Explicit and implicit assessment of gender roles

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

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2014

Volume: 26

Issue: 2

Pages: 244-251

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Background: Gender roles have been assessed by explicit measures and, recently, by implicit measures. In the former case, the theoretical assumptions have been questioned by empirical results. To solve this contradiction, we carried out two concatenated studies based on a relatively well-founded theoretical and empirical approach. Method: The first study was designed to obtain a sample of genderized activities of the domestic sphere by means of an explicit assessment. Forty-two raters (22 women and 20 men, balanced on age, sex, and level of education) took part as raters. In the second study, an implicit assessment of gender roles was carried out, focusing on the response time given to the sample activities obtained from the first study. A total of 164 adults (90 women and 74 men, mean age = 43), with experience in living with a partner and balanced on age, sex, and level of education, participated. Results: Taken together, results show that explicit and implicit assessment converge. The current social reality shows that there is still no equity in some gender roles in the domestic sphere. Conclusions: These consistent results show considerable theoretical and empirical robustness, due to the double implicit and explicit assessment.

Bibliographic References

  • 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.
Data source: Dialnet