首页> 外文期刊>Psychological Bulletin >Recognizing the centrality of gender identity and stereotype knowledge in gender development and moving toward theoretical integration: Reply to Bandura and Bussey (2004)
【24h】

Recognizing the centrality of gender identity and stereotype knowledge in gender development and moving toward theoretical integration: Reply to Bandura and Bussey (2004)

机译:认识到性别认同和刻板印象知识在性别发展中的中心地位并走向理论整合:对班杜拉和布西的回复(2004年)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Most of the critique in the A. Bandura and K. Bussey (2004) commentary is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the points made by C. L. Martin, D. N. Ruble, and J. Szkrybalo in their 2002 Psychological Bulletin article. First, Martin et al. never intended to present a comprehensive theory; instead, it was a review of 2 different cognitive approaches to gender development. Second, there is no time line test that has been failed; instead, gender cognitions may occur earlier than initially believed. Third, Bandura and Bussey dismissed central gender cognitions-gender identity and gender Stereotype knowledge - despite considerable evidence in their support. Fourth, Bandura and Bussey never addressed the gaps and ambiguities inherent in their theory that Martin et al. questioned in their earlier article. Finally, Bandura and Bussey's misunderstandings of cognitive theorists' views on socialization agents, sociocultural influences, agency, and motivation created theoretical rifts where none exist.
机译:A. Bandura和K. Bussey(2004)评论中的大多数批评是对C. L. Martin,D。N. Ruble和J. Szkrybalo在其2002年《心理公报》中的观点的误解或歪曲。首先,马丁等。从未打算提出一个全面的理论;相反,它是对两种不同的性别发展认知方法的综述。其次,没有时间轴测试失败。相反,性别认知可能早于最初认为的发生。第三,班杜拉和布西(Bandura)和布西(Bussey)驳斥了中央的性别认知,性别认同和性别刻板印象知识,尽管他们支持了很多证据。第四,班杜拉(Bandura)和布西(Bussey)从未解决过马丁(Martin)等人的理论中固有的空白和歧义。在他们较早的文章中受到质疑。最后,班杜拉和布西对认知理论家对社会化主体,社会文化影响,代理和动机的观点的误解造成了理论裂痕,而这种裂痕根本不存在。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号