Research on the cognitive mechanism of the widening gender ideological gap

Authors

  • Yaoqun Li Beijing No. 101 High School, Beijing, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/8eyepg93

Keywords:

Gender ideological gap; Gender schema theory; Cognitive differentiation.

Abstract

In recent years, more survey data at the global level have indicated that the attitude gap between men and women in gender role cognition, responsibility allocation in the family and perception of social equity keeps widening to constitute a larger and larger ideological gap. This study focuses on the gender schema theory, relative deprivation theory, vested interest theory and social identity theory, systematically studying the psychological cognitive mechanism for the generation of this gap. However, research has shown that the cognitive schema of women is gradually moving towards an egalitarian one, owing to the change in the reference groups, whereas the zero-sum cognitive schema of the male population is strengthening in the face of similar social change, in which the asymmetric distribution of responsibilities in the family domain is reinterpreted as a structural injustice, thus leading to strong demands for fairness. Further studies discover that the algorithmic recommendation mechanism of social media further solidifies the above-mentioned cognitive biases through selective exposure, which will generate the level of psychological discomfort in individuals and turn into ideological opposition between social groups, and finally enhance the gap between values on gender. This study has cognitive psychology connotations for the gender ideological gap, and has theoretical and practical value for studying the micro generation mechanism of gender conflicts in society.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Pew Research Center. Gender and Politics in Contemporary Society. Pew Research Center Report, 2023.

[2] National Comprehensive Social Survey. Annual Report on Social Attitudes and Value Trends. NCSS Press, 2022.

[3] Inglehart R, Norris P. Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550362

[4] Cotter D A, Hermsen J M, Vanneman R. The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 2011, 117(1): 259-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/658853

[5] Kimmel M. Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. Nation Books, 2013.

[6] OECD. Gender wage gap (indicator). OECD Publishing, 2024.

[7] Brennan M. Women still handle main household tasks in U.S. Gallup News, 2020.

[8] Runciman W G. Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. University of California Press, 1966.

[9] Yavorsky J E, Kamp Dush C M, Schoppe-Sullivan S J. The production of inequality: The gender division of labor across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 2015, 77(3): 662-679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12189

[10] West C, Zimmerman D H. Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1987, 1(2): 125-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

[11] Crano W D, Prislin R. Components of vested interest and attitude-behavior consistency. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1995, 17(1-2): 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1995.9646129

[12] Anderson E. Hermeneutic labor: The gendered burden of interpretation in intimate relationships between women and men. Hypatia, 2023, 38(1): 177-197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2023.11

[13] Brady W J, Wills J A, Jost J T, et al. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017, 114(28): 7313-7318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114

[14] Sunstein C R. Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400890521

[15] Ging D. Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 2019, 22(4): 638-657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401

[16] Tajfel H, Turner J, Austin W G, et al. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Intergroup relations: Essential readings, 2001: 94-109.

[17] Rathje S, Van Bavel J J, Van Der Linden S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118(26): e2024292118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118

[18] Bem S L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1981, 88(4): 354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354

[19] Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 1990, 108(3): 480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

Downloads

Published

18-09-2026

Issue

Section

Articles