Abstract
This article makes an important distinction between two definitions of “token woman.” In the first definition, a token woman is one of few women in a predominantly male setting. The second meaning of “Token Woman” identifies that subset of such women who have made the distinctive psychological adaptation described by Laws (1975). The methodological decisions in Young, MacKenzie, and Sherif's (1980) research are justified as based on that definitional distinction. Constantinople's critique is shown to be appropriate as an alternative to Laws' theory, but not as a criticism of our research. Alternative generational explanations for previous findings about Token Women are not supported by existing data.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 166-169 |
Number of pages | 4 |
Journal | Psychology of Women Quarterly |
Volume | 7 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Dec 1982 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Gender Studies
- Developmental and Educational Psychology
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- General Psychology