Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T11:41:13.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objective Assessment of Gender Roles: Gender Roles Test (GRT-36)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Juan Fernández ,
Mª Ángeles Quiroga ,
Isabel del Olmo ,
Javier Aróztegui  and
Arantxa Martín
Juan Fernández*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Mª Ángeles Quiroga
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Isabel del Olmo
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Javier Aróztegui
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Arantxa Martín
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan Fernández Sánchez. Facultad de Psicología, Campus de Somosaguas. 28223 Madrid (Spain) E-mail: jfernandez@psi.ucm.es. Web site: http://sites.google.com/site/jfsprofile/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

El objetivo del estudio ha sido elaborar un test informatizado, para valorar los roles de género, presentado como tarea de toma de decisiones para enmascarar su objetivo. En cada ítem hay que elegir entre varones o mujeres, según se los/as considere más idóneos para realizar cada actividad. La prueba consta de 36 ítems/actividades. El programa registra tanto la elección como el tiempo de respuesta (TR). Las respuestas se clasifican en estereotipadas (concordancia sexo y rol estereotipado) y no estereotipadas (discordancia sexo y rol estereotipado). Para cada uno de estos grupos se calcula el TR medio, diferenciando ámbito doméstico y laboral. También se calcula una puntuación de fuerza de asociación de la respuesta (D) para cada ámbito y sexo. En el estudio participaron 78 personas (69% mujeres y 31% varones) entre 19 y 59 años. Los resultados manifiestan que: (a) la velocidad de lectura no explica la variabilidad en los TR; (b) los TR muestran buena consistencia interna; (c) los TR son más breves ante estímulos estereotipados que neutros; (d) los TR son más breves para las respuestas estereotipadas que para las no estereotipadas. Los resultados avalan el ajuste del test a los objetivos establecidos. Las puntuaciones facilitan tanto el análisis del rol de género en grupos como el perfil individual, diferenciando el rol de género adscrito a la mujer del adscrito al varón, tanto en el ámbito doméstico como en el laboral. Estos resultados se enmarcan dentro del ámbito de la generología y se discuten sus implicaciones.

Keywords

gender rolesobjective testmasculinityfemininitygenderologyroles de géneroprueba objetivamasculinidadfeminidadgenerología
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , November 2011 , pp. 899 - 911
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agbayani, P., & Min, J. W. (2007). Examining the validity of the Bem 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_03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, J. (1989). The relationship between gender-role measures: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 173–184.Google Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briñol, 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:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.154Google Scholar
Brunel, 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_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2008). The Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Continuing theoretical problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 881–900. doi:10.1177/0013114408315267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to the famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407. doi:10.1037/h0035334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fernández, J. (2010). El sexo y el género: dos dominios científicos diferentes que debieran ser clarificados [Sex and gender: Two different scientific domains to be clarified]. Psicothema, 22, 256–262.Google Scholar
Fernández, J., & Coello, M. T. (2010). Do the BSRI and PAQ really measure masculinity and femininity? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 998–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692Google Scholar
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.2006.12.004Google Scholar
Gawronski, B. Hofman, W., & Wilbur, C. (2006). Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious? Consciousness and cognition, 15, 485–499. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.xGoogle Scholar
Gough, H. G. (1952). Identifying psychological femininity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 12, 427–439. doi:10.1177/001316445201200309Google Scholar
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.109.1.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.I022Google Scholar
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences. Amsterdam, The Nederlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
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/a0017637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd. Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of genderrole attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00097.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (Eds.). (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Peng, T. K. (2006). Construct validation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory in Taiwan. Sex Roles, 55, 843–851. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9136-6Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2006). A metacognitve approach to “implicit” and “explicit” evaluations: Comment on Gawronski and Bodenhausen (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132, 740–744. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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:10.1177/0146167201279009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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:10.1027/1015-5759.24.4.210Google Scholar
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.xGoogle Scholar
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity: Defining the undefinable. In Kalbfleisch, P. J. & Cody, M. J. (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp. 105–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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/h0076857Google Scholar
Strong, E. K. (1936). Interest of men and women. Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
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/s11199-007-9203-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M. J., & White, G. B. (2006). Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 55, 259–266. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9078-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitley, B. E. Jr., (1985). Sex-role orientation and psychological well-being: Two meta-analyses. Sex Roles, 12, 207–225. doi:10.1007/BF00288048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenbrink, B., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (2007). Implicit measures of attitudes. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
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//0033-2909.128.5.699Google Scholar