Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1984 b'y the

1984, Vol. 46, No. 5, 991-1004 American Psychological Association, Inc.

Structure of Gender Stereotypes: Interrelationships

Among Components and Gender Label
Kay Deaux and Laurie L. Lewis
Purdue University
Various components of gender stereotypes were examined in three studies to de-
termine their interrelationship and their influence relative to gender label. In the
first two experiments, male and female college students were given information
about gender and either role behaviors or traits and were asked to assess the prob-
ability that the stimulus person possessed other gender-related characteristics. In
the third experiment, each of four gender stereotype components was presented
in a within-subjects design and subjects made judgments about each other com-
ponent. Results indicate that (a) information about one stereotype component can
implicate other components; (b) specific component information may outweigh
gender identification; and (c) components differ in their ability to implicate other
components of gender stereotypes, with physical appearance playing a dominant
role. The significance of these findings in understanding the structure and operation
of gender stereotypes is discussed.

Stereotypes play an important role in hu-
man judgment, and investigators have shown
sustained interest in exploring the content and
consequences of such judgments. From Lipp-
man's (1922) early and insightful analysis of
the "pictures in our heads," through the work
of Katz and Braly (1933), Allport (1954),
Campbell (1967) and others, stereotypes have
continued to hold the interest of social sci-
entists concerned with ways in which we judge
and misjudge members of recognizable groups.
In recent years, interest in the topic has ac-
celerated, with new attention focused both on
the general nature of stereotypes as well as on
specific content categories (Hamilton, 1979,
1981; Miller, 1982). At the general level, in-
vestigators are increasingly coming to concep-
tualize stereotypes as one particular instance
of more general cognitive processes (Ashmore
&DelBoca, 1981; Hamilton, 1979;McCauley,
Support for this research and for the preparation of this
article was provided by grants from Purdue Research
Foundation and from National Science Foundation (BNS-
8217313). Additional support was provided by the Center
for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and the
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. We are
grateful to Eliot Smith for his insightful comments on an
earlier version of this article.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Kay,Deaux,
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana .47907.
991
Stitt, & Segal, 1980). In doing so, there is a
tendency to move away from the conception
of stereotypes as negative judgments that de-
viate from some true state, and to move toward
a more neutral view that emphasizes process
and content rather than "rightness" and
"wrongness."
Such a change in perspective requires a
change in the kinds of questions that are asked
as well. Rather than providing simply a de-
scriptive account of the contents of gender ste-
reotypes, current investigators have begun to
ask how various aspects of the overall stereo-
type are related to one another, how judgments
may be altered in the face of new and some-
times contradictory information, and the pro-
cess by which such changes take place. To cite
only a few examples of this shifting focus, one
can look to the work on prototypes, social
schema, and implicit personality theory by in-
vestigators such as Ashmore and Del Boca
(1979), Cantor and Mischei(1977), Rosenberg
and Sedlak (1972), Schneider and Blankmeyer
(1983), and Howard and Rothbart (1980). Al-
though the specific emphases of these studies
vary, each is concerned with the more dynamic
process by which the interpretation of infor-
mation is affected by preexisting cognitive
structures.
Gender stereotypes are a particularly timely
and rich arena for this type of investigation.
Although early investigators of stereotypes
992 KAY DEAUX AND LAURIE L. LEWIS
tended to focus on ethnic stereotypes, following
the line of Katz and Braly (1933), more recent
work has included physical attractiveness,
mental disorders, aging, and social class (cf.
Miller, 1982). Within the past decade, sex has
probably been the most active area of inves-
tigation, reflecting a rise in all questions related
to gender. Yet despite the frequent invocation
bf gender stereotypes as both cause and con-
sequence of various events, relatively little is
known about their structure.
The most widely cited studies of gender ste-
reotypes are those of Broverman, Rosenkrantz,
and their colleagues (Broverman, Vogel, Brov-
erman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972; Ro-
senkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman, & Brov-
erman, 1968). These investigators identified
two clusters of traits that are associated with
women and men: warmth and expressiveness,
believed by subjects to be more characteristic
of women than men; and competence and ra-
tionality, believed by subjects to be more char-
acteristic of men than women. Spence, Helm-
reich, and Stapp (1975) have derived two sim-
ilar factors. Common to both investigations is
an emphasis on personality traits as the core
of gender stereotypes. Consideration of lay ste-
reotypes of gender, however, suggests that the
common conceptions of male and female are
much more diverse, containing references to
appearance, role behaviors, and sexuality. Ac-
cordingly, Deaux and Lewis (1983) have re-
cently presented evidence for a multiple-com-
ponent construction. This research shows that
a number of separate components of gender
stereotypes can be identified: specifically, traits,
role behaviors, occupations, and physical ap-
pearance, each of which has a masculine and
feminine version. Although no component is
seen as the exclusive province of one or the
other sex, masculine and feminine components
are significantly more strongly associated with
males and females, respectively. The like-sex
components (e.g., male role behaviors and
masculine traits) bear some relationship to
each other, but correlational analysis suggests
that they are best viewed as separate factors
that can vary independently.
Using this component formulation as a base,
the studies reported here attempt to determine
the degree to which information about one
component can implicate another. In the first
two studies, subjects were presented with in-
formation about one component and were
asked to make judgments about the probability
that the stimulus person possessed other gen-
der-related characteristics. Information pre-
sented was either consistent with the sex of
the person (e.g., a male described in terms of
masculine traits) or inconsistent (e.g., a female
described in terms of male-linked role behav-
iors). In the third study, using a within-subject
design, subjects were sequentially given infor-
mation about each component and were asked
to estimate the probability of each other com-
ponent. Through this method, it is possible to
assess the possible reciprocal influence of
components. One can ask, for example,
whether traits influence judgments about
physical characteristics as readily as infor-
mation about physical characteristics will in-
fluence trait judgments.
In each of the three studies, it is also possible
to compare the influence of gender label with
that of specific component information.
Locksley and her colleagues (Locksley, Bor-
gida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980; Locksley,
Hepburn, & Ortiz, 1982) have recently shown
that specific case information can reduce the
effects of stereotypes (or social category in-
formation) on subsequent judgments. These
authors argue that "as soon as individuating,
subjectively diagnostic characteristics of a per-
son are known, stereotypes may have minimal,
if any, impact on judgments of that person"
(Locksley et al, 1980, p. 830). Similarly, Eagly
and Wood (1982) have found that stereotypes
about social influence rest on assumptions
about differences in status. Consequently,
when specific status information is supplied,
gender no longer is a major determinant of
subsequent judgments.
The strength of this argument, however,
would appear to depend in critical ways on
the types of information presented and the
linkage between provided information and the
subsequent judgment. For example, in the
Locksley et al. (1980) study, subjects were given
a simple gender label and three specific ac-
counts of either assertive or passive behavior.
They were then asked to describe how the per-
son would behave in situations "similar to
those in the original dialogue" (Locksley et
al., 1980, p. 823). Given the near identity of
the information and the requested judgment,
the provided information did indeed have
more influence than the gender label.
Although Locksley and her colleagues
 STRUCTURE OF GENDER STEREOTYPES
(1980,1982) have shown that passive behavior
is more predictive of passive behavior than is
gender (assuming passivity is part of the female
stereotype), their approach is not a convincing
repudiation of stereotypes. Implicit in the idea
of stereotypes is the assumption that a large
number of beliefs are linked within the cat-
egory, and that these beliefs may implicate one
another in the absence of behavioral evidence.
Thus, to use the case of gender as an example,
it is quite probable that a person who is told
that a man fixes his child's lunch on Monday,
Tuesday, and Wednesday would subsequently
predict that the man would fix the lunch on
Thursday as well, even though fixing lunches
may normally be believed to be more char-
acteristic of women. It is not clear, however,
what this same person would predict if asked
whether the man was a nurse or whether he
had feminine physical characteristics. Assum-
ing that fixing lunches is not particularly di-
agnostic of being a nurse, one should predict
that gender, rather than specific information,
would influence the occupational judgment.
However, if components of stereotypes are
linked in some type of network, then infor-
mation about one component could influence
judgments of other components as well. It is
just this implicit linkage between various
components of gender stereotypes that the
present studies address.
Grant and Holmes (1981,1982) have raised
similar questions about the conclusions of
Locksley and her colleagues (1980, 1982).
Working from the assumption that a number
of schemata (or implicit personality theories,
to use their terms) are bound together in the
(ethnic) stereotype, they have shown that when
people are given information about one
schema associated with an ethnic stereotype,
they will generalize to other schemata also as-
sociated with that group. Accordingly, these
authors argue that stereotypes are important
in the social perception process.
One of the major differences between these
two investigations is the type of judgments
that subjects are asked to make. In Locksley
et al. (1980), the inference is from behavioral
information to a nearly identical behavioral
judgment. In Grant and Holmes (1981), sub-
jects infer traits from one schema based on
information about traits in another schema.
The present studies extend this consideration
one step further by considering the process of
993
inference between different types of compo-
nent information, for example, the degree to
which people may infer traits from information
about role behavior.
In summary, the intent of the present studies
is to learn more about the structure of gender
stereotypes and the degree to which various
components are related to one other. Further,
these studies assess the extent to which gender
label and various types of component infor-
mation can influence the judgments that in-
dividuals make about the existence of other
gender-related characteristics, not specifically
implied by the provided information.
Experiments 1 and 2
Overview
Experiment 1 used a 2 X 2 X 3 between-
subjects design in which male and female sub-
jects were presented information that a person
identified as either male or female performed
role behaviors that were either masculine,
feminine, or mixed. Subjects were then asked
to estimate the probability that the stimulus
person had other gender-related traits, physical
characteristics, and occupations, and was het-
erosexual and homosexual.
In Experiment 2, a 2 X 3 X 3 between-
subject design was used, including both male
and female subjects and varying trait infor-
mation (masculine, feminine, or mixed) with
gender label (male, female, or not specified).
Subjects estimated the probability that the
stimulus person had a variety of physical char-
acteristics, role behaviors, and occupations,
and was heterosexual and homosexual. When
gender was not specified, subjects also esti-
mated the probability that the stimulus person
was male or female.
Method: Experiment 1
Subjects. A total of 108 students (42 male, 65 female)1
participated in the experiment as one means of fulfilling
an introductory psychology course requirement.
Procedure. Subjects were tested in groups of 20-25,
with approximately equal numbers of males and females
in each group. The experiment was described as a study
of social perception, and the experimenters stressed that
there were no right or wrong answers. Test booklets were
1
One additional subject did not indicate his or her sex
on the forms. That person was included in the correlational
analysis but excluded from all others.
994 KAY DEAUX AND LAURIE L. LEWIS
arranged so that all six conditions were represented in
each testing session.
The first two pages of the booklet contained eight practice
items, designed to familiarize students with probability
scales. (An example of these items is as follows: "How
likely or unlikely is it that an average person has red hair?")
Responses to each question were made on a scale that
ranged from extremely unlikely (0) to extremely likely
(100). The scale was marked in intervals of 5, with the
following anchor points specified: extremely unlikely,
moderately unlikely, neither likely nor unlikely, moderately
likely, and extremely likely.
After students had completed the first two pages, the
experimenter determined if there were any questions about
the use of the probability scale. She then went on to explain
that students would be given a limited amount of infor-
mation about a person and would be asked to estimate
the probability that the person had a number of other
characteristics or engaged in a number of other behaviors.
Students were asked to form a clear image of the person
in their minds before answering the questions.
After all students had completed the booklets, the ex-
perimenter explained the purpose of the experiment and
answered any questions that students had.
Stimulus material. There were six conditions, repre-
senting one of two gender labels (male or female) and three
types of role information (masculine, feminine, or mixed).
Role information presented in each condition was as fol-
lows: (masculine) head of household, financial provider, a
leader, and responsible for household repairs; (feminine)
source of emotional support, manages the house, takes
care of children, responsible for decorating the house;
(mixed) financial provider, source of emotional support,
a leader, takes care of children.
Each type of role information was combined with male
and female gender information. As an example, subjects
in the female/mixed role behavior condition were given
the following description: "A woman has been described
in terms of the following characteristics and behaviors:
financial provider, source of emotional support, a leader,
takes care of children. Consider these characteristics care-
fully and think about what type of woman this would be."
Dependent measures. Subjects were asked to estimate
the probability on a 0- to 100-point scale that the stimulus
person had each of eight masculine traits and eight feminine
traits, had five male physical characteristics and five female
physical characteristics,2 would be in each of five male-
dominated and five female-dominated occupations, and
the probabilities that the person was heterosexual and was
homosexual.
The personality traits were drawn from the Personal
Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence, Helmreich, &
Stapp, 1974) and consisted of the following items: (mas-
culine) independent, active, competitive, can make deci-
sions easily, never gives up easily, self-confident, stands up
well under pressure, and feels superior; (feminine) emo-
tional, able to devote self (completely to others, gentle,
kind, aware of the feelings of others, understanding of
others, warm in relations with others, helpful to others.
Occupations were selected on the basis of employment
statistics that showed at least 70% of people in the oc-
cupation to be of one sex. In addition, male and female
occupations were matched for prestige on the basis of
pretest data. Occupations selected as dependent measures
were: (male associated) truck driver, insurance agent, tele-
phone installer, chemist, urban planner; (female associated)
occupational therapist, telephone operator, speech pa-
thologist, elementary school teacher, nurse's aide.3
Order of presentation of occupations and traits was
counterbalanced. Within each section of dependent vari-
ables, masculine and feminine items were randomly in-
termixed. Questions on sexual orientation were placed at
the end of the booklet for all subjects.
Method: Experiment 2
Subjects. A total of 179 students (84 male, 92 female)4
participated in the experiment as one means of fulfilling
an introductory psychology course requirement.
Procedure. The basic procedures were the same as
those in Experiment 1, with the following changes in ex-
perimental materials. Stimulus information consisted of
traits rather than roles, using the 16 items from the PAQ
scale. The 8 masculine items were used in the masculine
condition and the 8 feminine items were used in the fem-
inine condition. Traits used in the mixed condition were
the following: active, emotional, kind, never gives up easily,
understanding of others, self-confident, stands up well under
pressure, helpful to others. Dependent measures were also
the same in Experiment 2, with the exception that traits
were eliminated and role behaviors were added, the same
eight behaviors that were used as stimulus materials in
Experiment I.5
Results: Experiments 1 and 2
Relationship among components. To ex-
plore the relationship among stereotype com-
ponents, correlations were computed between
summed dependent measures: specifically, be-
tween occupations and traits in Experiment 1
and between occupations and role behaviors
in Experiment 2. Probability estimates were
normalized around each subject's mean judg-
ment to eliminate individual differences in use
of the response scale.
2
The items assessing physical characteristics did not
produce a satisfactory factor structure and will not be
discussed in the results of Experiments 1 and 2.
3
Alpha coefficients for the masculine traits and feminine
traits were .90 and .89, respectively. For the occupational
factors, alpha coefficients were .79 and .76 for the male
occupations in the two studies and .78 and .86 for the
female occupations in the two studies.
4
Three subjects who did not indicate their sex were
included only in the correlational analysis.
5
Factor analysis of the role behaviors showed that all
four of the presumed masculine behaviors loaded on a
single factor (alpha coefficient = .78). However, the second
factor consisted only of the items "emotional supporter"
and "takes care of children." Consequently, the other two
items were dropped from the female roles component; the
alpha coefficient for the remaining two items was .65.
 STRUCTURE OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 995

Table 1
Mean Probability Judgments of Traits, Occupations, and Sexual Orientation: Experiment 1
Mean probability judgments

Masculine Feminine Male Female Hetero- Homo-

Role information and gender label traits traits occ. occ. sexuality sexuality

Female role behaviors

Female label .69 .78 .30 .45 .86 .14
Male label .60 .77 .39 .48 .64 .39
Male role behaviors
Female label .86 .63 .52 .51 .67 .30
Male label .83 .65 .53 .39 .82 .19
Mixed role behaviors
Female label .79 .75 .41 .51 .83 .28
Male label .75 .78 .47 .50 .82 .26

Note. occ. = occupations.

In Experiment 1, ratings of the probability
of a person having masculine traits were not
correlated with the rated probability of being
in a male occupation, r(108) = .11, p = .26.
Nor was the correlation between feminine
traits and female occupations significant,
r(108) = -.1 \,p = .26. In Experiment 2, cor-
relations between probability judgments of
occupations and role behaviors were low but
significant for both feminine and masculine
cases: r(179) = .22, p = .003, and r(179) =
.17, p = .02, respectively. These correlations
support previous evidence (Deaux & Lewis,
1983) that the components of gender stereo-
types are relatively independent; less than 5%
of the variance was explained by the largest
correlation obtained here.6
A second question of interest is the degree
to which masculine and feminine components
within a single domain may be related. Al-
though self-report measures of traits have
shown independence (cf. Spence et al., 1974;
Bern, 1974), it is not necessarily the case that
observers will view these dimensions as or-
thogonal. In fact, Foushee, Helmreich, and
Spence (1979) have reported that observers
use a bipolar schema when rating masculinity
and femininity of target persons. Such a bi-
polar view was evident in the present results
as well. In Experiment 1, judgments of the
probability of male traits showed a significant
negative correlation with judgments of female
traits, r(108) = -.5l,p = .001. In Experiment
2, the correlation between judgments of male
and female roles was lower but still significant,
r(179) = -.19, p = .009. The association be-
tween judgments of male and female occu-
pations was inconsistent across the two studies,
r(108) = -.03, ns in Experiment 1; r(179) =
-.53, p = .001, in Experiment 2.
Effect of information on judgments: Exper-
iment 1. In Experiment 1, subjects were given
information about gender and role behaviors,
and were asked to estimate the probability of
particular traits, of occupations, and of sexual
orientation.7 Mean probability judgments for
all conditions are shown in Table 1.
Two multivariate analyses of variance
(MANOVAS) were performed on the data, using
the two male components as dependent vari-
ables in one analysis and the two female com-
ponents as dependent variables in the other.
Results of the multivariate analysis for the
masculine measures showed significant effects
of both role information (p < .001) and gender
label (p = ,004). Neither the three-way inter-
action, the two-way interactions, nor the main
6
In Deaux and Lewis (1983), these correlations are
somewhat higher than in the present report because they
were
7
not normalized around each subject's mean judgment.
In rating the probability that'a person would have a
particular occupation, subjects appeared to have altered
their use of the scale. Rather than judging the probability
that, for example, a man would be a telephone installer
(logically a low number), subjects apparently switched to
estimating the probability that a telephone installer would
be a male, thus explaining why these means are higher
than one would expect. For other components, however,
it can not be assumed that the estimates should add to
100% because elements are not mutually exclusive.
996 KAY- DEAUX AND LAURIE L. LEWIS
Table 2
Summary of Univariate F-Tests From Multivariate Analyses: Experiment 1
Gender label
Dependent measure p» P I2
Masculine traits 4.96 .03
Feminine traits 0.33 .57
Male occupations 2.78 .10
Female occupations 1.0 .32
2,95.
effect of subject sex was significant in the mul-
tivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis of the
feminine measures showed significant effects
of role information (p < .001) and a weaker
effect for sex of subject (p = .05). In this case,
the effect of gender label was not significant;
nor were any of the interactions significant.
Subsequent univariate tests on each dependent
variable are shown in Table 2, together with
the variance estimates for each independent
variable.
As shown by the ij2 values in Table 2, prob-
ability estimates of both occupations and traits
were heavily influenced by jthe provided role
information and, to a much lesser extent, by
gender information. Only in the case of judg-
ments of female occupations was the provided
information not influential. Statistical com-
parison of the effect sizes supports the visual
interpretation.8 Differences between the con-
tributions of role and gender were significant
for male traits (p < .01), male occupations
(p < .01), and female traits (p < .05), but did
not differ for female occupations.
Within this pattern, however, there is one
anomalous finding. Although the effect of gen-
der was significant for judgments of masculine
traits, the direction was the opposite of that
which would be predicted, that is, females were
judged more likely to have instrumental traits
than were males. One explanation for this di-
vergence is that all of the selected role behaviors
might have implied some instrumental activity.
In judging the female stimulus person, this
implied instrumentality might have led to a
contrast effect in judgments, resulting in higher
ratings of instrumental traits for the woman
than for the man.9
Sex of subject played only a limited role in
these judgments. As indicated by the multi-
Role information
Fb P r,2
.05 20.85 <001 .31
.003 13.0 <.001 .22
.03 15.39 <.001 .24
.01 0.48 .62 .01
variate analysis, subject sex was significant only
in judgments of feminine characteristics. Uni-
variate tests showed that there were borderline
effects for both feminine traits (p = .06) and
female occupations (p = .07); in both cases
female subjects made slightly higher proba-
bility estimates than did males.
Although judgments of traits and occupa-
tions are influenced primarily by information
about role behavior, estimates of sexual pref-
erence are affected by the interaction between
role behavior and gender information, F(2,
95) = 9.75, p < .001, for judgments of het-
erosexuality; F(2, 95) = 7.05, p < .001 for
homosexuality. The pattern of these interac-
tions can be seen in Table 1. For both the male
and female stimulus persons, role information
that is inconsistent with gender leads to a sharp
decrease in the estimated probability of being
heterosexual and a sharp increase in the es-
timated probability of being homosexual. In
the case of the male stimulus person, this es-
timate of homosexuality reaches nearly .40
when female role behaviors are identified with
the person.
Results: Experiment 2
In Experiment 2, subjects were given in-
formation about gender and traits and were
8
The formula for comparing variance estimates, gen-
erously provided by B. }. Winer, is as followsiz = ZE\ -
Z£J/(2/W-3)" 2 .
'Those items suggesting the most instrumentality
(managing the house and being responsible for decoration)
were also the same two items that did not load on a com-
mon factor in Experiment 2, suggesting a methodological
artifact. At the same time, other investigators have also
reported instances in which women are judged higher in
instrumentality (e.g., Eagly & Steffen, 1984), suggesting
that the finding might not be totally artifactual.
 STRUCTURE OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 997

Table, 3
Mean Probability Judgments of Role Behaviors, Occupations, and Sexual Orientation: Experiment 2
Mean probability judgments
Trait information and Male role Female role Male Female Hetero- Homo-
gender label behaviors behaviors occ. occ. sexuality sexuality

Feminine traits
Female label .50 .86 .30 .61 .83 .26
Person label .59 .85 .36 .62 .68 .36
Male label .67 .82 .47 .56 . .66 .40
Masculine traits
Female label .68 .63 .56 .43 .78 .27
Person label .82 .65 .55 .40 .84 .15
Male label .84 .63 .55 .35 .82 .20
Mixed traits
Female label .64 .76 .45 .60 .71 .30
Person label .71 .79 .40 .55 .72 .36
Male label .74 .74 .45 .44 .86 .17
Note. occ. = occupations.

asked to estimate the probability of selected
role behaviors, of occupations, and of sexual
orientation. Mean probability judgments for
all dependent variables in all conditions are
shown in Table 3. Again, MANOVAS were per-
formed on the data, followed up with uni-
variate tests when appropriate. In judgments
of masculine characteristics, the multivariate
analysis showed significant effects for trait in-
formation and gender label (p < .001, in both
cases) and no effects of subject sex or any in-
teractions. Judgments of female characteristics
were significantly affected by gender label (p =
.02), trait information (p < .001) and subject
sex (p = .004). Once again, none of the in-
teractions was significant. Summaries of the
univariate tests are shown in Table 4, together
with variance estimates.
Estimates of the probability of occupations
and role behaviors were heavily influenced by
trait information and, to a lesser extent, by
gender identification. Statistical comparison of
the variance estimates shows that the contri-
bution of trait information was significantly
greater in judgments of male occupations (p <
.01), female occupations (p < .05), and female
role behaviors (p < .01). In the case of male
role behaviors, the contribution of both factors
was substantial and not significantly different.
Males were consistently believed to be more
likely than females to display male role be-
haviors, no matter what kind of trait infor-
mation was provided. In contrast, estimates
of the probability of female role behaviors were
influenced only by the type of trait information
provided, and were unaffected by gender in-
formation.
There was a main effect for trait information
on judgments of both heterosexuality, F(2,
159) = 2.97, p = .05, and homosexuality, F(2,

Table 4
Summary of Univariate F-Tests From Multivariate Analyses; Experiment 2
Gender label Trait information
Dependent measure F" P J F" P r,2

Male role behaviors 24.02 <.001 .23 36.69 <.001 .32

Female role behaviors 0.64 .53 .008 29.03 <001 .27
Male occupations 3.08 .05 .04 22.52 <001 .22
Female occupations 5.64 .004 .07 24.21 <.001 .23
i = 2, 158.
998 KAY DEAUX AND LAURIE L. LEWIS
159) = 7.39, p = .001, suggesting that pos-
session of feminine traits increases the per-
ceived probability of homosexuality and re-
duces the probability of heterosexuality. How-
ever, in both cases these main effects were
qualified by the interaction of gender label and
trait information: for heterosexuality, F(4,
159) = 4.03, p = .004; for homosexuality, .F(4,
159) = 3.88, p = .005. These significant in-
teractions reflect two tendencies. First, judg-
ments of female sexuality are relatively unaf-
fected by trait information whereas judgments
of male sexuality are influenced quite strongly
by trait information. Second, sexuality esti-
mates for the neutral person tend to parallel
judgments of the male, suggesting that the in-
definite person is more closely associated with
a male than with a female.
In areas other than sexuality, however, this
association between person and male is not
terribly strong. (Nor did Deaux & Lewis, 1983,
find any consistent pattern of association.)
Further, when subjects were asked to estimate
whether the person was male or female, prob-
ability judgments paralleled provided trait in-
formation. Rated probabilities of the person
being a male were .62, .58, and .46 when sub-
jects were provided masculine, mixed, and
feminine trait information, respectively; es-
timated probability that the person was a fe-
male were .45, .59, and .66 for the same three
conditions.
Sex of subject effects were again limited to
the judgment of feminine characteristics. Uni-
variate tests indicated that sex differences were
significant in the judgment of female occu-
pations, F( 1, 158)= 10.12,^= .002, and bor-
derline in the judgments of female roles, F(l,
158) = 3.16, p = .08. In both cases, judgments
by women were higher than those by men.
Discussion
Gender stereotypes appear to consist of a
number of separate components that are rel-
atively independent of each other. At the same
time, when a person is given information about
one particular component, he or she will use
that information to infer the existence of other
gender-related characteristics that are consis-
tent with the initial information. Thus, if peo-
ple are given specific information about role
behaviors, they shape their estimates of traits
accordingly, and vice versa. Similarly, either
role or trait information has been shown to
affect other judgments, specifically occupa-
tional likelihood and sexual orientation. In
fact, the latter estimates are quite striking. A
male who is described by such traits as emo-
tional, gentle, understanding of others and
kind, for example, is given a .40 chance of
being homosexual. Similarly, a mean estimate
of .39 for being homosexual was obtained
when a male was described as being a source
of emotional support, managing the house,
taking care of children, and decorating the
house. Although estimates of heterosexuality
were higher in each case, it is still notable how
strongly the estimates shifted in the face of
quite minimal information. These results ex-
tend the findings of Storms, Stivers, Lambers,
and Hill (1981), who found that "masculine"
women were rated as more homosexual than
"feminine" women.
In general, the effects of specific trait or role
behavior information was greater than the in-
formation provided by gender label. Thus as
suggested by Locksley et al. (1980), specific
information about a target may account for
more variance than gender in subsequent be-
havior and trait predictions. At the same time
and in a manner consistent with the arguments
of Grant and Holmes (1981, 1982), these ef-
fects are not restricted to judgments in do-
mains identical to those provided in the initial
information. Before this argument is extended,
however, it is important to determine its gen-
erality.
Although we have argued that there are a
number of components of stereotypes, only
two were manipulated in the previous studies.
Role behaviors and traits may have unique
properties, and/or they may be more closely
linked to other components than would be
occupations or physical characteristics. Thus
in the third study, information about each of
the four components identified in earlier re-
search (Deaux & Lewis, 1983) was presented
and judgments were made about the proba-
bility of the stimulus person having charac-
teristics in each of the other components. By
presenting subjects with each type of infor-
mation, it is possible to determine the weight
that each component has on judgments of
other components. Further, one can begin to
assess the degree to which components have
 STRUCTURE OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 999

reciprocal effects on one another or, in con- groups of approximately 40. All conditions were repre-
trast, the degree to which two components may sented within a single testing session, and the general pro-
cedures were identical to those of Experiments 1 and 2,
have a more unidirectional influence (for ex- with the additional explanation that the subject would be
ample, physical characteristics may affect in- making judgments about several different people, rather
ferences of traits, but traits may not influence than only one.
judgments of physical characteristics as
strongly). Additional goals of the third study Results
were to replicate the previous findings, using
improved component manipulations devel- As in the previous studies, multivariate tests
oped by Deaux and Lewis (1983). were conducted and followed up with uni-
variate tests. These analyses were conducted
separately for each independent variable. A
Experiment 3 summary of these analyses, together with sig-
Method nificance levels of the differences between
variance estimates, are presented in Table 5.
Subjects and design. A total of 171 students (83 male, Again, it can be seen that the influence of
88 female) participated in the experiment as one means specific component information is far greater
of fulfilling an introductory psychology course requirement.
A 2 X 3 X 3 X 4 between-within design was used, with than gender label. The i?2 values show that
sex of subject, gender label (man, woman, or person), and gender label never accounts for more than 19%
type of stimulus information (masculine, feminine, or of the variance, whereas type of stimulus in-
mixed) as between-subjects factors. Component infor- formation accounts for much larger amounts
mation was a within-subjects factor. Within each condition
for four successive stimulus persons, a subject was given of the variance—up to 79% in the judgment
information about one of four stereotype components of male occupations when male physical char-
(traits, role behaviors, occupations, or physical character- acteristics were the independent variable. In
istics) and was asked to estimate the probability that thegeneral, the results obtained when either roles
stimulus person had each of the other components.10 The or traits were the independent variables are
order of presentation was counterbalanced.
Stimulus material. The four information components comparable to the results of Experiments 1
used as independent variables were traits, role behaviors, and 2, respectively. In Experiment 3, some of
physical appearance, and occupation. Trait manipulations the interactions between gender label and
were the same as those used in Experiment 2. Role be- stimulus information also proved to be sig-
haviors provided in each of the three conditions were as
follows: (masculine) financial provider, head of household, nificant, although typically at much lower lev-
takes initiative with the opposite sex, assumes financial els than either of the main effects. To the extent
obligations; (feminine) takes care of children, tends the that a pattern was detectable, it appears that
house, does the laundry, cooks the meals; (mixed) financial judgments of the sex-unspecified person were
provider, takes care of children, cooks the meals, head of more extremely polarized toward the sex link-
household. Physical descriptors for the masculine condition
were tall, strong, sturdy, and broad-shouldered, and for age of the stimulus information.
the feminine condition, soft voice, dainty, graceful, and Notable in Table 5 is the substantial amount
soft. When occupation was the independent variable, only of variance that information about physical
a single item was provided because of the obvious im- characteristics explains. For every dependent
possibility of a person having four occupations. Four dif-
ferent examples were used in both the masculine and fem- variable, the effect of physical appearance in-
inine conditions, however, counterbalanced across con- formation is considerable, significantly out-
ditions. These eight occupations were telephone installer, weighing the contribution of gender label that
police officer, automobile mechanic, construction worker, never accounts for even 1% of the variance.
hairdresser, secretary, telephone operator, and registered In contrast, trait information is considerably
nurse.
Dependent variables. Each item that was part of a less potent, exerting significant influence but
component in the manipulation of independent variables statistically outweighing the information of
also served as a dependent variable on three occasions. simple gender label only in judgments of male
Thus, for example, subjects were asked to judge the prob- occupations.
ability that a stimulus person had each of the eight physical
characteristics on three separate occasions; when presented
with role information, when presented with trait infor- 10
mation, and when presented with an occupational label. Subjects in the mixed-information condition did not
Alpha coefficients for each of these dependent variable receive either physical characteristics or occupation as an
sets ranged from .75 to .95. independent variable because of the noncredibility of the
Procedure. Subjects participated in the experiment in combined information.
1000 KAY DEAUX AND LAURIE L. LEWIS

The influence of each type of information themselves to be strongly influenced by gender-

on judgments of other stereotype components
can be seen in the means of Table 6. It is clear
that the probability estimates parallel the pro-
vided stimulus information. For example,
given masculine traits, the estimate of male
roles is .79 and the estimate of female roles
is .54; given feminine traits, the estimate of
male roles is .58 and the estimate of female
roles is .70. This pattern holds true even when
information is combined across sex of stimulus
person, as it is in Table 6.
Judgments of sexual orientation again show
related information, specifically when either
role behaviors or physical characteristics are
the independent variables. The interaction be-
tween gender label and stimulus information
is particularly strong in the latter case: F(2,
103) = 9.85, p = .001, for judgments of ho-
mosexuality (F = 6.86,p = .001, for judgments
of heterosexuality). A male described in terms
of feminine physical characteristics is esti-
mated to have a .58 probability of being ho-
mosexual and a .56 probability of being het-
erosexual. The corresponding mean judgments

Table 5
Summary ofUnivariate F-Tests From Multivariate Analyses: Experiment 3
Type of stimulus
Gender label information Difference
between
Dependent variable ri2 values

Independent variable: Traits"

Male roles 17.11 <.001 .19 40.96 <.001 .35 m
Female roles 7.55 .001 .09 14.81 <.001 .16 ns
Male occ. 10.33 <.001 .12 19.53 <.001 .21 .05
Female occ. 10.83 <.001 .13 14.24 <.001 .16 ns
Male phys. char. 3.79 .02 .05 12.53 <.001 .14 ns
Female phys. char. 12.13 <.001 .14 14.90 <.001 .16 ns

Independent variable: Rolesb

Male traits 7.71 .001 .09 37.22 <.001 .33 .01
Female traits 2.45 .09 .03 14.05 <.001 .16 .05
Male occ. 7.81 .001 .09 56.05 <.001 .43 .01
Female occ. 1.71 .18 .02 1.59 .21 .02 ns
Male phys. char. 0.10 .91 .001 11.06 <.001 .13 .01
Female phys. char. 1.10 .33 .01 6.21 ..003 .08 ns

Independent variable: Occupations0

Male traits 4.20 .02 .08 7.66 .007 .07 ns
Female traits 0.14 .87 .003 13.53 <.001 .12 .05
Male roles 0.37 .69 .007 30.31 <.001 .23 .01
Female roles 9.60 <.001 .16 40.76 <.001 .29 ns
Male phys. char. 0.61 .54 .01 60.77 <.001 .38 .01
Female phys. char. 4.41 .02 .08 47.39 <.001 .32 .05

Independent variable: Physical characteristics'

Male traits 1.31 .28 .03 147.69 <.001 .60 .01
Female traits 1.16 .32 .02 48.41 <.001 .33 .01
Male roles 4.40 .02 .08 117.67 <.001 .54 .01
Female roles 3.98 .02 .08 38.73 <.001 .28 .05
Male occ. 1.51 .22 .03 367.87 <.001 .79 .01
Female occ. 0.28 .76 .006 68.17 <.001 .41 .01
Note. occ. = occupations; phys. char. = physical characteristics.
' dfe = 2, 150. b dfs = 2, 152.' dfa = 2, 99 for gender label; dfe -- 1, 99 for stimulus information.
 STRUCTURE OF GENDER STEREOTYPES 1001

for a female described by male physical char- probability estimate of having feminine traits.
acteristics are .40 and .69. In each case, probability judgments of one
Exploration of the relative influence of component (e.g., feminine traits) served as a
components on one another was done by con- repeated measure when three different com-
ducting a series of repeated measures ANOVAS ponents were the independent variables (e.g.,
on the data, thereby assessing, for example, roles, physical characteristics, and occupa-
which type of information led to the highest tions), with sex linkage of the stimulus infor-
mation (i.e., male, female, or mixed) held con-
stant in each analysis. Although this form of
Table 6
analysis does not have the power that the use
Mean Probability Judgments: Experiment 3 of a nonhierarchical model with a complete
factorial design would yield, it can provide
Type of information suggestive evidence regarding the links between
components.
Dependent variable Masculine Feminine Mixed The majority of these analyses yielded sig-
Independent variable: Traits nificant findings, suggesting that the compo-
nents were not equivalent in their influence.
Male roles .79 .58 .69 For example, when the required judgment was
Female roles .54 .70 .64
Male occ. .56 .39 .45
the probability of the person having masculine
Female occ. .48 .62 .53 traits, information about male role behavior
Male phys. char. .65 .55 .63 led to a higher judged probability (.79) than
Female phys. char. .52 .63 .53 did information about masculine physical
Heterosexual .80 .73 .80 characteristics (.75) or a male occupation (.72),
Homosexual .25 .32 .24
with the difference among these means sig-
Independent variable: Roles nificant beyond the .001 level. (These means
can be found in the first column of Table 6.)
Male traits .79 .63 .73 Although the patterns of these differences were
Female traits .62 .74 .71
Male occ. .57 .29 .43 not totally consistent across various compo-
Female occ. .47 .51 .52 nent combinations, inspection of judgments
Male phys. char. .65 .55 .58 made when independent and dependent vari-
Female phys. char. .50 .58 .52 able components were gender-consistent sug-
Heterosexual .81 ,75 .76 gest some tentative regularities. Role behavior
Homosexual .22 .27 .25
information tended to lead to the highest
Independent variable: Occupations
judged probability of traits, and vice versa, for
both male-linked and female-linked compo-
Male traits .72 .65 nents, suggesting that these two components
Female traits .58 .67
Male roles .75 .61
have the strongest implicative links. Within
Female roles .47 .65 the masculine domain, occupation and phys-
Male phys. char. .70 .54 ical characteristics had the strongest influence
Female phys. char. .39 .56 on one another, for example, the probability
Heterosexual .75 .73 of a male occupation was judged highest when
Homosexual .28 .35
masculine physical information (as opposed
Independent variable: Physical characteristics to trait or role behavior information) was pro-
vided, and the probability of masculine phys-
Male traits .75 .48 ical characteristics was highest when the person
Female traits .57 .74
was described as having a male-dominant oc-
Male roles .74 .46
Female roles .48 .66 cupation. For the female domain, feminine
Male occ. .64 .26 traits led to the highest judged probability of
Female occ. .36 .62 a person having feminine physical character-
Heterosexual .76 .68 istics, whereas judgments of the probability of
Homosexual .30 .39
a female occupation were highest when either
Note. occ. = occupations; phys. char, physical char- trait or physical information was provided. As
acteristics. noted earlier, these results must be considered
1002 KAY DEAUX AND LAURIE L. LEWIS
tentative, yet they do suggest that the linkages
between components vary in their strength.
General Discussion
Gender stereotypes are best described in
terms of a set of components. Although these
components are relatively independent of one
another, information about one component
can implicate other components in systematic
ways. Gender information alone does lead to
the inference of certain sets of characteristics,
with the strength of the inference depending
on the particular component. In most cases,
however, the influence of gender can be out-
weighed by other information, such as role
behaviors, traits, and the like.
From one perspective, these findings support
the contention of Locksley that information
about specific characteristics of the stimulus
persons should have a greater impact on sub-
jects' judgments than information about their
categorical membership. Yet we would not
conclude that the findings demonstrate that
stereotypes are unimportant. As Grant and
Holmes (1981, 1982) have shown, clusters of
information are gathered together under the
stereotype umbrella, and information about
one component may implicate others. To un-
derstand stereotypes in general, and gender
stereotypes in particular, one must be con-
cerned with this linkage. Taking one isolated
element and showing that it can outweigh the
influence of gender does not neutralize the
concept of stereotype nor does it provide much
insight into the durability and pervasiveness
of stereotypes. One may, for example, describe
a male in terms of feminine traits and min-
imize a person's use of typically male-asso-
ciated traits in the further description of that
person, thereby demonstrating that specific
trait information can outweigh gender in sub-
sequent trait judgments. Yet at the same time,
it appears that people will take that trait in-
formation and paint another portrait of the
man in question that shows evidence of ste-
reotypical thinking—in this case, a male with
a wide range of typically feminine character-
istics, including role behaviors, occupations,
and physical attributes.
That the scope of these stereotypical linkages
is considerable is further evidenced by the pat-
tern of judgments in this study. Whereas Grant
and Holmes (1981) found that people made
trait inferences on the basis of other trait in-
formation and Locksley et al. (1980) asked for
judgments of behavior following information
on very similar behavior, subjects in the present
study showed that they are not averse to cross-
ing domains, for example, moving with ap-
parent ease from information about physical
characteristics to inferences about traits, oc-
cupations, and role behaviors. Such ready
generalizations underline the importance of
studying stereotypes as a collection of com-
ponents that implicate each other, rather than
isolating a single component.
On the basis of these results, we may begin
to think of the process of stereotyping as a
sequence of inferences. Given only gender la-
bel, people will infer a variety of gender-related
characteristics, as Deaux and Lewis (1983)
have shown. For example, people will estimate
the probability that a male is strong as ,66 and
that a woman is strong as .44. Given more
specific, and presumably more diagnostic in-
formation, the influence of gender label is di-
minished, and the resultant judgment is based
primarily on the identifying information. As
Locksley et al. (1982) have suggested, the im-
pact of this information will not be affected
by its consistency with the previous gender
label, supported in our case by the nearly
complete absence (with the exception of judg-
ments of sexual orientation) of interactions
between gender label and stimulus informa-
tion.
On the basis of these results, one may also
speculate that concepts of male and female
are not totally separate stereotypes. First, there
is the finding that implications from provided
information are not altered by gender label,
suggesting that the concepts do not have
unique influences on subsequent processing.
Second, it appears that people deal with in-
consistency between gender label and infor-
mation by inferring consistency among com-
ponents and disregarding gender label. Such
an interpretation would be consistent with a
view of the individual maintaining a bipolar
conception of masculinity and femininity,
simply shifting from one end of the dimension
to the other when faced with specific gender-
linked information. (Negative correlations be-
tween masculine and feminine components in
the same domain are also consistent with this
 STRUCTURE OF GENDER STEREOTYPES
interpretation.) Thus the popular terminology
of the opposite sex may reflect an underlying
principle in ,the cognitive construction of
gender.
In depicting this sequence of inferences, we
should note that the present data suggest that
the influence of the various components is not
equally strong. Trait information, for example,
does not always outweigh gender label whereas
physical appearance cues always do. It is, of
course, unwise to make any absolute state-
ments about the strength of these components,
as their impact may depend on the particular
selection of items used to create the compo-
nent. At the same time, however, it should be
noted that, in the abstract, each of these com-
ponent measures is associated with gender to
about the same degree. Thus Deaux and Lewis
(1983) reported that the probabilities of mas-
culine components being associated with a
male are .67, .80, .71, and .75 for physical
characteristics, role behaviors, occupations,
and traits, respectively. Similar patterns were
observed for other combinations of gender and
component information. Interesting about
these figures is the fact that the association
between physical characteristics and gender is
somewhat weaker than is true for the other
components. Yet once that information about
physical appearance is provided, people seem
to rely heavily on it to make inferences about
other aspects of the person.
The importance of physical appearance cues
to an understanding of gender stereotypes can
not be minimized. Although we most.im-
mediately identify women and men by their
physical appearance, it is surprising that in-
vestigators have given so little thought to this
aspect of gender stereotypes. In the present
case, a relatively limited amount of infor-
mation about physical characteristics proved
to be far more influential than gender label in
subsequent judgments, and it outweighed gen-
der to a greater extent than did any of the
other components.
McArthur (1982) has recently suggested that
physical appearance is critically involved in
many aspects of the stereotyping process. Al-
though her analysis does not deal specifically
with gender, other evidence is consistent with
the prominence of physical appearance found
in the present study. Kessler and McKenna
(1978), for example, found that in the absence
1003
of information about genitalia and chromo-
somes, people rely on physical characteristics
to make gender attributions—to a much
greater extent than they use information about
role behaviors and traits. Ashmore and Del
Boca (1979) have identified three different
types of attributes associated with stereotypes:
defining, identifying, and ascribed, exemplified
by genitalia, physical stature, and traits. If we
conceptualize these three types of attributes
as a hierarchy in which the overlap between
the stereotypical male and female increases as
one moves from defining to ascribed charac-
teristics, then the results found in the present
study may appear more understandable. Males
and females are viewed as more different on
physical dimensions than they are on psycho-
logical dimensions; hence information about
physical characteristics may be more diag-
nostic than is the less differentiated trait in-
formation. ''
Previous research on physical attractiveness
(Berscheid & Walster, 1974) demonstrates how
pervasive the effects of physical appearance
can be. In the case of gender stereotypes, rec-
ognizing the importance of physical descrip-
tors has some important implications. Al-
though one may, with greater or lesser degrees
of difficulty, modify one's traits, role behaviors,
or even occupation, it is somewhat more dif-
ficult to modify aspects of physical appearance.
Thus if that aspect of gender-related behavior
that is most difficult to change is also the most
potent source of stereotyping, the continued
strength of these stereotypes seems likely. As
a further implication, consider the case of ini-
tial encounters. On such occasions, one may
learn little about an individual's personality
or role behaviors in the family, but the observer
is immediately aware of the physical infor-
mation. Self-fulfilling prophecies and expec-
tancy confirmation sequences (cf. Darley &
Fazio, 1980) may thus begin to operate before
potentially disconfirming information is avail-
able, ensuring the perpetuation of gender ste-
reotypes.
In summary, -approaching gender stereo-
types by simple elicitation of associations with
1
' The items included in the present definition of physical
characteristics carry some trait implications as well. Were
"purer" physical items selected, it is possible that the effect
of physical information might have been even stronger.
1004 KAY DEAUX AND LAURIE L. LEWIS
the label of female or male may suggest greater
strength than these labels have. At the same
time, the present exploration of the linkages
among stereotype components attests to the
network of beliefs that are associated with
gender and underlines the importance of con-
sidering both the structure and process of gen-
der stereotypes rather than simply descriptive
content.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes
and implicit personality theory: Toward a cognitive-
social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5,
219-248.
Ashmore, R, D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual
approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. L.
Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and
intergroup behavior (pp. 1-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological
androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 42, 155-162.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 158-
216.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clark-
son, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role ste-
reotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues,
28(2), 59-78.
Campbell, D. T. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception
of group differences. American Psychologist, 22, 817-
829.
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1977). Traits as prototypes:
Effects on recognition memory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 35, 38-48.
Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confir-
mation processes arising in the social interaction se-
quence. American Psychologist, 35, 867-881.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1983). Components of gender
stereotypes. Psychological Documents, 13, 25. (Ms. No.
2583).
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes
stem from the distribution of women and men into
social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46, 735-754.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1982). Inferred sex differences
in status as a determinant of gender stereotypes about
social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 43, 915-928.
Foushee, H. C., Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1979).
Implicit theories of masculinity and femininity: Dualistic
or bipolar? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 259-
269.
Grant, P. R., & Holmes, J. G. (1981). The integration of
implicit personality theory schemas and stereotype im-
ages. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 107-115.
Grant, P. R., & Holmes, J. G. (1982). The influence of
stereotypes in impression formation: A reply to Locksley,
Hepburn, and Ortiz. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45,
274-276.
Hamilton, D. L. (1979). A cognitive-attributional analysis
of stereotyping. Advances in Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 12, 53-81.
Hamilton, D. L. (Ed.). (1981). Cognitive processes in ste-
reotyping and intergroup^ behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Howard, J. W, & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categori-
zation and memory for in-group and out-group behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301-
310.
Katz, D., & Braly, K. W. (1933). Racial stereotypes of
one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 28, 280-290.
Kessler, S. J., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An eth-
nomethodological approach. New York: Wiley.
Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt,
Brace.
Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C.
(1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 821-831.
Locksley, A., Hepburn, C., & Ortiz, V. (1982). On the
effect of social stereotypes on judgments of individuals:
A comment on Grant and Holmes's "The integration
of implicit personality theory schemas and stereotypic
images." Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 270-273.
McArthur, L. Z, (1982). Judging a book by its cover: A
cognitive analysis of the relationship between physical
appearance and stereotyping. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M.
Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 149-211).
New York: Elsevier.
McCauley, C., Stitt, C. L., & Segal, M. (1980). Stereotyping:
From prejudice to prediction. Psychological Bulletin,
87, 195-208.
Miller, A. G. (Ed.). (1982). In the eye of the beholder:
Contemporary issues in stereotyping. New York: Praeger.
Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural represen-
tations of implicit personality theory. Advances in Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 6, 235-293.
Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, S., Bee, H., Broverman, I., & Brov-
erman, D. M. (1968). Sex-role stereotypes and self-con-
cepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 32, 287-295.
Schneider, D. J., & Blankmeyer, B. L. (1983). Prototype
salience and implicit personality theories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 712-722.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). The
personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex-role
stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog
of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43. (Ms. No.
617)
Spence, J. T, Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings
of self and peers on sex-role attributes and their rela-
tionship to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity
and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 32, 29-39.
Storms, M. D., Stivers, M. L., Lambers, S. M., & Hill,
C. A. (1981). Sexual scripts for women. Sex Roles, 7,
699-707.
Received July 22, 1982
Revision received November 9, 1983