Dr Aífe Hopkins-Doyle
Academic and research departments
School of Psychology, Social Psychology Research Group, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences.About
Biography
Dr Aífe Hopkins-Doyle is a Lecturer in Social Psychology. Her research interest is in the social-cognitive and ideological factors influencing meta-perception and related attitudes, with a particular focus on gender relations, sexuality, political actions and social issues.
She gained her BSc degree in Psychology (Hons) at the National University of Ireland at Maynooth (2008-2012) before moving to the University of Kent to complete a Master’s degree in Social and Applied Psychology (2013-2014) and a PhD in Social Psychology (2015-2019). Her PhD research examined the role of warmth in misperceptions of benevolent sexism as negatively related to hostile sexism and other known correlates (e.g. opposition to gender equality measures).
Upon completion of her PhD, Aífe was a Lecturer in Social and Organisational Psychology at University of Kent (2018-2020). She joined the School of Psychology at University of Surrey in April 2020.
In addition to her research, she enjoys teaching and working on initiatives that promote greater social diversity and inclusion in academia. She is a member of the Athena Swan Self Assessment Team in the School of Psychology.
Areas of specialism
ResearchResearch interests
The overarching theme of my research is understanding the sense that people make of gender relations, investigating the socio-cognitive and ideological factors, which influence the accuracy of our judgements about gender (e.g. personal and social identity) and gender relations (e.g. sexism, feminism, intimate relationships).
Current research projects/questions include:
- Benevolent sexism: do people accurately understand benevolent sexism as prejudice? How do our personal perceptions of men (and women) who endorse benevolent sexism influence our identification of prejudice?
- Feminism and stereotyping: how accurate are stereotypes about feminists and their attitudes? what factors influence our beliefs about feminists' attitudes (i.e. meta-perceptions)? Who can identify as feminist? Feminist ideology including radical and women of colour feminism.
- Collective action: what socio-ecological and identity factors influence engagement and participation in collective and political actions both online (e.g. #MeToo) and offline (e.g. protest marches).
- Sexual exchange in intimate relationships: Do heterosexual people endorse beliefs about who exchanges sex in relationships for other benefits (i.e. commitment, intimacy, gifts)? How does this belief relate to modern dating practices (e.g. sugar baby-sugar daddy)?
I am interested in supervising students on projects in these areas. Please send me an email if interested.
Research interests
The overarching theme of my research is understanding the sense that people make of gender relations, investigating the socio-cognitive and ideological factors, which influence the accuracy of our judgements about gender (e.g. personal and social identity) and gender relations (e.g. sexism, feminism, intimate relationships).
Current research projects/questions include:
- Benevolent sexism: do people accurately understand benevolent sexism as prejudice? How do our personal perceptions of men (and women) who endorse benevolent sexism influence our identification of prejudice?
- Feminism and stereotyping: how accurate are stereotypes about feminists and their attitudes? what factors influence our beliefs about feminists' attitudes (i.e. meta-perceptions)? Who can identify as feminist? Feminist ideology including radical and women of colour feminism.
- Collective action: what socio-ecological and identity factors influence engagement and participation in collective and political actions both online (e.g. #MeToo) and offline (e.g. protest marches).
- Sexual exchange in intimate relationships: Do heterosexual people endorse beliefs about who exchanges sex in relationships for other benefits (i.e. commitment, intimacy, gifts)? How does this belief relate to modern dating practices (e.g. sugar baby-sugar daddy)?
I am interested in supervising students on projects in these areas. Please send me an email if interested.
Teaching
- PSY3120/PSYM146 - The Social Psychology of Gender (Module Convenor)
- PSY2016 - Social Psychology with Research Methods 2 (Contributing Lecturer)
- PSYM093 - Fundamental Concepts in Social Psychology with Research Methods (Contributing Lecturer)
Publications
Highlights
Hopkins-Doyle, A., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & Calogero, R. M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135
Gender disparities persist in academic psychology. The present study extended previous investigations to social and personality psychology award recipients. We collated publicly available data on award winners (N = 2700) from 17 international societies from 1968 to 2021. Features of the award, including year given, type of award, seniority level, whether the award was shared with more than one winner, and gender/sex of the recipient were coded. Overall, men were more likely to be recognized with awards than women, but the proportion of awards won by women has increased over time. Despite this increased share of awards, women were more likely to win awards for service and teaching (which are generally viewed as less prestigious) rather than research contributions. These differences were moderated by year - women were more likely to win service or teaching awards, compared to research awards, after 1999 and 2007, respectively. Women were more likely to win awards at postgraduate/early career levels or open to all levels compared to senior awards. Findings suggest that women's greater representation in academic psychology in recent years has not been accompanied by parity in professional recognition and eminence.
Perceptions of warmth play a central role in social cognition. Seven studies use observational, correlational, and experimental methods to examine its role in concealing the functions of benevolent sexism (BS). Together, Studies 1 (n = 297), 2 (n = 252), and 3 (n = 219) indicated that although women recall experiencing benevolent (vs. hostile) sexism more often, they protest it less often, because they see it as warm. In Studies 4 (n = 296) and 5 (n = 361), describing men as high in BS caused them (via warmth) to be seen as lower in hostile sexism (HS) and more supportive of gender equality. In Study 6 (n = 283) these findings were replicated and extended, revealing misunderstanding of relationships between BS and a wide array of its correlates. In Study 7 (n = 211), men experimentally described as harboring warm (vs. cold) attitudes toward women were perceived as higher in BS but lower in known correlates of BS. These findings demonstrate that the warm affective tone of BS, particularly when displayed by men, masks its ideological functions.
The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is a widely used measure of implicit cognition which has detected biases pertaining to various psychological constructs from spider fear to cocaine dependence. One issue which emerges in the IRAP literature is that of participants failing to meet or uphold the necessary criteria to complete the IRAP, which results in their elimination from the study, which can be rather detrimental to results. The present study sought to delineate which factors may contribute to high attrition rates in IRAP research. A previously used IRAP measuring spider fear was employed along with an n-back task and a series of questionnaires. Results indicated that the ability to inhibit prepotent responses and focus attention on the task at hand was the best predictor of accuracy on the IRAP, irrespective of spider fear or current levels of anxiety. These results are promising for the use of the IRAP in clinically-relevant domains as they suggest that the psychopathology of participants does not affect performance on the IRAP.
Background : Individuals make first impressions of others based on how they look. Facial cues trigger gender social categorisation and elicit gender stereotyping. However, it remains unclear to what extent such impressions are influenced by the perceivers’ gender identity and gender beliefs. Methods : We recruited cisgender and transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) participants (N = 195). Participants were shown three morphed faces (prototypical male versus. prototypical female versus. androgynous) and, for each target, were asked to create a sentence describing their first impression. (within-participants design). To do so, they had to choose from a list of pronouns, professions, and personality traits. Participants also reported how confident they were in their first impression and rated the gender of the targets. Results : Results showed that overall participants perceived the prototypical male target as masculine while both the prototypical female and androgynous targets were seen as feminine. Participants also felt more confident when forming an impression about the prototypical male target. Further, impressions were influenced by perceivers’ gender identity. Cisgender participants formed stronger stereotypical impressions of the prototypical male and female target than TGNB participants. In particular, cisgender participants were more likely to use masculine pronouns for the prototypical male target and more feminine pronouns for the prototypical female target, but less neutral pronouns for the androgynous target, than TGNB participants. The difference is pronoun use was mediated by cisgender participants stronger endorsement of gender binary beliefs. Conclusions : These findings provide new insights into face-based stereotyping and show the importance of considering different stereotype components and individual differences such as gender identity and beliefs.
In six studies, we examined the accuracy and underpinnings of the damaging stereotype that feminists harbor negative attitudes toward men. In Study 1 ( n = 1,664), feminist and nonfeminist women displayed similarly positive attitudes toward men. Study 2 ( n = 3,892) replicated these results in non-WEIRD countries and among male participants. Study 3 ( n = 198) extended them to implicit attitudes. Investigating the mechanisms underlying feminists’ actual and perceived attitudes, Studies 4 ( n = 2,092) and 5 (nationally representative UK sample, n = 1,953) showed that feminists (vs. nonfeminists) perceived men as more threatening, but also more similar, to women. Participants also underestimated feminists’ warmth toward men, an error associated with hostile sexism and a misperception that feminists see men and women as dissimilar. Random-effects meta-analyses of all data (Study 6, n = 9,799) showed that feminists’ attitudes toward men were positive in absolute terms and did not differ significantly from nonfeminists'. An important comparative benchmark was established in Study 6, which showed that feminist women's attitudes toward men were no more negative than men's attitudes toward men. We term the focal stereotype the misandry myth in light of the evidence that it is false and widespread, and discuss its implications for the movement.
Within most western countries, gendered proposal, surname, and wedding traditions remain widely endorsed. A previous study indicated that endorsement of proposal and surname traditions is associated with higher levels of benevolent sexism (BS) in university students in the USA. Three studies (N = 367) extended research to adolescents (dating age) and 30-year-olds (typical first-time marriage age). For the first time, these studies examined gendered wedding traditions (e.g., father walking a bride down the aisle). Different combinations of ambivalent sexism predicted participants' opinions about surname change after marriage and the choice of children's surnames. In younger adolescents (11-18; 56 boys, 88 girls, 68.1% White years), hostile sexism (HS) predicted endorsement of surname change, whereas benevolent sexism predicted endorsement in 16-to 18-year-olds (58 boys, 84 girls, 76.8% White) and 30-year-olds (37 men, 44 women, 74.1% White). In adolescent samples, both BS and HS predicted endorsement of patronymic traditions for children, whereas only BS did in the adult sample. The findings suggest that different types of sexism predict traditional beliefs in specific age groups.