{"id":3633,"date":"2013-02-01T00:25:44","date_gmt":"2013-01-31T23:25:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=3633"},"modified":"2013-02-01T00:26:25","modified_gmt":"2013-01-31T23:26:25","slug":"stereotypes-women-and-chocolate-is-the-stereotype-true","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2013\/02\/stereotypes-women-and-chocolate-is-the-stereotype-true\/","title":{"rendered":"Stereotypes: Women and chocolate, is the stereotype true?"},"content":{"rendered":"

At an icecream dinner party the question came up whether women actually like chocolate more than men. Stereotypes are known to often be correct, so i was curius. Quoting from Pinker’s The Blank Slate<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n

The idea that stereotypes are inherently irrational owes more to a condescension toward ordinary
\npeople than it does to good psychological research. Many researchers, having shown that
\nstereotypes existed in the minds of their subjects, assumed that the stereotypes had to be
\nirrational, because they were uncomfortable with the possibility that some trait might be
\nstatistically true of some group. They never actually checked. That began to change in the 1980s,
\nand now a fair amount is known about the accuracy of stereotypes.14<\/p>\n

With some important exceptions, stereotypes are in fact\u00a0 not\u00a0 inaccurate when assessed against
\nobjective benchmarks such as census figures or the reports of the stereotyped people themselves.
\nPeople who believe that African Americans are more likely to be on welfare than whites, that
\nJews have higher average incomes than WASPs, that business students are more conservative
\nthan students in the arts, that women are more likely than men to want to lose weight, and that
\nmen are more likely than women to swat a fly with their bare hands, are not being irrational or
\nbigoted. Those beliefs are correct. People’s stereotypes are generally consistent with the
\nstatistics, and in many cases their bias is to underestimate the real differences between sexes or
\nethnic groups.15 This does not mean that the stereotyped traits are unchangeable, of course, or
\nthat people think they are unchangeable, only that people perceive the traits fairly accurately at
\nthe time.<\/p>\n

Moreover, even when people believe that ethnic groups have characteristic\u00a0 traits, they are never
\nmindless stereotypers who literally believe that each and every member of the group possesses
\nthose traits. People may think that Germans are, on average, more efficient than non-Germans,
\nbut no one believes that every last German is more efficient than every non-German.16 And
\npeople have no trouble overriding a stereotype when they have good information about an
\nindividual. Contrary to a common accusation, teachers\u2018 impressions of their individual pupils are
\nnot contaminated by their stereotypes of race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The teachers\u2018
\nimpressions accurately reflect the pupil’s performance as measured by objective tests.17<\/p>\n

Now for the important exceptions. Stereotypes can be downright inaccurate when a person has
\nfew or no firsthand encounters with the stereotyped\u00a0\u00a0 {205}\u00a0 group, or belongs to a group that is
\novertly hostile to the one being judged. During World War II, when the Russians were allies of
\nthe United States and the Germans were enemies, Americans judged Russians to have more
\npositive traits than Germans. Soon afterward, when the alliances reversed, Americans judged
\nGermans to have more positive traits than Russians.18<\/p>\n

Also, people’s ability to set aside stereotypes when judging\u00a0 an individual is accomplished by
\ntheir conscious, deliberate reasoning. When people are distracted or put under pressure to
\nrespond quickly, they are more likely to judge that a member of an ethnic group has all the
\nstereotyped traits of the group.19\u00a0 This comes from the two-part design of the human
\ncategorization system mentioned earlier. Our network of fuzzy associations naturally reverts to a
\nstereotype when we\u00a0 first encounter an individual. But our rule-based categorizer can block out
\nthose associations and make deductions based on the relevant facts about that individual. It can
\ndo so either for practical reasons, when information about a group-wide average is\u00a0 less
\ndiagnostic than information about the individual, or for social and moral reasons, out of respect
\nfor the imperative that one\u00a0 ought\u00a0 to ignore certain group-wide averages when judging an
\nindividual.<\/p>\n

The upshot of this research is not that stereotypes\u00a0 are always accurate but that they are not
\nalways false, or even usually false. This is just what we would expect if human categorization \u2014
\nlike the rest of the mind \u2014\u00a0 is an adaptation that keeps track of aspects of the world that are
\nrelevant to our long-term well-being. As the social psychologist Roger Brown pointed out, the
\nmain difference between categories of people and categories of other things is that when you use
\na prototypical exemplar to stand for a category of things, no one takes offense. When Webster’s
\ndictionary used a sparrow to stand for all birds, \u2015emus and ostriches and penguins and eagles did
\nnot go on the attack.\u2016 But just imagine what would have happened if Webster’s had used a
\npicture of a soccer mom to illustrate woman and a picture of a business executive to illustrate
\nman. Brown remarks, \u2015Of course, people would be right to take offense since a prototype can
\nnever represent the variation that exists in natural categories. It’s just that birds don’t care but
\npeople do.” 20<\/p>\n

What are the implications of the fact that many stereotypes are statistically accurate? One is that
\ncontemporary scientific research on sex differences cannot be dismissed just because some of the
\nfindings are consistent with traditional stereotypes of men and women. Some parts of those
\nstereotypes may be false, but the mere fact that they are stereotypes does not prove that they are
\nfalse in every respect.<\/p>\n

and so on. What about women and chocolate?<\/p>\n

Chocolate craving and liking<\/a><\/p>\n

Abstract.<\/p>\n

Liking\u00a0 and\u00a0 craving\u00a0 for\u00a0 chocolate\u00a0 and\u00a0 related\u00a0 substances\u00a0 were\u00a0 surveyed\u00a0 in\u00a0 a
\nsample\u00a0 of\u00a0 University\u00a0 of Pennsylvania\u00a0 undergraduates\u00a0 (n = 249)\u00a0 and\u00a0 their\u00a0 parents
\n(n=\u00a0 319).\u00a0 Chocolate\u00a0 was\u00a0 highly\u00a0 liked\u00a0 in\u00a0 all\u00a0 groups,\u00a0 with\u00a0 a\u00a0 stronger\u00a0 liking\u00a0 by
\nfemales.\u00a0 Chocolate\u00a0 is\u00a0 the\u00a0 most\u00a0 craved\u00a0 food\u00a0 among\u00a0 females,\u00a0 and\u00a0 is\u00a0 craved\u00a0 by
\nalmost\u00a0 half\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 female\u00a0 sample\u00a0 (in\u00a0 both\u00a0 age\u00a0 groups).\u00a0 Although\u00a0 this\u00a0 craving\u00a0 is
\nrelated\u00a0 to\u00a0 a\u00a0 sweet\u00a0 craving,\u00a0 it\u00a0 cannot\u00a0 be\u00a0 accounted\u00a0 for\u00a0 as\u00a0 a\u00a0 craving\u00a0 for\u00a0 sweets.
\nAbout\u00a0 half\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 female\u00a0 cravers\u00a0 show\u00a0 a\u00a0 very\u00a0 well\u00a0 defined\u00a0 craving\u00a0 peak\u00a0 for
\nchocolate\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 perimenstrual\u00a0 period,\u00a0 beginning\u00a0 from\u00a0 a\u00a0 few days\u00a0 before\u00a0 the\u00a0 onset
\nof\u00a0 menses\u00a0 and\u00a0 extending\u00a0 into\u00a0 the\u00a0 first\u00a0 few\u00a0 days\u00a0 of\u00a0 menses.\u00a0 There\u00a0 is\u00a0 not\u00a0 a
\nsignificant\u00a0 relation\u00a0 in\u00a0 chocolate\u00a0 craving\u00a0 or\u00a0 liking\u00a0 between\u00a0 parents\u00a0 and\u00a0 their
\nchildren.\u00a0 The\u00a0 current\u00a0 motivation\u00a0 for\u00a0 chocolate\u00a0 preference\u00a0 seems\u00a0 to\u00a0 be\u00a0 primarily,
\nif not\u00a0 entirely,\u00a0 sensory.\u00a0 Liking\u00a0 for\u00a0 chocolate\u00a0 correlates\u00a0 significantly\u00a0 with\u00a0 liking\u00a0 for
\nsweets\u00a0 and\u00a0 white\u00a0 chocolate.\u00a0 The\u00a0 liking\u00a0 for\u00a0 the\u00a0 sensory\u00a0 properties\u00a0 could\u00a0 originate
\nin\u00a0 innate\u00a0 or\u00a0 acquired\u00a0 liking\u00a0 based\u00a0 on\u00a0 the\u00a0 sweetness,\u00a0 texture\u00a0 and\u00a0 aroma\u00a0 of
\nchocolate,\u00a0 or\u00a0 it\u00a0 could\u00a0 be based\u00a0 in\u00a0 part\u00a0 on\u00a0 interactions\u00a0 between\u00a0 the\u00a0 postingestional
\neffects\u00a0 of\u00a0 chocolate\u00a0 and\u00a0 a\u00a0 person\u2019s\u00a0 state\u00a0 (e.g.,\u00a0 mood,\u00a0 hormone\u00a0 levels).\u00a0 Based\u00a0 on
\ncorrelational\u00a0 data,\u00a0 we\u00a0 find\u00a0 little\u00a0 evidence\u00a0 for\u00a0 a\u00a0 relation\u00a0 between\u00a0 addiction\u00a0 to
\nchocolate\u00a0 or\u00a0 the\u00a0 pharmacological\u00a0 (e.g.,\u00a0 xanthine-based)\u00a0 effects\u00a0 of\u00a0 chocolate\u00a0 and
\nthe\u00a0 liking\u00a0 for\u00a0 chocolate.<\/p>\n

Below are most of the result tables from the study.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So, 1) the difference is real, 2) it is somewhat due to the menstruation cyclus, but apparently not entirely.<\/p>\n

Sweets , chocolate , and atypical depressive traits fixd<\/a><\/p>\n

Abstract.<\/p>\n

An original questionnaire, the Foods and Moods Inventory (FMI) was used to investigate
\nappetite for sweets and chocolate and its relationship to dysphoric mood. The FMI was
\nadministered to a group of subjects with an identified interest in chocolate (chocolate group,
\nN = 73), a comparison sample (comparison group,\u00a0 N = 172), and a sample of former
\nalcoholics (iV = 22). Those who reported \u201cself-medicating\u201d with sweets or chocolate were
\nmore likely to have personality traits associated with hysteroid dysphoria, an atypical
\ndepressive syndrome. In addition, the tendency to eat compulsively, in general, and appetite
\nfor sweets and chocolate, in particular, were significantly greater among women.<\/p>\n

From the study:<\/p>\n

Gender and Appetite for Sweets\/Chocolate
\nA relationship between gender and craving for
\nsweets and\/or chocolate was shown in the finding that
\n92% of the self-medicators were women. Although
\n65.2% of the entire sample were women, this was still
\na highly significant gender-related difference (x2 =
\n17.5,\u00a0 df = 1,\u00a0 p < .0001). Moreover, in all subjects
\ncombined, women were found to have significantly
\nhigher scores than men on the Sweets, Chocolate, and
\nEating Scales as well as marginally higher scores on
\nthe Hys Dys Scale (Table 3).
\nUsing analyses of variance to further explore the
\nrelationship between gender, group, and the four FMI
\nscales, a significant main effect for gender was con\u00ad
\nfirmed for the Sweets, Chocolate, and Eating Scales
\nbut not the Hys Dys Scale. In this analysis, the main
\neffect for gender on Hys Dys fell below the level of
\nstatistical significance and a significant group by gen\u00ad
\nder interaction emerged, with women higher on Hys
\nDys in the comparison and alcoholic groups but\u00a0 not
\nin the chocolate group. Although it is difficult to
\ninterpret this interaction, it would appear in any case
\nthat the higher Hys Dys scores of self-medicators
\nprobably cannot be attributed to the disproportionate
\nnumber of women in this group. Indeed, an analysis
\namong women alone confirmed that self-medicators
\nhad higher scores on Hys Dys as well as on the other
\nFMI scales.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

—<\/p>\n

It seems that the answer to the question posed in the title is: Yes, women like chocolate more than men. The reasons being somewhat more speculative, but perhaps having to do with hormone levels in the menstruation cyclus.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At an icecream dinner party the question came up whether women actually like chocolate more than men. Stereotypes are known to often be correct, so i was curius. Quoting from Pinker’s The Blank Slate: The idea that stereotypes are inherently irrational owes more to a condescension toward ordinary people than it does to good psychological […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1653],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psychology","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3633","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3633"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3633\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3646,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3633\/revisions\/3646"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}