Objective assessment of gender rolesgender roles test (GRT-36)

  1. Fernández Sánchez, Juan 1
  2. Quiroga Estévez, María Ángeles 1
  3. Olmo Benito, Isabel del 1
  4. Aróztegui Vélez, Javier 1
  5. Martín, Arantxa 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Journal:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Year of publication: 2011

Volume: 14

Issue: 2

Pages: 899-911

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/REV_SJOP.2011.V14.N2.36 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

This study was designed to develop a computerized test to assess gender roles. This test is presented as a decision-making task to mask its purpose. Each item displays a picture representing an activity and a brief sentence that describes it. Participants have to choose the most suitable sex to perform each activity: man or woman. The test (Gender Roles Test, GRT-36) consists of 36 items/activities. The program registers both the choices made and their response times (RTs). Responses are considered as stereotyped when the chosen sex fits stereotyped roles and non-stereotyped when the chosen sex does not fit stereotyped roles. Individual means (RTs) were computed for stereotyped and non-stereotyped responses, differentiating between domestic and work spheres. A “D” score, reflecting the strength of association between activities and sex, was calculated for each sphere and sex. The study incorporated 78 participants (69% women and 31% men) ranging from 19 to 59 years old. The results show that: (a) reading speed does not explain the variability in the RTs; (b) RTs show good internal consistency; (c) RTs are shorter for stereotyped than for neutral stimuli; (d) RTs are shorter for stereotyped than for non-stereotyped responses. Intended goals are supported by obtained results. Scores provided by the task facilitate both group and individual detailed analysis of gender role, differentiating the gender role assigned to men from that assigned to women, at the domestic and work spheres. Obtained data fall within the scope of the genderology and their implications are discussed.

Bibliographic References

  • Agbayani, P., & Min, J. W. (2007). Examining the validity of the Bern Sex Role Inventory for use with Filipino Americans using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 15, 55-80. doi:10.1300/J051v15n01-03
  • Archer, J. (1989). The relationship between gender-role measures: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 173-184.
  • Bern, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
  • Brinol, P., Petty, R. E., & Wheeler, S. C. (2006). Discrepancies between explicit and implicit self-concepts: consequences for information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 154-170. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.154 (Pubitemid 44118162)
  • Brunei, F. F., Tietje, B. C, & Greenwald, A. G (2004). Is the Implicit Association Test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 385-404. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404-8 (Pubitemid 39583457)
  • Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2008). The Bern Sex-Role Inventory: Continuing theoretical problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 881-900. doi:10.1177/0013114408315267
  • Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to the famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407. doi:10.1037/h0035334
  • Fernández, J. (1983). Nuevas perspectivas en la medida de la masculinidad y feminidad [New perspectives on measurement of masculinity and femininity]. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Universidad Complutense.
  • Fernández, J. (2010). El sexo y el género: dos dominios cientificos diferentes que debieran ser clarificados [Sex and gender: Two different scientific domains to be clarified]. Psicothema, 22, 256-262.
  • Fernández, J., & Coello, M. T. (2010). Do the BSRI and PAQ really measure masculinity and femininity? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 998-1007.
  • Fernández, J., Quiroga, M. A., Del Olmo, I., & Rodríguez, A. (2007). Escalas de masculinidad y feminidad: estado actual de la cuestión [Masculinity and femininity scales: Current state of the art]. Psicothema, 19, 357-365.
  • Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692-731. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692 (Pubitemid 44306752)
  • Gawronski, B., Deusch, R., Mbirkou, S., Seibt, B., & Strack, F. (2008). When "just say no" is not enough: Affirmation versus negation training and the reduction of automatic stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 370-377. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.004
  • Gawronski, B. Hofman, W., & Wilbur, C. (2006). Are "implicit" attitudes unconscious? Consciousness and cognition, 15, 485-499. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.11.007 (Pubitemid 44128840)
  • Gibbons, J. L., Hamby, B.A., & Dennis, W D. (1997). Researching gender-role ideologies internationally and cross-culturally. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 151-170. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00106.x
  • Gough, H. G. (1952). Identifying psychological femininity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 12, 427-439. doi:10.1177/001316445201200309
  • Greenwald, A. G, Bahaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.109.1.3
  • Greenwald, A. G, & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022-1038. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.1022
  • Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
  • Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences. Amsterdam, The Nederlands: Elsevier.
  • Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Williams, C. M., Hasan, N. T., & Smalley, K. B. (2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology on Men & Masculinity, 11, 25-37. doi:10.1037/a0017637
  • Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd. Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
  • McHugh, M. C, & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1-16. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00097.x
  • Parsons, T, & Bales, R. F. (Eds.). (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Peng, T. K. (2006). Construct validation of the Bern Sex Role Inventory in Taiwan. Sex Roles, 55, 843-851. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9136-6 (Pubitemid 44953032)
  • Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2006). A metacognitve approach to "implicit" and "explicit" evaluations: Comment on Gawronski and Bodenhausen (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132, 740-744. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.740 (Pubitemid 44306755)
  • Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G, & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164-1178. doi:10.1177/0146167201279009
  • Schnabel, K., Asendorpf, J. B., Greenwald, A. G. (2008). Assessment of individual differences in implicit cognition: A review of IAT measures. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 210-217. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.24.4. 210
  • Spence, J. T. (1991). Do the BSRI and PAQ measure the same or different concepts? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 141-165. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402. 1991.tb00483.x
  • Spence, J. T, & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity: Defining the undefinable. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 105-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Spence, J. T, Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex roles stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43-44 (MS 617).
  • Spence, J. T, Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on Sex Role Attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29-39. doi:10.1037/h0076857
  • Strong, E. K. (1936). Interest of men and women. Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 49-67.
  • Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Van Well, S., Kolk, A. M., & Oei, N. Y. L. (2007). Direct and indirect assessment of gender role identification. Sex Roles, 56, 617-628. doi:10.1007/sl 1199-007-9203-7
  • White, M. J., & White, G B. (2006). Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 55, 259-266. doi:10.1007/s 11199-006-9078-z (Pubitemid 44116389)
  • Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1985). Sex-role orientation and psychological well-being: Two meta-analyses. Sex Roles, 12, 207-225. doi:10.1007/BF00288048
  • Wittenbrink, B., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (2007). Implicit measures of attitudes. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.699
Data source: Dialnet