) noted that structural theory is supportive of gender differences in attitudes toward senior women (Ely, 1994) and in research on performance appraisals (Sackett, DuBois, & Noe, 1991). The observed scope of structural influences on these and other variables suggests they may also play a role in gender differences in ethical perceptions. Within the ethics literature, socialization and structural theories have been presented as incompatible. Social role theory is less dogmatic, recognizing several ways in which socialization and structural forces may interact (e.g., Eagly & Johnson, 1990). The gender roles experienced in childhood may cause men and women to come to the workforce with different sets of skills and traits, so that ingrained differences may cause men and women to behave differently despite structural forces toward similarity. Men and women in the same organizational positions may face different pressures and behave differently because of gender-role spillover, the application in the workplace of gender-based (socialized) expectations for behavior (Gutek & Morasch, 1982). Furthermore, organizational experience may modify or override sex role stereotypes. Ragins and Sundstrom (1989), for example, predicted gender differences in perceived power but found (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1990) an interaction between experience and perceptions. They concluded (1990, p. 283) that students without direct work experience would be more likely to ' 'base their perceptions on readily available sex-role stereotypes," whereas employees could rely on actual information about their managers. These lines of evidence suggest that gender differences in ethical perceptions should be greatest at precareer stages, because of socialization forces, and should decline as individuals gain experience within organizations, because of structural pressures. One test of this proposition is to compare gender differences in student and nonstudent populations. Another test, which sheds light on the rate at which structural forces may operate, is to examine trends in gender differences across samples with increasing levels of work experience. Work experience is a key variable for testing structural explanations of gender differences in ethical perceptions, but perceptions may also depend on other factors. In particular, characteristics of the behavior itself may lead to gender differences in ethical perceptions. Issue-Contingent Differences Perceptions in Ethical T. M. Jones (1991) argued forcefully that ethical decision making depends on characteristics of the practice being considered. He further noted (p. 391) that "the relative importance of personal factors and situational factors might vary considerably, from issue to issue." Therefore, comparisons of ethical perceptions between genders should also take into account the characteristics of the practices being evaluated. Jones's (1991) model includes six factors that collectively determine the moral intensity of moral issues: (a) proximity, involving the feeling of nearness (social, cultural, psychological, or physical) that individuals have for 922 FRANKS, CROWN, AND SPAKE This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. those involved in or affected by an action, (b) the magnitude of the consequences, (c) social consensus regarding the morality of the behavior, (d) the probability that the act will cause harm, (e) the temporal immediacy of likely consequences, and ( f ) the concentration of effect (great harm to few people is more concentrated than slight harm to many people). Moral intensity is likely to vary across behaviors. For example, stealing may be considered higher than insider trading in social consensus, probability of effect, and other moral factors. High social consensus, by definition, suggests that both men and women will recognize ethical problems, and the other factors may operate to further reduce gender differences in evaluations of behaviors. Proximity has several implications for differences in ethical perceptions. Proximity may be more relevant to women than to men because women tend to be more communal and "agreeable" (where "agreeableness" comprises such characteristics as trust, tolerance, personal relations, nurturance, tender-mindedness, altruism, and empathy; Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Feingold, 1994; Krebs, 1975). In addition, the relationship orientation discussed by Gilligan (1982) suggests that women may feel nearer to the participants in issues involving a personal relationship (e.g., a customer or subordinate). If so, women may respond more negatively to relationship-oriented issues than to practices involving an abstract principle (e.g., padding an expense account). Dawson (1992), for example, found significant gender differences only in cases involving ethical issues of a relational nature. Ethical perceptions of a business practice may also depend on the sex of the individuals involved. Ely (1994) built on social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1985) to conclude that without external structural pressures, women are more likely to identify with other women than with men. In essence, social identity theory posits that individuals' desire for positive self-evaluation drives them toward identification with an in-group and differentiation from an out-group. The need for a positive identity also propels individuals to seek information that establishes the in-group as different from and better than the out-group (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). Thus, issues involving an individual's own gender are likely to be more proximate than those affecting the opposite gender. This theoretical perspective is consistent with evidence that men and women believe their own sex is more ethical than the opposite sex (Kidwell, Stevens, & Bethke, 1987). Consequently, individuals may have greater empathy for others of their own sex or make more charitable attributions about the causes of their behavior. If so, they may evaluate the actions of their sex more positively if they are the actor and be more critical of actions against a victim of their own sex. Two final issue-contingent moderators of gender differ- ences are suggested by other research results. From a social role theory perspective, research by Betz, O'Connell, & Shepard (1989) suggests that at early career stages men will emphasize tangible signs of success such as money and power more than will women. Furthermore, men are more agentic and assertive than women on average (Feingold, 1994; Hyde, 1986). Therefore, gender differences may be moderated by whether or not the questionable practice directly involves money and whether the evaluated behavior involves action (e.g., insider trading) or inaction (e.g., not reporting a coworker's insider trading). Summary and Propositions In preceding sections we introduce conceptual arguments that men and women experience different socialization processes and occupy different gender roles (e.g., Dawson, 1992; Eagly, 1987; Feingold, 1994; Gilligan, 1982). We also present evidence for gender differences in moral orientations (Thoma, 1986) and other relevant communal and agentic characteristics (e.g., Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Feingold, 1994; Krebs, 1975). Accordingly, our first proposition is that there are gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices. Social role theory indicates that organizational roles interact with or override the effects of gender roles. Socialization processes in organizations should moderate perceptions of ethical decision making (Betz et al., 1989; Dawson, 1992), as indicated in our second proposition: Gender differences in ethical perceptions decline with increasing work experience. Our third proposition is that gender differences in ethical perceptions vary across categories of behaviors, as suggested by T. M. Jones's (1991) issue-contingent model of moral intensity. One element of moral intensity, proximity, coupled with Gilligan's (1982) research on ethical orientations, suggests a fourth proposition: Gender differences are greater for behaviors involving personal relationships than abstract principles. Proximity, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1985), and previous empirical research (e.g., Ely, 1994; Kidwell et al., 1987), support a fifth proposition: The sex of the individuals involved in a behavior moderates the gender differences in ethical perceptions. Finally, social role theory (Eagly, 1987) and empirical research (e.g., Betz et al., 1989; Feingold, 1994; Hyde, 1986) lead to propositions that monetary factors and whether a behavior involves action or inaction moderate gender differences. We now describe how we tested these propositions through a meta-analysis of the literature on ethical perceptions of business practices. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ETHICAL Method This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Scope When we searched for relevant empirical findings, a fundamental criterion was that the direction of gender differences in ethical perceptions could be identified without imposing arbitrary moral values on the respondents' choices. For example, deontological and utilitarian reasoning are placed at the apex of Kohlberg's (1981) well-known model of moral development, even though other modes of reasoning may be equally valid (e.g., Gilligan, 1982). Conversely, there are many accepted moral norms in U.S. society, such as the preferability of honesty to dishonesty. According to this norm, judging a he as immoral indicates higher ethical standards than calling it moral, even if it could be argued that the falsehood produced beneficial outcomes. With this criterion, the meta-analysis results are based on generally accepted norms rather than on the researchers' own values and judgments. We additionally limited the scope of the meta-analysis to findings that were based on perceptions of behaviors with ethical implications. This focus excluded self-reports of personal behaviors, evaluations of the state of business ethics, assessments of moral decision rules, and other measures that could not be interpreted as, "Was this an ethical thing to do?" We further narrowed the scope by excluding matters of social responsibility. Such issues are problematic for testing the propositions because they often allow for legitimate opposing moral arguments. For example, while it is generally accepted that lying is wrong, there is heated debate over firms' responsibilities to their stockholders versus their other stakeholders. In addition, T. M. Jones's (1991) framework suggests that social responsibility is less proximal than specific business behaviors to typical survey respondents. Moral intensity relates in part to "the moral agent's influence on events" (T. M. Jones, 1991, p. 373; cf. Garrett, 1966, p. 10), which for most people is limited with respect to issues of social responsibility or public policy. We also excluded genderoriented human resource issues from the analysis. Social role theory provides less guidance on expected gender differences in perceptions of issues such as promotional opportunities or sexual harassment. Work experience may polarize men's and women's perceptions of such issues rather than harmonize them, depending on the organizational environment, making trends in gender differences hard to predict and evaluate in a meta-analy tic context. A final criterion for the inclusion of studies was that they presented results for U.S. respondents or reported a nonsignificant Country x Gender interaction between respondents in the United States and elsewhere. This restriction was applied to avoid possible confounding of gender differences and cultural differences. Literature Search We identified studies potentially fitting the above criteria through a variety of sources. We searched electronic databases for the keywords moral or ethics in combination with gender or sex, along with such variants as morality, ethic, ethical, male, female, man, woman, and demographic. The ABI/Inform data- PERCEPTIONS 923 base of more than 1,000 business publicatio ...
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!