University of Huddersfield Repository

Locke, Abigail
The Social Psychologising of Emotion and Gender: A Critical Perspective
Original Citation
Locke, Abigail (2011) The Social Psychologising of Emotion and Gender: A Critical Perspective.
In: Sexed Sentiments. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Gender and Emotion. Rodopi, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, pp. 185-205. ISBN 9789042032415
This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/7834/
The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the
University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items
on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners.
Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally
can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any
format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided:

The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy;
A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and
The content is not changed in any way.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: [email protected].
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/

The Social Psychologising of Emotion and Gender

A Critical Perspective

Abigail Locke

Abstract

This chapter offers an overview of psychologys approach to sex

differences in emotion, beginning from a discussion of how
psychology has approached emotion. The chapter takes a
critical, social-constructionist stance on emotion and critiques
psychologys essentialist stance. Moreover, it introduces a new
direction in psychology in which emotion and gender are studied
from a discursive perspective, in which emotion words and
concepts can function interactionally. The article considers two
examples. In the first, a woman is positioned as emotional and
by implication, irrational. The second example investigates how
the popular concept of emotion work, one that typically
constructs women as down-trodden, can in fact be used as a

Abigail Locke

resource for young women to manage their identities in

interactions. Indeed it is constructed as something that makes
them powerful in relation to the vulnerable males they discuss.

This chapter will provide a critical overview of psychologys stance

on emotion and gender. Since psychologys inception as an academic
discipline in the late nineteenth century, the topic of emotion has been
one of its major themes, from early behaviourist theories of James in
1884 to cognitive explanations (e.g. Lazarus 1994), through to studies
in affective neuroscience (Davidson 2000; LeDoux 1995; Panksepp
1992) and social constructionist and discursive accounts (Edwards
1999; Harre 1983; Locke and Edwards 2003). In many social
psychological studies, two main approaches have been taken to
differences between the sexes with regards to emotional experience
and expression:the essentialist and the social-constructionist approach.
This article surveys their characteristics and then introduces a more
recent development in psychologys study of gender and emotions, the
discursive approach. This approach is inspired by the socialconstructivist movement, but takes a new perspective by focusing on
the ways in which emotion talk is employed strategically in local
interaction.
The essentialist approach of emotions in psychology treats
differences in emotion and sex from an essentialist stance, as a matter
of fact and puts them down to reasons of presumed physiological
difference between men and women with studies reporting differences
in physiological reaction or brain structure (e.g. Frankenhaeuser,
Dunne and Lundberg 1976; Kring and Gordon 1998; Gur, GunningDixon, Bilker and Gur 2002). Mainstream psychologists tend to take
an essentialist stance to emotion, regarding it as having cognitive,
behavioural and biological aspects (e.g. Clore, Ortony and Foss 1987).
Essentialist psychologists have argued for the existence of a set of
basic emotions (Darwin 1871; Ekman 1992) that are cross-cultural,

The psychologising of emotion and gender

universal across time and place, and due to innate human physiology.
Although there is still some disagreement as to the number of basic
emotions and the labels given to them, this view within psychology is
immensely popular with many emotion theorists endorsing it (e.g.
Arnold 1960; Frijda 1994; James 1884; Lazarus 1994).
A challenge comes to this side of psychology from social
psychologists who endorse a social-constructionist perspective on
emotion. Social-constructionist approaches to emotion claim that
emotions have a socio-cultural backdrop, and are not simply matters
of biology. According to Vivien Burr (1995, 2003) in her
comprehensive text on the subject, social constructionism holds that
social processes sustain knowledge and that knowledge and action go
together. Thus, in terms of relationships between sex, gender and
emotion, social constructionists consider how emotion terms are
considered within a society, in particular within their assumed
gendered usage. As a theoretical stance within psychology, social
constructionism has presented a challenge to the essentialism so
prevalent within the discipline of psychology, and offered a view that
challenges realist assumptions and considers historical and cultural
specificity. Within social psychology, different methods have
represented themselves as having a social-constructionist backdrop,
including critical psychology, Foucauldian discourse analysis, and
discursive psychology. We will consider examples from discursive
psychology in the field of emotion studies further on in the chapter.
Social constructionist approaches to emotion gained momentum
when issues around cultural and historical differences in emotion and
etymology were taken into consideration. The essentialist idea of a
basic set of emotions was problematized by cross-cultural studies
(Heelas 1996). Anthropologists such as Michelle Rosaldo and
Catherine Lutz found that in certain cultures names for emotions
existed that were not common to Western society. Lutzs work with
the Ifaluk in the Southwest Pacific found that this culture had a
specific term for justified anger song, that was not present in our
society and argued that claims to feel an emotion are bound up with
cultural, moral and political considerations rather than inner, discrete
feelings (Lutz 1988). Similarly, Rosaldos work with the Ilongot, a

Abigail Locke

tribe living in the Luzon Island of the Philippines, found emotions to

be culturally specific rather than universal (Rosaldo 1980). Finally,
anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) argued that different cultures
have different concepts of self and that emotions are part of this notion
of self, hence emotions are culturally bound up with, and enacted as,
social processes. These anthropological studies have shown how
different cultures appear to experience different emotions and, in
addition, how these emotions work within the moral framework of
accountability in each culture. Therefore, the work of these three
anthropologists caused concerns over the claim that emotion is an
inner, discrete, universal state.
A second problem for the basic emotions argument came through
the study of etymology. Studies on the etymology of affect terms
show how the meaning and importance of terms has changed over
time (E.g. Edwards 1999; Gergen 1995; Harr 1983). For example in
the sixteenth century, words such as sanguine or melancholy were
commonplace and yet are rarely used today (Harr 1983). Edwards
(1997) examined the etymology of worry and surprise and noted
the shifts in meaning that had occurred with these terms. In the case of
worry, the term shifted from referring to strangulation in the eighth
century, to sheep being attacked (worried) by dogs in 1380, to
todays meaning in which the term denotes an anxious mind-set.
Theodore Sarbin (1986) moves the argument one step further to
examine the etymology of the word emotion itself and found that
until approximately three hundred years ago [e]tymologically,
emotion denoted outward-directed movement, as in migrations. The
meaning was transferred to movements within the body. For the past
300 years or more, observers have focused on such perceived or
imagined internal movements (Sarbin 1986, 84). As Edwards (1997
1999) argues, such shifts in emotion labels are tied to changes in
moral orders, social relations and accountability. Thus there are
similarities between the arguments in the anthropological studies of
Lutz and Rosaldo and the etymology of emotion labels, which create
problems for the inner, discrete, and universal conceptualisation of
emotion.

The psychologising of emotion and gender

Gender, emotion and the (re)socialisation of expression

Many researchers argue that traditional stereotypes of the
emotional woman set against the rational, non-emotional man are
culturally evident and endorsed (Fischer 1993; Lupton 1998; Lutz
1990; Timmers, Fischer and Manstead 2003).
This appears to be the case from early on in childhood. As Widen and
Russell (2002) note, even pre-schoolers in the USA were aware of
gender and attributed emotions based on gender stereotypes. This
construct of females as emotional is an assumption which can be hard
to undermine, as Shields and Crowley note: stereotypic
representations of the emotional female / unemotional male are so
prominent in North American culture that these stereotypes reinforce
the notion that the starting point for any gendered-based analysis of
emotion should be gender differences in emotion (Shields & Crowley
1996, 219; their emphasis). For example a study by Brebner (2003)
using both Australian and international samples on experience and
intensity of eight emotional states (affection, anger, contentment, fear,
guilt, joy, pride and sadness), found that women in both samples
reported a higher frequency of emotions than men. The only emotion
that men had a higher frequency and intense experiences of was pride.
Similarly a recent study by Glenberg, Mouilso, Havas and Lindeman
(2009) found that women were more reactive emotionally than men.
They further claimed that women understood sadness more than men,
whereas men had a greater grasp of anger than women. Their
participants task was to comprehend an emotional message when in
an opposing emotional state. Glenberg et al. found that for women it
took longer to read a happy message when sad, but for men, it was
being angry that slowed the reading of a happy sentence. What is of
interest for the present essay is the way in which sex differences in
emotion were represented (and accepted by the journal!) as an
unproblematic statement of fact, rather than a social construct or
product of socialisation.
Many studies within psychology that conclude that women are
more emotional than men focus only on the expression of emotion.
Hall (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of facial expressiveness and
found that females were more facially expressive than men. However,

Abigail Locke

in more recent work, Hall, Carter and Horgan (2000) note that nonverbal behavior does not necessarily signify emotion (97), that is the
experience of emotion may indeed differ from the expression of
emotion. Other studies have reported that women appear more
prepared to talk about and express emotions than men (Fischer 1993).
Huston-Comeaux and Kelly (2002) found a link between the
appropriateness of emotional expression and sex and argue that this
stereotyping leads to a fairly narrow range of possible emotional
expressions for women (7). Similarly, Brody (2000) found that
display rules of emotion generally conform to gender stereotypes, and
that these stereotypes are more robust in interpersonal settings. Simon
and Nath (2004) found that in American culture, the sexes differed in
their reporting of the frequency of positive and negative emotions.
However, they found a strong link between social position and
emotional expression, with those in lower social positions, often
women, reporting more negative affect. This demonstrates that the
relationship between emotion and sex is not a psychological one, but
rather a societal and cultural construct, with factors like class and
ethnicity intersecting with gender. Thus, Fischer (1993) claims that
emotionality should not be considered one of the basic dimensions to
distinguish the sexes, and that the claim that women are more
emotional than men tells us more about our cultural stereotypes than
about actual sex differences in emotions (Fischer 1993, 312).
Psychology has typically offered explanations of phenomena in
biological and cognitive terms. This, as some feminists have argued, is
due to its unacknowledged patriarchal foundations (see Burr, 1998 for
further discussion on this). As Cameron declares [d]ifferences in
mens and womens verbal behaviours are [...] explained in biological
terms (2007, 8). As recent studies on sex differences and emotion in
psychology also demonstrate (e.g. Glenberg, et al. 2009), the
discipline attributes verbal behaviours such as discourse and other
affective displays to biological factors rather than cultural display
norms. In psychology, the outer, discursive and material world
becomes theorised as an inner, emotional essence. However, as
Catherine Lutz (1990) notes from an anthropological stance, emotion
is cultural, constructed by people and not nature (40).

The psychologising of emotion and gender

Within social science more generally, there is strong evidence for

constructed gendered perceptions of emotionality and in particular, the
stereotypical view of female emotionality (Shields 2002). Indeed Arlie
Hochschild in her famous study The Managed Heart (1983)
conducted in the USA, claimed that women were more emotionally
expressive than men, and this was due to their social conditioning
beginning in childhood. Hochschild (1983) is one of the theorists who
argue that gender roles, emotional expressions and responses are
socialised into us (see also Eisenberg, Cumberland & Spinrad 1998).
Hochschild further claimed that women were responsible in society
for the emotion workwhich involved amongst other things, caring
for others. Specifically, women managed their own as well as mens
well-being in relationships. Hochschild argued that the cultural norms
for doing this work pointed to emotion work as a female, rather than
male, enterprise. This emotion work is linked with notions of the
capacity to care (e.g. Hollway 2006) that regards women as being
more in touch with their emotions, in particular empathy and caring,
and thus as more suited to the caring professions. Catherine
Theodosiuss recent study (2008) on emotion work in nursing and
Billie Hunter and Ruth Deerys (2009) comments on emotion work
and midwifery support this view.
Other researchers argue more generally that our personal
identities are framed around notions of masculinities and femininities
(Lyons 2009) and therefore our gender becomes a salient feature of
who we are. If, as Judith Butler argues, gender is a performative
construct (Butler 1990), one that is performed through our daily
activities, then, emotion and the norms of its expression are part of
this performance. Emotions can be seen as something that we learn
through our cultural socialisation to express or not express, depending
highly on the contexts of both gender and situation. Thus emotion can
become part of our identity, something that we express appropriately
in the light of societal norms.
Perceived gender differences that appear in emotionality can be
seen as being due to cultural expectations of emotional expression and
long-held stereotypical notions of the emotional female and nonemotional male. Such a position proposes that emotionality in

Abigail Locke

Western culture is culturally coded as feminine, whereas rationality is

coded as masculine (Lupton 1998), and masculine identity is bound up
with restrictive emotionality (Jansz 2000). Jakupcak, Salters, Gratz
and Roemer (2003) in a psychological study based in the USA, found
that both masculine ideology and masculine gender roles induced
mens fear of emotions. They argue that boys learn through
socialisation to be less emotional than girls and they show a fear of
being seen as emotional. Indeed many texts on relationships discuss
womens complaints of men withholding emotions and intimacy
within relationships (Langford 1999; Tannen 1990). As Fivush and
Buckner (2000) claim, the traditional stereotypes surrounding gender
and emotion remain. They note that : [a]lthough the traditional
stereotype of the weeping female and the stoic male have softened
somewhat over the past twenty years [] one of the strongest
stereotypes related to gender continues to centre on emotionality
(Fivush and Buckner 2000, 234). Catherine Lutz similarly suggests
that qualities that define the emotional, also define women. For this
reason, any discourse on emotion is also, at least implicitly, a
discourse on gender. (Lutz 1990, 151). This cultural coding of
emotionality as feminine has social and political consequences.
Kenneth Gergen has noted that [e]motion terms are socially and
politically loaded (Gergen 1999, 108) with emotionality having the
potential to be used as a subtle and indirect means of evaluating a
person. Gergen cites examples of common binaries in western society
for example, rational versus emotional, effective versus ineffective,
and strong versus weak, and notes the imbalance provided in the
binaries, arguing that the former term is often privileged over the
latter, i.e. it is deemed to be better to be rational rather than emotional.
These binaries are often used in depictions of sex difference, often
with men associated with the privileged terms. The notion that women
are more emotional than men is so ingrained in Western cultural
beliefs that it is hard to dismantle this myth as a social construction.
As Shields and Crowley note [i]n so far as they are foundational to
our understanding of emotion, we may not even recognise them as
beliefs, but rather revere them as reality (Shields & Crowley 1996,
223).

The psychologising of emotion and gender

The rhetoric of emotion: insights from discursive psychology

This view of the binary operations of gender norms and emotion,
however, leaves little room for individual agency. A third and more
recent approach in psychology takes the social-constructionist
approach a step further by studying emotion as discursive and
interactional. This approach studies the ways emotion discourse and
concepts are used rhetorically in interactions. The social constructions
of gender and emotionality contain certain internal contradictions that
individuals can use to their advantage in interactions. A persons (in)ability to control their emotions, for example, may form a criterion
for judging their actions and construct dispositions (see also Edwards
1999). It can be argued that there is a shared Western cultural view
that emotions, if not controlled, can be dangerous (Parrott 1995),
something that Catherine Lutz calls the rhetoric of control (Lutz
1990). From this perspective, the corollary of emotional weakness is
an elevation of social status for those who have the ability to control
their emotions (Lutz 1990; Parrott 1995). However, rhetorically
another construction exists in which being unemotional, cold or aloof
is seen as a negative characteristic, as is the case with restrictive
masculinity and fear of expressing emotions (Jansz 2000; Japucak, et
al 2003). As Lutz notes when discussing the rhetoric of control, the
(Western) culturally constructed emotionality of women similarly
contains a number of contradictions. Although womens emotions are
never seen as a characteristic strength or as controllable, women are
on the one hand seen as pliant and weak, and on the other as
potentially dangerous, powerful and uncontrollable (Lutz 1990).
Similarly, emotional expressiveness is on the one hand seen as related
to better dealings in social relationships (a discourse of emotional
intelligence), yet, on the other hand, being too emotional has been
portrayed in a negative light and at times, linked with gender (a
discourse of vulnerability). These contradictions in the social and
gender constructions of emotionality leave room for individual
manoeuvre in interactions.
An example of such room for manoeuvre can be found in a case
study in the business realm in the USA by Callahan, Hasler and

10 Abigail Locke
Tolson (2005). When examining emotional expressiveness and gender
differences amongst senior executives, they found that female
executives reported themselves as less emotionally expressive than
male executives. The authors claim that their results are surprising, as
femininity and emotional expressiveness are becoming regarded as
important in the business world. Interestingly, male executives may
report higher levels of expressiveness due to a changing culture
which is just beginning to accept feminine traits such as
expressiveness (521). However, what is also of interest is that the
female executives were not willing to claim to be emotionally
expressive. This example demonstrates not only that there are
contradictions within the discourse of gender, emotionality and
leadership in the workplace, but also that individuals are able to
appropriate these social constructions strategically in their everyday
lives by profiling themselves as adhering to, or deviating from, them.
This interactional nature of emotion discourse has been studied
discursively in psychology (e.g. Buttny 1993; Edwards 1997, 1999;
Locke 2001, 2003; Locke and Edwards 2003). Rather than studying
the actual role or existence of emotional states, emotions are
approached as social and discursive phenomena (Edwards 1999;
Parrot and Harr 1996), produced as part of a narrative framework and
utilised for accounting purposes. Accounting in this sense refers to the
ways in which we use language to justify ourselves or blame others.
Research in this field has demonstrated how emotion discourse and
concepts can be used rhetorically to construct versions of character
and to signify to others how events are problematic or out of the
ordinary (Buttny 1993). It has been proposed that emotion talk or
discourse is an important part of how social accountability is produced
(e.g. Lutz 1988, 1990) and forms an integral part of the accounting
process. It can be used to make sense of peoples actions (Sarbin
1989), or to imply that circumstances are problematic or out of the
ordinary (Buttny 1993) or in contrast to rational thought (Edwards
1999). The literature on emotion discourse within psychology is still
rather limited and has been related to interpersonal areas such as
relationship and couple counselling (Edwards 1999) and legal
discourse (Locke and Edwards 2003). However, it borrows heavily

The psychologising of emotion and gender 11

from the sociology of emotion that is firmly routed in socialconstructionist ideals (e.g. Denzin 1984). Derek Edwards (1999)
proposed a set of rhetorical tropes of emotion discourse such as
irrational versus rational, and event driven versus dispositional,
where the emotion is constructed as a reaction to an event or as a
dispositional state, i.e. that it is inferred that a particular person has an
emotional character.
The following extract will demonstrate some of the rhetorical
uses of emotion discourse in action and draws on points made by
Locke and Edwards (2003), from the cross-examination of the then
President of the United States of America, Bill Clinton. President
Clinton is being asked to account for his conduct with Monica
Lewinsky, an intern he is accused of having sexual relations with,
which he has denied to this point. The extract follows questions from
the prosecution asking Clinton to account for his dealings with Ms.
Lewinsky in the light of her being called as a witness in the Paula
Jones sexual harassment case against him. What is of interest for this
chapter is how emotion terms are used rhetorically within discourse to
account for ones own behaviour, and to apportion blame to others.
To sketch a context, throughout the cross-examination it has
already been claimed that Lewinsky was angry at being unable to see
Clinton on a particular day because he was in a meeting with another
woman, thus inferring that there was some cause for Lewinskys
upset. Having discussed Lewinskys anger that day at the White
House, Clinton is invited to confirm that he himself, and his secretary,
Mrs Currie, were very irate with Lewinsky. Q refers to the
prosecution and C refers to President Clinton.

Clinton testimony
Q: Isnt that correct that you and Mrs Currie were very irate
about that
[4 second pause]

12 Abigail Locke
C: Well I dont remember all that uh what I remember is that
she was very um Monica was very upset, she got upset from
time to time,
[10 lines omitted]
C: And I was upset about her conduct. Im not sure I knew or
focused on at that moment exactly the question you ask. I
remember I was- I thought her conduct was inappropriate
that day.
The prosecutor (Q) invokes both Clintons personal secretary (Mrs
Currie) along with Clinton, as being emphatically, very irate with
Lewinskys actions. In his response, Clinton avoids description of his
own emotions and shifts the attribution to Lewinsky: What he can
recall is how upset she was. Not only was Lewinsky memorably
upset on that occasion, rather we are immediately informed, that she
got upset from time to time. This represents Lewinsky as getting
upset not just on the one occasion in question, but repeatedly. It is
implied that she was perhaps prone to getting upset, such that any
pursuit of the reasons for her getting upset, on any occasion, might
look to reasons within her, and not only to external causes such as
what (in this case) Clinton might have done or said to provoke her.
Thus there is an important rhetorical move here on Clintons part,
deflecting inquiry away from the proximal causes of Lewinskys
emotions (i.e. potentially his actions), and towards her dispositional
tendencies of high emotionality. Rather than being prone to getting
upset, Clinton emerges as understandably reactive to specific
circumstances, which in this case were Lewinskys unreasonable
demands and reactions. What the analysis here demonstrates is how
the rhetorical tropes of reactive versus dispositional emotion work
within our everyday discourse to construct characters and versions of
events. From this extract we have evidence that being ascribed a high
level of emotionality can lead to being situated within a discourse of
vulnerability: that is, it serves to make the social actor (in this
example, female) weaker, and represents them as acting out their
passions, rather than taking rational actions.

The psychologising of emotion and gender 13

A second example of a discursive study of emotions comes from
work by Hannah Frith and Celia Kitzinger (1998), which looks at the
ways in which young women use emotion, in particular emotion
work as a resource in their accounts of saying no to sexual activity
in a relationship. As earlier studies noted, emotion work is regarded
by many as a gendered concept, with women performing the majority
of emotion work in interactions. Such studies (e.g. Hochschild 1983)
use emotion work as an analysts rather than participants category,
thus viewing accounts as somehow reflecting the actual emotion
work taking place. What Frith and Kitzinger argue through an indepth analysis of focus group discussions with young women is that
whether women appear to be involved in actual emotion work or not
(and they argue, there is no way of knowing this from self-report),
emotion work also functions as a useful category for the young
women to claim that they have to manage in their interactions with
young men. An example of this in practice is given in the extract
below. This extract is quoted from Frith and Kitzinger (1998, 311)
Just say no: Emotion work extract
JILL:

KAREN:
JILL:
KAREN:
JILL:

INTERVIEWER:
JILL:

But if you were in a relationship and you said

no, then he could end up feeling Oh God, you
know, whats going on?he could end up
getting really upset about it, and you wouldnt
really want that If you had a boyfriend and
you said no, then they would think things like
- Oh whats wrong with me? She should enjoy
it.
Yeah, get worried, and think whether you were
still interested or not.
Yeah, so youd have to be very careful
- and then they might ask questions, and you
might end up saying, Well theres nothing
actually wrong
I just dont feel like it, actually
I think boys would find that very difficult.

14 Abigail Locke
KAREN:

Dont you find me attractive?, and all this

stuff, and you think, No just

As Frith and Kitzinger (1998) note, in this extract all of the

participants, including the interviewer, are constructing saying no to
sexual activity as something that is accountable, i.e. needs to be
justified. They note that in their data, the young women talked in
terms of performing this emotion work, as in this case, managing the
feelings of the young men when they did not want to sleep with their
partners. Frith and Kitzinger argued that rather than demonstrating
women did actually perform this emotion work, their talking in such
terms portrayed the women as emotionally strong knowledgeable
and sophisticated social actors (312) able to manage the demands of
men, whereas their positioning of men in their talk depicts the males
as emotional weaklings who agonise about their own sexual
desirability and performance (312). The speakers actively voice what
the responses would be from these generic males: dont you find me
attractive? Frith and Kitzinger (1998) note that for the young women
in their sample, and by implication elsewhere, emotion work is used
as a resource to maintain the presentation of self (Goffman 1959) and
is useful in interaction to manage issues of identity, in particular to
portray themselves as strong, young women. If the traditional analyst
take to emotion work had been followed, the talk would have been
taken as transparent and these specific uses of emotion work would
have been overlooked. When we consider the perceived stereotypical
relationships between emotion and gender, we can see that a
discursive psychological approach, inspired in part by the socialconstructionist movement, offers a differing perspective, one that
focuses on what the invocation of emotion talk accomplishes in the
local interaction. When we consider perceived relationships between
gender and emotion in everyday life, an understanding of how the
concepts are used discursively is crucial to see how such discourses
operate in shaping, maintaining, and resisting the social order.
Concluding comments

The psychologising of emotion and gender 15

Psychology as a discipline is a broad church, operating from a
variety of standpoints, from neuroscience to cognitive and social
approaches. This essay has focused on the social aspects of
psychology and investigated how sex differences in emotions come to
be documented and interpreted within psychological theory. Within
much of psychology, emotions still form part of a wider essentialist
movement. In its search for the grand theory of emotion, a theory
that would fit a global, cross-cultural model, psychology has typically
overlooked issues to do with society, culture, and power, amongst
others. In essence then it has ignored the social construction and
contextuality of emotion. This chapter presented the evidence for a
social-constructionist view of the emotions and gender, and
subsequently introduced the new approach of discursive psychology,
which analyses how emotion talk is used as an interactional resource
in gendered contexts. We saw on the one hand how it was used by Bill
Clinton to construct Monica Lewinsky as having an emotional
disposition. On the other, we saw how young women used emotion
work as a strategy to manage presentation of themselves when
discussing relations with the opposite sex. Both of these avenues of
investigation were made possible by the advent of social
constructionism into psychology.
Whilst social-constructionist and discursive approaches to
emotion have allowed a thorough reconsideration and reframing of
social psychology, it has recently been suggested that yet another new
approach is called for. Greco and Stenner (2008) argue that since
emotion is where the different areas of psychology converge, the time
has come to study emotion from transdisciplinary perspectives (see
also Brown and Stenner 2009). Until we do so, they argue, we will
never completely understand the phenomenon of emotion. However
this new field of Affective Science develops, it is certain that the
relation between emotions, sex and gender will remain a topic for
discussion.

16 Abigail Locke

References
Arnold, Magda B. 1960. Emotion and personality (2 volumes).
New York: Columbia.
Brebner, John. 2003. Gender and emotions. Personality and
individual differences 34: 387-394.
Brody, Leslie. R. 2000. The socialization of gender differences
in emotional expression: Display rules, infant temperament,
and differentiation. In Gender and emotion: Social
psychological perspectives, ed. Agneta H. Fischer, 24-47.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Steve. D. and Paul Stenner. 2009. Psychology without
foundations: History, philosophy and psychosocial theory:
Constructionism, mediation and critical psychology. London:
Sage.
Burr, Vivien. 1995. An introduction to social constructionism.
London: Routledge.
Burr, Vivien. 1998. Gender and social psychology. London:
Routledge.
Burr, Vivien. 2003. Social constructionism. Second Edition.
London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the
subversion of identity. London: Routledge.
Buttny, Richard. 1993. Social accountability in communication.
London: Sage.
Cameron, Deborah. 2007. The myth of Mars and Venus: Do men
and women really speak different languages? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Callahan, Jamie L., Michael G. Hasler and Homer Tolson.
Perceptions of emotion expressiveness: Gender differences
among senior executives. Leadership and Organisation
Development Journal 26: 512-28.

The psychologising of emotion and gender 17

Clore, Gerald L., Allan Ortony and Mark A. Foss. 1987. The
psychological foundations of the affective lexicon. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 53: 751-66.
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The expression of emotions in animals
and man. London: John Murray.
Davidson, Richard J. 2000. Cognitive neuroscience needs
affective neuroscience (and vice versa). Brain & cognition
42: 89-92.
Denzin, N. 1984. On understanding emotion. London: JosseyBass.
Edwards, Derek. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
Edwards, Derek. 1999. Emotion discourse. Culture &
psychology 5: 271-291.
Eisenberg, Nancy, Amanda Cumberland and Tracy L. Spinrad.
1998. Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological
inquiry 9: 241273.
Ekman, Paul. 1992. Are there basic emotions? Psychological
review 99: 550-3.
Fischer, Agneta H. 1993. Sex differences in emotionality: Fact
or Stereotype? Feminism and psychology 3: 303-318.
London: Sage.
Fischer, Agneta H., ed. 2000. Gender and emotion: Social
psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fivush, Robyn and Janine P. Buckner. 2000. Gender, sadness
and depression: The development of emotional focus through
gendered discourse. In Gender and emotion: Social
psychological perspectives, ed. Agneta H. Fischer, 232-53.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frankenhaeuser, M., E. Dunne and U. Lundberg. 1976. Sex
differences in sympathetic adrenal medullary reactions
induced by different stressors. Psychopharmacology 47: 1-5.

18 Abigail Locke

Frijda, Nico H. 1994. Universal Antecedents Exist and are

Interesting. In The nature of emotion: fundamental questions,
eds. Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson, 155-63. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Frith, Hannah and Celia Kitzinger. 1998. Emotion work as a
participant resource. Sociology 32: 299-320.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of cultures. New
York: Basic Books.
Gergen, K. J. 1996. Metaphor and monophony in the 20thcentury psychology of emotions. In Historical dimensions of
psychological discourse, eds. Carl .F. Graumann and
Kenneth J. Gergen, 60-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gergen, Kenneth J. 1999. An invitation to social
constructionism. London: Sage.
Glenberg, Arthur, M., Bryan J. Webster, Emily Mouilso, David
Havas and Lisa M. Lindeman. 2009. Gender, emotion, and
the embodiment of language comprehension. Emotion review
1: 151-61.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday
life. London: Penguin.
Goleman, Daniel. 1996. Emotional Intelligence. Why it can
matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.
Greco, Monica and Paul Stenner. 2008. Emotions: A reader.
London: Routledge.
Gur, Ruben C., Faith Gunning-Dixon, Warren B. Bilker and
Raquel E. Gur. 2002. Sex Differences in temporo-limbic and
frontal brain volumes of healthy adults. Cerebral cortex 12:
998-1003.
Hall, Judy A. 1984. Nonverbal sex differences: Communication
accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

The psychologising of emotion and gender 19

Hall, Judy A., Jason D. Carter and Terrence G. Horgan. 2000.

Gender differences in nonverbal communication of emotion.
In Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives,
ed. Agneta H. Fischer, 97-117. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Harr, Rom. 1983. Personal being: A theory for individual
psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heelas, Paul 1996. Emotion Talk across Cultures. In The
emotions: Social, cultural and biological dimensions, eds.
Rom Harr and W. Gerrod Parrott, 171-99. London: Sage.
Hochschild, Arlie R. 1983. The managed heart:
commercialisation of human feeling. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Hollway, Wendy. 2006. The capacity to care. Gender and
ethical subjectivity. London: Routledge.
Hunter, Billie and Ruth Deery. 2009. Emotions in midwifery and
reproduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hutson-Comeaux, Sarah L. and Janice R. Kelly. 2002. Gender
stereotypes of emotional reactions: How we judge an emotion
as valid. Sex Roles 47: 1-10.
Izard, Carroll Ellis. 1991. The psychology of emotions.
Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
Jakupcak, Matthew, Kristalyn Salters, Kim L. Gratz and
Lizabeth Roemer. 2003. Masculinity and emotionality: An
investigation of mens primary and secondary emotional
responding. Sex Roles 49: 111-120.
James, William. 1884. What is an emotion? Mind 9:188-205.
Jansz, Jeroen. 2000. Masculine identity and restrictive
emotionality. In Gender and emotion: Social psychological
perspectives, ed. Agneta H. Fischer, 166-86. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kagan, Jerome. 2007. What is emotion? History, measures and
meanings. London: Yale University Press.

20 Abigail Locke

Kring, Ann M. and Alan H. Gordon. 1998. Sex differences in

emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of
personality and social psychology 74: 686-703,
Langford, Wendy. 1999. Revolutions of the heart. Gender,
power and the delusions of love. London: Routledge.
Lazarus, Richard. 1994. Universal antecedents of the emotions.
In The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions, eds. P.
Ekman and R. J. Davidson, 208-16. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ledoux, Joseph E. 1995. Emotion: clues from the brain. Annual
review of psychology 46: 209-35.
Locke, Abigail. 2001. Reconstructing female emotionality.
Social psychological review 3: 16-26.
Locke, Abigail 2003. If Im not worried, Im nervous, does that
make sense?: The use of emotion concepts by athletes in
accounts of performance. Forum: Qualitative social research
4:1: 41 paragraphs.
Locke, Abigail and Derek Edwards. 2003. Bill and Monica:
Memory, emotion and normativity in Clintons Grand Jury
testimony. British Journal of Social Psychology 42: 239-56.
Lupton, Deborah. 1998. The Emotional Self. London: Sage.
Lutz, Catherine A. 1988. Unnatural emotions: Everyday
sentiments on a Micronesian atoll and their challenge to
Western theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lutz, Catherine A. 1990. Engendered emotion: Gender, power,
and the rhetoric of emotional control in American discourse.
In Language and the politics of emotion, eds. Catherine A.
Lutz and Lila Abu-Lughod, 151-70. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lyons, Antonia. 2009. Masculinities, femininities, behaviour
and health. Social and personality psychology compass 3:
394-412.

The psychologising of emotion and gender 21

Panksepp, Jaak. 1992. A critical role for affective neuroscience

in resolving what is basic about basic emotions.
Psychological review 99: 554-60.
Parrott, W. Gerrod. 1995. The heart and the head: Everyday
conceptions of being emotional. In Everyday conceptions of
emotion: An introduction to the psychology, anthropology,
and linguistics of emotion, eds. James A. Russell, JoseMiguel Fernande-Dols, Anthony S.R. Manstead and Jane C.
Wellencamp, 73-84. Dordecht: Kluwer.
Parrott, W. Gerrod and Rom Harr. 1996. Overview. In The
emotions: Social, cultural and biological dimensions, eds.
Rom Harr and W. Gerrod Parrott, 1-20. London: Sage.
Rosaldo, Michelle Z. 1980. Knowledge and passion: Ilongot
notions of self and social life. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Shields, Stephanie A. 2002. Speaking from the heart: Gender
and the social meaning of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Shields, Stephanie, A., Dallas N. Garner, Brooke Di Leone and
Alena M. Hadley. 2008. Gender and emotion. In Handbook
of the Sociology of Emotions, eds. Jan E. Stets and Jonathan
H. Turner, 63-83. New York: Springer.
Shields, Stephanie A. and Jill J. Crowley. 1996. Appropriating
questionnaires and rating scales for a feminist psychology: A
multi-method approach to gender and emotion. In Feminist
social psychologies. International perspectives, ed. Sue
Wilkinson, 218-32. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Simon, Robin W. and Leda E. Nath. 2004. Gender and emotion
in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports
and feelings of expressive behaviour. The American Journal
of Sociology 109: 1137-76.
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You just dont understand. Women and
men in conversation. London: Virago.

22 Abigail Locke

Theodosius, Catherine. 2008. Emotional labour in health care:

The unmanaged heart of nursing. London: Routledge.
Timmers, Monique, Agneta H. Fischer and Antony S. R.
Manstead. 2003. Ability versus vulnerability: Belief about
mens and womens emotional behaviour. Cognition and
Emotion 17: 41-63.
Widen, Sherri C. and James A. Russell. 2002. Gender and preschoolers perception of emotion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
48: 248-62.

The psychologising of emotion and gender 23