Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Who and When of “Gender-Blind” Attitudes: Predictors of Gender-Role Egalitarianism in Two Different Domains

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We compared gender-role egalitarianism in two domains: employment and social roles. We also investigated the influence of four variables—gender, ethnicity (Asian and non-Asian), scores on the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), and the perceived importance of men's social privileges—on egalitarianism in each domain. Participants (205 male and female college students of varying ethnicity) were more egalitarian in the employment than in the social domain. Women were more egalitarian than men, but this gender difference was greater in the employment domain. Asian Americans were less egalitarian than non-Asians only in the social domain. Expressiveness score on the PAQ predicted higher egalitarianism, whereas the perceived importance of men's social privileges was negatively related to egalitarianism. Theoretical explanations are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beere, C. A., King, D. W., Beere, D. B., & King, L. A. (1984). The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes. Sex Roles, 10, 563–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Employment Policy Foundation. (2002, August 21). News release. Retrieved September 17, 2002, from http://www.epf.org/media/newsreleases/2002/nr20020821.htm

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7, 1097–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1993). Manual for SRES: An instrument to measure attitudes toward gender-role equality. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1997). Sex-role Egalitarianism Scale: Development, psychometric properties, and recommendations for future research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (1998). Egalitarian daters/traditionalist dates. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 468–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G., Mueller, J., & Smith, T. W. (1989). Trends in public opinion: A compendium of survey data. New York: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., Sidanius, J., & Siers, B. (1997). The gender gap in occupational role attainment: A social dominance approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles' contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 998–1011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. W. (1999). The emerging 21st century American family. (GSS Social Change Report No. 42). Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, L. Z., Minton, J., Calano, L., Raber, R., & Rapoport-Taylor, B. (1985). Being female and liking it: An empirical study. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 7, 241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. (1997). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale and attitude change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). The PersonalAttributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 43–44.

  • Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California

    Stacey J. Anderson & Joel T. Johnson

Authors
  1. Stacey J. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joel T. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel T. Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, S.J., Johnson, J.T. The Who and When of “Gender-Blind” Attitudes: Predictors of Gender-Role Egalitarianism in Two Different Domains. Sex Roles 49, 527–532 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025836807911

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025836807911

Search

Navigation