Explicit and implicit assessment of gender roles

  1. Fernández Sánchez, Juan
  2. Quiroga Estévez, María Ángeles
  3. Escorial Martín, Sergio
  4. Privado Zamorano, Jesús
Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 26

Número: 2

Páginas: 244-251

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

Antecedentes: los roles de género han sido evaluados con medidas explícitas y, recientemente, implícitas. En el primer caso, los supuestos teóricos no se ajustan a los resultados empíricos. Para intentar resolver este problema hemos realizado dos estudios consecutivos con un enfoque, teórico y empírico, bien fundamentado. Método: el primero fue diseñado para obtener una muestra de actividades de género de la esfera doméstica mediante medidas explícitas. Los evaluadores fueron 42 adultos (22 mujeres y 20 varones, equiparados en edad, sexo y nivel educativo). En el segundo se utilizó una medida implícita, centrada en los tiempos de respuesta que las personas dan a las actividades de género, obtenidas en el primer estudio. Participaron 164 adultos (90 mujeres y 74 varones, media de edad= 43) con experiencia de vida en pareja y equiparados en edad, sexo y nivel educativo. Resultados: tomados conjuntamente, estos dos estudios muestran que es posible validar los datos obtenidos con una medida explícita mediante otra implícita: en la realidad social actual sigue sin haber equidad en ciertos roles de género del ámbito doméstico. Conclusiones: estos resultados, concordantes, manifiestan consistencia teórica y empírica, debido a la doble medida utilizada: explícita e implícita.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1994). Outliers in statistical data (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  • Barth, J.A. (Ed.). (2007). Automatic processes in social thinking and behaviour. New York: Psychology Press.
  • Beere, C.A. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Greenwood Press.
  • Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C., & Robinson, J.P. (2000). Is anyone doing housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191-228.
  • Choi, N., Fuqua, D.R., & Newman, J.L. (2008). The Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Continuing theoretical problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 881-900.
  • Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., Kwan, V.S.Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.P., Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Toward universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1-33.
  • Cvencek, D., Greenwald, A.G., & Meltzoff, A.N. (2011). Measuring implicit attitudes of 4-year-olds: The Preschool Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 187-200.
  • Devos, T., Blanco, K., Rico, F., & Dunn, R. (2008). The role of parenthood and college education in the self-concept of college students: Explicit and implicit assessment of gedered aspirations. Sex Roles, 59, 214-228.
  • Fazio, R.H., & Olson, M.A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.
  • Fernández, J. (2011). Un siglo de investigaciones sobre masculinidad y feminidad: una revisión crítica [A century of research on masculinity and femininity: A critical review]. Psicothema, 23, 167-172.
  • Fernandez, J., Quiroga, M.A., Del Olmo, I., & Rodríguez, A. (2007). Escalas de masculinidad y feminidad: estado actual de la cuestion [Masculinity and femininity scales: Current state of the art]. Psicothema, 19, 357-365.
  • Fernández, J., Quiroga, M.A., Del Olmo, I., Aróztegui, J., & Martín, A. (2011). Objective assessment of gender roles: Gender Roles Test (GRT-36). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 899-911.
  • Gawronski, B., & Payne, B.K. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford.
  • Graham, J.W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology,60, 549-576.
  • 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.
  • Greenwald, A., & 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.
  • Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B.A., & Banaji, M.R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, 197-216.
  • Greenwald, A.G., Poehlman, T.A., Uhlmann, E.L., & Banaji, M.R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Metaanalysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17-41.
  • Gregory, A., & Milner, S. (2009). Editorial: work-life balance: A matter of choice? Gender, Work and Organization, 16, 1-13.
  • Halpern, D. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4thed.). New York: Psychological Press.
  • Harris, J.R. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.
  • Helgeson, V. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428.
  • Hofman, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwender, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis of the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385.
  • Jensen, A.R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
  • Marsh, H.W., & Myers, M.R. (1986). Masculinity, femininity and androgyny: A methodological and theoretical critique. Sex Roles, 14, 397-430.
  • Martin, C.L., & Ruble, D.N. (2009). Patterns of gender development. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 353-381.
  • Morris, S.B., & DeShon, R.P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105-125.
  • Shelton, B.A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology,22, 299-322.
  • Skowronski, J.J., & Lawrence, M.A. (2001). A comparative study of the implicit and explicit gender attitude of children and college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 155-165.
  • Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. (1981). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex roles attitudes and behaviours. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163.
  • Stake, J.E. (1997). Integrating expressiveness and instrumentality in real life settings: A new perspective on the benefits of androgyny. Sex Roles,37, 541-564.
  • Tobin, D.D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B.C., Hodges, E.V.E., & Perry, D.G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of selfsocialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601-622.
  • Van Well, S., Kolk, A.M., & Oei, N.Y.L. (2007). Direct and indirect assessment of gender role identification. Sex Roles, 56, 617-628.
  • White, M.J., & White, G.B. (2006). Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 55, 259-266.
  • Wood, W., & Eagly, A.H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behaviour of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet