Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • My Account Login
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Open access
  • Published: 28 April 2020

The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research Impact and its evaluation

  • J. Chubb   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9716-820X 1 &
  • G. E. Derrick   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5386-8653 2  

Palgrave Communications volume  6 , Article number:  72 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

12 Citations

56 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Science, technology and society

A Correction to this article was published on 19 May 2020

This article has been updated

Using an analysis of two independent, qualitative interview data sets: the first containing semi-structured interviews with mid-senior academics from across a range of disciplines at two research-intensive universities in Australia and the UK, collected between 2011 and 2013 ( n  = 51); and the second including pre- ( n  = 62), and post-evaluation ( n  = 57) interviews with UK REF2014 Main Panel A evaluators, this paper provides some of the first empirical work and the grounded uncovering of implicit (and in some cases explicit) gendered associations around impact generation and, by extension, its evaluation. In this paper, we explore the nature of gendered associations towards non-academic impact (Impact) generation and evaluation. The results suggest an underlying yet emergent gendered perception of Impact and its activities that is worthy of further research and exploration as the importance of valuing the ways in which research has an influence ‘beyond academia’ increases globally. In particular, it identifies how researchers perceive that there are some personality traits that are better orientated towards achieving Impact; how these may in fact be gendered. It also identifies how gender may play a role in the prioritisation of ‘hard’ Impacts (and research) that can be counted, in contrast to ‘soft’ Impacts (and research) that are far less quantifiable, reminiscent of deeper entrenched views about the value of different ‘modes’ of research. These orientations also translate to the evaluation of Impact, where panellists exhibit these tendencies prior to its evaluation and describe the organisation of panel work with respect to gender diversity.

Introduction

The management and measurement of the non-academic impact Footnote 1 (Impact) of research is a consistent theme within the higher education (HE) research environment in the UK, reflective of a drive from government for greater visibility of the benefits of research for the public, policy and commercial sectors (Chubb, 2017 ). This is this mirrored on a global scale, particularly in Australia, where, at the ‘vanguard’ (Upton et al., 2014 , p. 352) of these developments, methods were first devised (but were subsequently abandoned) to measure research impact (Chubb, 2017 ; Hazelkorn and Gibson, 2019 ). What is broadly known in both contexts as an ‘Impact Agenda’—the move to forecast and assess the ways in which investment in academic research delivers measurable socio-economic benefit—initially sparked broad debate and in some instances controversy, among the academic community (and beyond) upon its inception (Chubb, 2017 ). Since then, the debate has continued to evolve and the ways in which impact can be better conceptualised and implemented in the UK, including its role in evaluation (Stern, 2016 ), and more recently in grant applications (UKRI, 2020 ) is robustly debated. Notwithstanding attempts to better the culture of equality and diversity in research, (Stern, 2016 ; Nature, 2019 ) in the broader sense, and despite the implementation of the Impact agenda being studied extensively, there has been very little critical engagement with theories of gender and how this translates specifically to more downstream gendered inequities in HE such as through an impact agenda.

The emergence of Impact brought with it many connotations, many of which were largely negative; freedom was questioned, and autonomy was seen to be at threat because of an audit surveillance culture in HE (Lorenz, 2012 ). Resistance was largely characterised by problematising the agenda as symptomatic of the marketisation of knowledge threatening traditional academic norms and ideals (Merton, 1942 ; Williams, 2002 ) and has led to concern about how the Impact agenda is conceived, implemented and evaluated. This concern extends to perceptions of gendered assumptions about certain kinds of knowledge and related activities of which there is already a corpus of work, i.e., in the case of gender and forms of public engagement (Johnson et al., 2014 ; Crettaz Von Roten, 2011 ). This paper explores what it terms as ‘the Impact a-gender’ (Chubb, 2017 ) where gendered notions of non-academic, societal impact and how it is generated feed into its evaluation. It does not wed itself to any feminist tradition specifically, however, draws on Carey et al. ( 2018 ) to examine, acknowledge and therefore amend how the range of policies within HE and how implicit power dynamics in policymaking produce gender inequalities. Instead, an impact fluidity is encouraged and supported. For this paper, this means examining how the impact a-gender feeds into expectations and the reward of non-academic impact. If left unchecked, the propagation of the impact a-gender, it is argued, has the potential to guard against a greater proportion of women generating and influencing the use of research evidence in public policy decision-making.

Scholars continue to reflect on ‘science as a gendered endeavour’ (Amâncio, 2005 ). The extensive corpus of historical literature on gender in science and its originators (Merton, 1942 ; Keller et al., 1978 ; Kuhn, 1962 ), note the ‘pervasiveness’ of the ‘masculine’ and the ‘objective and the scientific’. Indeed, Amancio affirmed in more recent times that ‘modern science was born as an exclusively masculine activity’ ( 2005 ). The Impact agenda raises yet more obstacles indicative of this pervasiveness, which is documented by the ‘Matthew’/‘Matilda’ effect in Science (Merton, 1942 ; Rossiter, 1993 ). Perceptions of gender bias (which Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 2013 hypothesise as myths in evaluative cultures) persist with respect to how gender effects publishing, pay and reward and other evaluative issues in HE (Ward and Grant, 1996 ). Some have argued that scientists and institutions perpetuate such issues (Amâncio, 2005 ). Irrespective of their origin, perceptions of gendered Impact impede evaluative cultures within HE and, more broadly, the quest for equality in excellence in research impact beyond academia.

To borrow from Van Den Brink and Benschop ( 2012 ), gender is conceptualised as an integral part of organisational practices, situated within a social construction of feminism (Lorber, 2005 ; Poggio, 2006 ). This article uses the notion of gender differences and inequality to refer to the ‘ hierarchical distinction in which either women and femininity and men and masculinity are valued over the other ’ (p. 73), though this is not precluding of individual preferences. Indeed, there is an emerging body of work focused on gendered associations not only about ‘types’ of research and/or ‘areas and topics’ (Thelwall et al., 2019 ), but also about what is referred to as non-academic impact. This is with particular reference to audit cultures in HE such as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which is the UK’s system of assessing the quality of research (Morley, 2003 ; Yarrow and Davies, 2018 ; Weinstein et al., 2019 ). While scholars have long attended to researching gender differences in relation to the marketisation of HE (Ahmed, 2006 ; Bank, 2011 ; Clegg, 2008 ; Gromkowska-Melosik, 2014 ; Leathwood et al., 2008 ), and the gendering of Impact activities such as outreach and public engagement (Ward and Grant, 1996 ), there is less understanding of how far academic perceptions of Impact are gendered. Further, how these gendered tensions influence panel culture in the evaluation of impact beyond academia is also not well understood. As a recent discussion in the Lancet read ‘ the causes of gender disparities are complex and include both distal and proximal factors ’. (Lundine et al., 2019 , p. 742).

This paper examines the ways in which researchers and research evaluators implicitly perceive gender as related to excellence in Impact both in its generation and in its evaluation. Using an analysis of two existing data sets; the pre-evaluation interviews of evaluators in the UK’s 2014 Research Excellence Framework and interviews with mid-senior career academics from across the range of disciplines with experience of building impact into funding applications and/ or its evaluation in two research-intensive universities in the UK and Australia between 2011 and 2013, this paper explores the implicitly gendered references expressed by our participants relating to the generation of non-academic, impact which emerged inductively through analysis. Both data sets comprise researcher perceptions of impact prior to being subjected to any formalised assessment of research Impact, thus allowing for the identification of unconscious gendered orientations that emerged from participant’s emotional and more abstract views about Impact. It notes how researchers use loaded terminology around ‘hard’, and ‘soft’ when conceptualising Impact that is reminiscent of long-standing associations between epistemological domains of research and notions of masculinity/femininity. It refers to ‘hard’ impact as those that are associated with meaning economic/ tangible and efficiently/ quantifiably evaluated, and ‘soft’ as denoting social, abstract, potentially qualitative or less easily and inefficiently evaluated. By extending this analysis to the gendered notions expressed by REF2014 panellists (expert reviewers whose responsibility it is to review the quality of the retrospective impact articulated in case studies for the purposes of research evaluation) towards the evaluation of Impact, this paper highlights how instead of challenging these tendencies, shared constructions of Impact and gendered productivity in academia act to amplify and embed these gendered notions within the evaluation outcomes and practice. It explores how vulnerable seemingly independent assessments of Impact are to these widespread gendered- associations between Impact, engagement and success. Specifically, perceptions of the excellence and judgements of feasibility relating to attribution, and causality within the narrative of the Impact case study become gendered.

The article is structured as follows. First, it reviews the gender-orientations towards notions of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ excellence in forms of scholarly distinction and explores how this relates to the REF Impact evaluation criteria, and the under-representation of women in the academic workforce. Specifically, it hypothesises the role of how gendered notions of excellence that construct academic identities contribute to a system that side-lines women in academia. This is despite associating the generation of Impact as a feminised skill. We label this as the ‘Impact a-gender’. The article then outlines the methodology and how the two, independent databases were combined and convergent themes developed. The results are then presented from academics in the UK and Australia and then from REF2014 panellists. This describes how the Impact a-gender currently operates through academic cultural orientations around Impact generation, and in its evaluation through peer-review panels by members of this same academic culture. The article concludes with a recommendation that the Impact a-gender be explored more thoroughly as a necessary step towards guiding against gender- bias in the academic evaluation, and reward system.

Literature review

Notions of impact excellence as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’.

Scholars have long attempted to consider the commonalities and differences across certain kinds of knowledge (Becher, 1989 , 1994 ; Biglan, 1973a ) and attempts to categorise, divide and harmonise the disciplines have been made (Biglan, 1973a , 1973b ; Becher, 1994 ; Caplan, 1979 ; Schommer–Aikins et al., 2003 ). Much of this was advanced with a typology of the disciplines from (Trowler, 2001 ), which categorised the disciplines as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’. Both anecdotally and in the literature, ‘soft’ science is associated with working more with people and less with ‘things’ (Cassell, 2002 ; Thelwall et al., 2019 ). These dichotomies often lead to a hierarchy of types of Impact and oppose valuation of activities based on their gendered connotations.

Biglan’s system of classifying disciplines into groups based on similarities and differences denotes particular behaviours or characteristics, which then form part of clusters or groups—‘pure’, ‘applied’, ‘soft’, ‘hard’ etc. Simpson ( 2017 ) argues that Biglan’s classification persists as one of the most commonly referred to models of the disciplines despite the prominence of some others (Pantin, 1968 ; Kuhn, 1962 ; Smart et al., 2000 ). Biglan ( 1973b ) classified the disciplines across three dimensions; hard and soft, pure and applied, life and non-life (whether the research is concerned with living things/organisms) . This ‘taxonomy of the disciplines’ states that ‘pure-hard’ domains tend toward the life and earth sciences,’pure-soft’ the social sciences and humanities, and ‘applied hard’ focus on engineering and physical science with ‘soft-applied’ tending toward professional practice such as nursing, medicine and education. Biglan’s classification looked at levels of social connectedness and specifically found that applied scholars Footnote 2 were more socially connected, more interested and involved in service activities, and more likely to publish in the form of technical reports than their counterparts in the pure (hard) areas of study. This resonates with how Impact brings renewed currency and academic prominence to applied researchers (Chubb, 2017 ). Historically, scholars inhabiting the ‘hard’ disciplines had a greater preference for research; whereas, scholars representing soft disciplines had a greater preference for teaching (Biglan, 1973b ). Further, Biglan ( 1973b ) also found that hard science scholars sought out greater collaborative efforts among colleagues when teaching as opposed to their soft science counterparts.

There are also long-standing gendered associations and connotations with notions of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ (Storer, 1967 ). Typically used to refer to skills, but also used heavily with respect to the disciplines and knowledge domains, gendered assumptions and the mere use of ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ to describe knowledge production carries with it assumptions, which are often noted in the literature; ‘ we think of physics as hard and of political science as soft ’, Storer explains, adding how ‘hard seems to imply tough, brittle, impenetrable and strong, while soft on the other hand calls to mind the qualities of weakness, gentleness and malleability’ (p. 76). As described, hard science is typically associated with the natural sciences and quantitative paradigms whereas normative perceptions of feminine ‘soft’ skills or ‘soft’ science are often equated with qualitative social science. Scholars continue to debate dichotomised paradigms or ‘types’ of research or knowledge (Gibbons, 1999 ), which is emblematic of an undercurrent of epistemological hierarchy of the value of different kinds of knowledge. Such debates date back to the heated back and forth between scholars Snow (Snow, 2012 ) and literary critic Leavis who argued for their own ‘cultures’ of knowledge. Notwithstanding, these binary distinctions do few favours when gender is then ascribed to either knowledge domain or related activity (Yarrow and Davies, 2018 ). This is particularly pertinent in light of the current drive for more interdisciplinary research in the science system where there is also a focus on fairness, equality and diversity in the science system.

Academic performance and the Impact a-gender

Audit culture in academia impacts unfairly on women (Morley, 2003 ), and is seen as contributory to the wide gender disparities in academia, including the under-representation of women as professors (Ellemers et al., 2004 ), in leadership positions (Carnes et al., 2015 ), in receiving research acknowledgements (Larivière et al., 2013 ; Sugimoto et al., 2015 ), or being disproportionately concentrated in non-research-intensive universities (Santos and Dang Van Phu, 2019 ). Whereas gender discrimination also manifests in other ways such as during peer review (Lee and Noh, 2013 ), promotion (Paulus et al., 2016 ), and teaching evaluations (Kogan et al., 2010 ), the proliferation of an audit culture links gender disparities in HE to processes that emphasise ‘quantitative’ analysis methods, statistics, measurement, the creation of ‘experts’, and the production of ‘hard evidence’. The assumption here is that academic performance and the metrics used to value, and evaluate it, are heavily gendered in a way that benefits men over women, reflecting current disparities within the HE workforce. Indeed, Morely (2003) suggests that the way in which teaching quality is female dominated and research quality is male dominated, leads to a morality of quality resulting in the larger proportion of women being responsible for student-focused services within HE. In addition, the notion of ‘excellence’ within these audit cultures implicitly reflect images of masculinity such as rationality, measurement, objectivity, control and competitiveness (Burkinshaw, 2015 ).

The association of feminine and masculine traits in academia (Holt and Ellis, 1998 ), and ‘gendering its forms of knowledge production’ (Clegg, 2008 ), is not new. In these typologies, women are largely expected to be soft-spoken, nurturing and understanding (Bellas, 1999 ) yet often invisible and supportive in their ‘institutional housekeeping’ roles (Bird et al., 2004 ). Men, on the other hand are often associated with being competitive, ambitious and independent (Baker, 2008 ). When an individual’s behaviour is perceived to transcend these gendered norms, then this has detrimental effects on how others evaluate their competence, although some traits displayed outside of these typologies go somewhat ‘under the radar’. Nonetheless, studies show that women who display leadership qualities (competitiveness, ambition and decisiveness) are characterised more negatively than men (Rausch, 1989 ; Heilman et al., 1995 ; Rossiter, 1993 ). Incongruity between perceptions of ‘likeability’ and ‘competence’ and its relationship to gender bias is present in evaluations in academia, where success is dependent on the perceptions of others and compounded within an audit culture (Yarrow and Davis, 2018). This has been seen in peer review, reports for men and women applicants, where women were disadvantaged by the same characteristics that were seen as a strength on proposals by men (Severin et al., 2019 ); as well as in teaching evaluations where women receive higher evaluations if they are perceived as ‘nurturing’ and ‘supportive’ (Kogan et al., 2010 ). This results in various potential forms of prejudice in academia: Where traits normally associated with masculinity are more highly valued than those associated with femininity (direct) or when behaviour that is generally perceived to be ‘masculine’ is enacted by a woman and then perceived less favourably (indirect/ unconscious). That is not to mention direct sexism, rather than ‘through’ traits; a direct prejudice.

Gendered associations of Impact are not only oversimplified but also incredibly problematic for an inclusive, meaningful Impact agenda and research culture. Currently, in the UK, the main funding body for research in the UK, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) uses a broad Impact definition: ‘ the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy ’ (UKRI website, 2019 ). The most recent REF, REF2014, Impact was defined as ‘ …an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia ’. In Australia, the Australian Research Council (ARC) proposed that researchers should ‘embed’ Impact into the research process from the outset. Both Australia and the UK have been engaged in policy borrowing around the evaluation of societal impact and share many similarities in approaches to generating and evaluating it. Indeed, Impact has been deliberately conceptualised by decision-makers, funders and governments as broad in order to increase the appearance of being inclusivity, to represent a broad range of disciplines, as well as to reflect the ‘diverse ways’ that potential beneficiaries of academic research can be reached ‘beyond academia’. The adoption of societal impact as a formalised criterion in the evaluation of research excellence was initially perceived to be potentially beneficial for women, due to its emphasis on concepts such as ‘public engagement’; ‘duty’ and non-academic ‘cooperation/collaboration’ (Yarrow and Davies, 2018 ). In addition, the adoption of narrative case studies to demonstrate Impact, rather than adopting a complete metrics-focused exercise, can also be seen as an opportunity for women to demonstrate excellence in the areas where they are over-represented, such as teaching, cultural enrichment, public engagement (Andrews et al., 2005 ), informing public policy and improving public services (Schatteman, 2014 ; Wheatle and BrckaLorenz, 2015). However, despite this, studies highlight how for the REF2014, only 25% of Impact Case Studies for business and management studies were from women (Davies et al., 2020 ).

With respect to Impact evaluation, previous research shows that there is a direct link between notions of academic culture, and how research (as a product of that culture) is valued and evaluated (Leathwood and Reid, 2008 ; p. 120). Geertz ( 1983 ) argues that academic membership is a ‘cultural frame that defines a great part of one’s life’ influences belief systems around how academic work is orientated. This also includes gendered associations implicit in the academic reward system, which in turn influences how academics believe success is to be evaluated, and in what form that success emerges. This has implications in how academic associations of the organisation of research work and the ongoing constructions of professional identity relative to gender, feeds into how these same academics operate as evaluators within a peer review system evaluation. In this case, instead of operating to challenge these tendencies, shared constructions of gendered academic work are amplified to the extent that they unconsciously influence perceptions of excellence and the judgements of feasibility as pertaining to the attribution and causality of the narrative argument. As such, in an evaluation of Impact with its ambiguous definition (Derrick, 2018 ), and the lack of external indicators to signal success independent of cultural constructions inherent in the panel membership, effects are assumed to be more acute. In this way, this paper argues that the Impact a-gender can act to further disadvantage women.

The research combines two existing research data sets in order to explore implicit notions of gender associated with the generation and evaluation of research Impact beyond academia. Below the two data sets and the steps involved in analysing and integrating findings are described along with our theoretical positioning within the feminist literature Where verbatim quotation is used, we have labelled the participants according to each study highlighting their role and gender. Further, the evaluator interviews specify the disciplinary panel and subpanel to which they belonged, as well as their evaluation responsibilities such as: ‘Outputs only’; ‘Outputs and Impact’; and ‘Impacts only’.

Analysis of qualitative data sets

This research involved the analysis and combination of two independently collected, qualitative interview databases. The characteristics and specifics of both databases are outlined below.

Interviews with mid-senior academics in the UK and Australia

Fifty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2011 and 2013 with mid-senior academics at two research-intensive universities in Australia and the UK. The interviews were 30–60 min long and participants were sourced via the research offices at both sites. Participants were contacted via email and invited to participate in a study concerning resistance towards the Impact agenda in the UK and Australia and were specifically asked for their perceptions of its relationship with freedom, value and epistemic responsibility and variations across discipline, career stage and national context. Mostly focused on ex ante impact, some interviewees also described their experiences of Impact in the UK and Australia, in relation to its formal assessment as part of the Excellence Innovation Australia (EIA) for Australia and the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the UK.

Participants comprised mid to senior career academics with experience of winning funding from across the range of disciplines broadly representative of the arts and humanities, social sciences, physical science, maths and engineering and the life and earth sciences. For the purposes of this paper, although participant demographic information was collected, the relationship between the gender of the participants, their roles, disciplines/career stage was not explicitly explored instead, such conditions were emergent in the subsequent inductive coding during thematic analysis. A reflexive log was collected in order to challenge and draw attention to assumptions and underlying biases, which may affect the author, inclusive of their own gender identity. Further information on this is provided in Chubb ( 2017 ).

Pre- and post-evaluation interviews with REF2014 evaluators

REF2014 in the UK represented the world’s first formalised evaluation of ex-post impact, comprising of 20% of the overall evaluation. This framework served as a unique experimental environment with which to explore baseline tendencies towards impact as a concept and evaluative object (Derrick, 2018 ).

Two sets of semi-structured interviews were conducted with willing participants: sixty-two panellists were interviewed from the UK’s REF2014 Main Panel A prior to the evaluation taking place; and a fifty-seven of these were re-interviewed post-evaluation. Main Panel A covers six Sub-panels: (1) Clinical Medicine; (2) Public Health, Health Services and Primary Care; (3) Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy; (4) Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience; (5) Biological Sciences; and (6) Agriculture, Veterinary and Food Sciences. Again, the relationship between the gender of the participants and their discipline is not the focus for the purposes of this paper.

Database combination and identification of common emergent themes

The inclusion of data sets using both Australian and UK researchers was pertinent to this study as both sites were at the cusp of implementing the evaluation of Impact formally. These researcher interviews, as well as the evaluator interviews were conducted prior to any formalised Impact evaluation took place, but when both contexts required ex ante impact in terms of certain funding allocation, meaning an analysis of these baseline perceptions between databases was possible. Further, the inclusion of the post-evaluation interviews with panellists in the UK allowed an exploration of how these gendered perceptions identified in the interviews with researchers and panellists prior to the evaluation, influenced panel behaviour during the evaluation of Impact.

Initially, both data sets were analysed using similar, inductive, grounded-theory-informed approaches inclusive of a discourse and thematic analysis of the language used by participants when describing impact, which allowed for the drawing out of metaphor (Zinken et al., 2008 ). This allowed data combination and analysis of the two databases to be conducted in line with the recommendations for data-synthesis as outlined in Weed ( 2005 ) as a form of interpretation. This approach guarded against the quantification of qualitative findings for the purposes of synthesis, and instead focused on an initial dialogic approach between the two authors (Chubb and Derrick), followed by a re-analysis of qualitative data sets (Heaton, 1998 ) in line with the outcomes of the initial author-dialogue as a method of circumventing many of the drawbacks associated with qualitative data-synthesis. Convergent themes from each, independently analysed data set were discussed between authors, before the construction of new themes that were an iterative analysis of the combined data set. Drawing on the feminist tradition the authors did not apply feminist standpoint theory, instead a fully inductive approach was used to unearth rich empirical data. An interpretative and inductive approach to coding the data using NVIVO software in both instances was used and a reflexive log maintained. The availability of both full, coded, qualitative data sets, as well as the large sample size of each, allowed this data-synthesis to happen.

Researcher’s perceptions of Impact as either ‘hard’ or ‘soft’

Both UK and Australian academic researchers (researchers) perceive a guideline of gendered productivity (Davies et al., 2017 ; Sax et al., 2002 ; Astin, 1978 ; Ward and Grant, 1996 ). This is where men or women are being dissuaded (by their inner narratives, their institutions or by colleagues) from engaging in Impact either in preference to other (more masculine) notions of academic productivity, or towards softer (for women) because they consider themselves and are considered by others to be ‘good at it’. Participants often gendered the language of Impact and introduced notions of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’. On the one hand, this rehearses and resurfaces long-standing views about the ‘Matthew Effect’ because often softer Impacts were seen as being of less value by participants, but also indicates that the word impact itself carries its own connotations, which are then weighed down further by more entrenched gender associations.

Our research shows that when describing Impact, it was not necessarily the masculinity or femininity of the researcher that was emphasised by participants, rather researchers made gendered presumptions around the type of Impact, or the activity used to generate it as either masculine or feminine. Some participants referred to their own research or others’ research as either ‘hard’ or as ‘soft and woolly’. Those who self-professed that their research was ‘soft’ or woolly’ felt that their research was less likely to qualify as having ‘hard’ impact in REF terms Footnote 3 ; instead, they claimed their research would impact socially, as opposed to economically; ‘ stuff that’s on a flaky edge — it’s very much about social engagement ’ (Languages, Australia, Professor, Male) . One researcher described Impact as ‘a nasty Treasury idea,’ comparing it to: a tsunami, crashing over everything which will knock out stuff that is precious ’ . (Theatre, Film and TV, UK, Professor, Male) . This imagery associates the concept of impact with force and weight (or hardness as mentioned earlier) particularly in disciplines where the effect of their research may be far more nuanced and subtle. One Australian research used force to depict the impact of teaching and claimed Impact was like a footprint, and teaching was ‘ a pretty heavy imprint ’ (Environment, UK, Professor, Male) . Participants characterised ‘force and weight’ as masculine, suggesting that some connotations of Impact and the associated activities may be gendered. The word ‘Impact’ was inherently perceived by many researchers as problematic, bound with linguistic connotations and those imposed by the official definitions, which in many cases are perceived as negative or maybe even gendered (Chubb, 2017 ): ‘ The etymology of a word like impact is interesting. I’ve always seen what I do as being a more subtle incremental engagement, relevance, a contribution ’. (Theatre, Film and TV, UK, Professor, Male) .

Researchers associated the word ‘impact’ with hard-ness, weight and force; ‘ anything that sorts of hits you ’ (Languages, UK, Senior Lecturer, Female) . One researcher suggested that Impact ‘ sounds kind of aggressive — the poor consumer! ’ (History, Australia, Professor, Female) . Talking about her own research in the performing arts, one Australian researcher commented: ‘ It’s such a pain in the arse because the Arts don’t fit the model. But in a way they do if you look at the impact as being something quite soft ’ (Music, Australia, Professor, Female) . Likewise, a similar comparison was seen by a female researcher from the mechanical engineering discipline: ‘ My impact case study wasn’t submitted mainly because I’m dealing with that slightly on the woolly side of things ’ (Mechanical Engineering, Australia, Professor, Female) . Largely, gender related comments hailed from the ‘hard’ science and from arts and humanities researchers. Social scientists commented less, and indeed, one levelled that Impact was perhaps less a matter of gender, and more a matter of ability (Chubb, 2017 ): ‘ It’s about being articulate! Both guys and women who are very articulate and communicate well are outward looking on all of these things ’ ( Engineering Education, Australia, Professor, Female).

Gendered notions of performativity were also very pronounced by evaluators who were assessing the outputs only, suggesting how these panel cultures are orientated around notions of gender and scientific outputs as ‘hard’ if represented by numbers. The focus on numbers was perceived by the following panellist as ‘ a real strong tendency particularly amongst the Alpha male types ’ within the panel that relate to findings about the association of certain traits—risk aversion, competitiveness, for example, with a masculinised market logic in HE;

And I like that a lot because I think that there is a real strong tendency particularly amongst the Alpha male types of always looking at the numbers, like the numbers and everything. And I just did feel that steer that we got from the panel chairs, both of them were men by the way, but they were very clear, the impact factors and citations and the rank order of a journal is this is information that can be useful, but it’s not your immediate first stop. (Panel 1, Outputs and Impact, Female)

However, a metric-dominant approach was not the result of a male-dominated panel environment and instead, to the panels credit, evaluators were encouraged not to use one-metric as the only deciding factor between star-rating of quality. However, this is not to suggest that metrics did not play a dominant role. In fact, in order to resolve arguments, evaluators were encouraged to ‘ reflect on these other metrics ’ (Panel 3, Outputs only, Male) in order to rectify arguments where the assessment of quality was in conflict. This use of ‘other metrics’ was preferential to a resolution of differences that are based on more ‘soft’ arguments that are based on understanding where differences in opinion might lie in the interpretation of the manuscript’s quality. Instead, the deciding factor in resolving arguments would be the responsibility, primarily, of a ‘hard’ concept of quality as dictated by a numerical value;

Read the paper, judge the quality, judge the originality, the rigour, the impact — if you have to because you’re in dispute with another assessor, then reflect on these other metrics. So I don’t think metrics are that helpful actually if and until you’ve got a real issue to be able to make a decision. But I worry very much that metrics are just such a simple way of making the process much easier, and I’m worried about that because I think there’s a bit of game playing going on with impact factors and that kind of thing. (Panel 3, Outputs Only, Male)

Table 1 outlines the emergent themes, which, through inductive coding participants broadly categorised domains of research, their qualities and associations, types of activities and the gendered assumption generally made by participants when describing that activity. The table is intended only to provide an indicative overview of the overall tendencies of participants toward certain narratives as is not exhaustive, as well as a guide to interpret the perceptions of Impact illustrated in the below results.

Table one describes the dichotomous views that seemed to emerge from the research but it’s important to note that researchers associated Impact as related to gender in subtle, and in some cases overt ways. The data suggests that some male participants felt that female academics might be better at Impact, suggesting that female academics might find it liberating, linked it to a sense of duty or public service, implying that it was second nature. In addition, some male participants associated types of Impact domains as female-orientated activity and the reverse was the case with female and male-orientated ‘types’ of Impact. For example, at one extreme, a few male researchers seemed to perceive public engagement as something, which females would be particularly good at, generalising that they are not competitive ‘ women are better at this! They are less competitive! ’ (Environment, UK, Professor, Male) . Indeed, one male researcher suggested that competitiveness actually helps academics have an impact and does not impede it:

I get a huge buzz from trying to communicate those to a wider audience and winning arguments and seeing them used. It’s not the use that motivates me it’s the process of winning, I’m competitive! (Economics, UK, Professor, Male)

Analysis also revealed evidence that some researchers has gendered perceptions of Impact activities just as evaluators did. Here, women were more likely to promote the importance of engaging in Impact activities, whereas men were focused on producing indicators with hard, quantitative indicators of success. Some researchers implied that public engagement was not something entirely associated with the kinds of Impact needed to advance one’s career and for a few male researchers, this was accordingly associated with female academics. Certain female researchers in the sciences and the arts suggested similarly that there was a strong commitment among women to carry out public engagement, but that this was not necessarily shared by their male counterparts who, they perceived, undervalued this kind of work:

I think the few of us women in the faculty will grapple with that a lot about the relevance of what we’re doing and the usefulness, but for the vast majority of people it’s not there… [She implies that]…I think there is a huge gender thing there that every woman that you talk to on campus would consider that the role of the university is along the latter statement (*to communicate to the public). The vast majority of men would not consider that’s a role of the university. There’s a strong gender thing. (Chemical Engineering, Australia, Professor, Female)

Notwithstanding, it is important to distinguish between engagement and Impact. This research shows that participants perceive Impact activities to be gendered. There was a sense from one arts female researcher that women might be more interested in getting out there and communicating their work but that crucially, it is not the be-all and end- all of doing research: ‘ Women feel that there’s something more liberating, I can empathise with that, but that couldn’t be the whole job ’. Music, Australia, Professor, Female Footnote 4 . When this researcher, who was very much orientated towards Impact, asked if there were enough interviewees, she added ‘ mind you, you’ve probably spoken to enough men in lab coats ’. This could imply that inward-facing roles are associated with male-orientated activity and outward facing roles as perceived as more female orientated. Such sentiments perhaps relate to a binary delineation of women as more caring, subjective, applied and of men as harder, scientific and theoretical/ rational. This links to a broader characterisation of HE as marketised and potentially, more ‘male’ or at least masculinised—where increasing competitiveness, marketisation and performativity can be seen as linked to an increasingly macho way of doing business (Blackmore, 2002 ; Deem, 1998 ; Grummell et al., 2009 ; Reay, n.d. ). The data is also suggestive of the attitude that communication is a ‘soft’ skill and the interpersonal is seen as a less masculine trait. ‘ This is a huge generalisation but I still say that the profession is so dominated by men, undergraduates are so dominated by men and most of those boys will come into engineering because they’re much more comfortable dealing with a computer than with people ’ (Chemical Engineering, Australia, Professor, Female) . Again, this suggests women are more likely to pursue those scientific subjects, which will make a difference or contribute to society (such as nursing or environmental research, certainly those subjects that would be perceived as less ‘hard’ science domains).

There was also a sense that Impact activity, namely in this case public engagement and community work, was associated with women more than men by some participants (Amâncio, 2005 ). However, public engagement and certain social impact domains appeared to have a lower status and intellectual worth in the eyes of some participants. Some inferred that social and ‘soft’ impacts are seen as associated. With discipline. For instance, research concerning STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) subjects with females. They in turn may be held in low esteem. Some of the accounts suggest that soft impacts are perceived by women as not ‘counting’ as Impact:

‘ At least two out of the four of us who are female are doing community service and that doesn’t count, we get zero credit, actually I would say it gets negative credit because it takes time away from everything else ’. (Education Engineering, Australia, Professor, Female)

This was intimated again by another female UK computer scientist who claimed that since her work was on the ‘woolly side’ of things, and her impacts were predominantly in the social and public domain, she would not be taken seriously enough to qualify as a REF Impact case study, despite having won an award for her work:

‘ I don’t think it helps that if I were a male professor doing the same work I might be taken more seriously. It’s interesting, why recently? Because I’ve never felt that I’ve not been taken seriously because I’m a woman, but something happened recently and I thought, oh, you’re not taking me seriously because I’m a woman. So I think it’s a part ’. (Computer Science, UK, Professor, Female)

Researchers also connect the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ associations with Impact described earlier to male and female traits. The relationship between Impact and gender is not well understood and it is not clear how much these issues are directly relatable to Impact or more symptomatic of the broader picture in HE. In order to get a broader picture, it is important to examine how these gendered notions of Impact translate into its evaluation. Some participants suggested that gender is a factor in the securing of grant money—certainly this comment reveals a local speculation that ‘the big boys’ get the grants, in Australia, at least: ‘ ARC grants? I’ve had a few but nothing like the big boys that get one after the other ,’ (Chemical Engineering, Australia, Professor, Female) . This is not dissimilar to the ‘alpha male’ comments from the evaluators described below who note a tendency for male evaluators to rely on ‘hard’ numbers whose views are further examined in the following section.

Gendered excellence in Impact evaluation

In the pre-evaluation interviews, panellists were asked about what they perceived to be ‘excellent’ research and ‘excellent’ Impact. Within this context, are mirrored conceptualisations of impacts as either ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ as was seen with the interviews with researchers described above. These conceptualisations were captured prior to the evaluation began. They can therefore be interpreted as the raw, baseline assumptions of Impact that are free from the effects of the panel group, showed that there were differences in how evaluators perceived Impact, and that these perceptions were gendered.

Although all researchers conceptualised Impact as a linear process for the purposes of the REF2014 exercise (Derrick, 2018 ), there was a tendency for female evaluators to be open to considering the complexity of Impact, even in a best-case scenario. This included a consideration that Impact as dictated within the narrative might have different indicators of value to different evaluators; ‘ I just think that that whole framing means that there is a form of normative standard of perfect impact ’ (Main Panel, Outputs and Impacts, Female) . This evaluator, in particular, went further to state how that their impression of Impact would be constructed from the comparators available during the evaluation;

‘ Given that I’m presenting impact as a good story, it would be like you saying to me; ‘Can you describe to me a perfect Shakespearean play?’…. well now of course, I can’t. You can give me lots of plays but they all have different kinds of interesting features. Different people would say that their favourite play was different. To me, if you’re taking interpretivist view, constructivist view, there is no perfect normative standard. It’s just not possible ’. (Panel 1, Outputs and Impacts, Female)

Female evaluators were also more sensitive to other complex factors influencing the evaluation of Impact, including time lag; ‘ …So it takes a long time for things like that to be accepted…it took hundreds of studies before it was generally accepted as real ’ (Panel 1, Outputs and Impacts, Female ); as well as the indirect way that research influences policy as a form of Impact;

‘ I don’t think that anything would get four stars without even blinking. I think that is impossible to answer because you have to look at the whole evidence in this has gone on, and how that does link to the impact that is being claimed, and then you would then have to look at how that impact, exactly how that research has impacted on the ways of the world, in terms of change or in terms of society or whatever. I don’t think you can see this would easily get four stars because of the overall process is being looked at, as well as the actual outcome ’ . (Panel 3, Outputs and Impact, Female)

Although these typologies were not absolute, there was a lack of complexity in the nuances around Impact. There was also heavily gendered language around Impacts as measurable, or not, that mirrored the association of Impact as being either ‘hard’, and therefore measurable, or ‘soft, and therefore more nuanced in value. In this way, male evaluators expressed Impact as a causal, linear event that occurred ‘ in a very short time ’ (P2, Outputs and Impact, Male) and involved a single ‘ star ’ (P3, Impacts only, Male) or ‘ impact champion ’ (Main Panel, Outputs and Impacts, Male) that drove it from start (research), to finish (Impact). These associations about Impact being ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ made by evaluators, mirror the responses from researchers in the above sections. In the example below, the evaluator used words such as ‘ strong ’ and ‘ big way ’ to describe Impact success, as well as emphasises causality in the argument;

‘ …if it has affected a lot of people or affected policy in a strong way or created change in a big way, and it can be clearly linked back to the research, and it’s made a difference ’. (Panel 2, Outputs and Impact, Male)

These perhaps show disciplinary differences as much as gendered differences. Further, there was a stronger tendency for male evaluators to strive towards conceptualisations of excellence in Impact as measurable or ‘ it’s something that is decisive and actionable ’ (Panel 6, Impacts, Male) . One male evaluator explained his conceptualised version of Impact excellence as ‘ straightforward ’ and therefore ‘ obviously four-star ’ due to the presence of metrics with which to measure Impact. This was a perception more commonly associated with male evaluators;

‘ …if somebody has been able to devise a — let’s say pancreatic cancer — which is a molecular cancer, which hasn’t made any progress in the last 40 years, and where the mortality is close to 100% after diagnosis, if someone devised a treatment where now suddenly, after diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 90 percent of the people are now still alive 5 years later, where the mortality rate is almost 0%, who are alive after 5 years. That, of course, would be a dramatic, transformative impact ’. (Panel 1, Outputs and Impact, Male)

In addition, his tendency to seek various numeric indicators for measuring, and therefore assessing Impact (predominantly economic impact), as well as compressing its realisation to a small period of time ( ‘ suddenly ’ ) in a causal fashion, was more commonly expressed in male evaluators. This tendency automatically indicates the association of impacts as either ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ and divided along gendered norms, but also expresses Impact in monetary terms;

‘ Something that went into a patient or the company has pronounced with…has spun out and been taken up by a commercial entity or a clinical entity ’ (Panel 3, Outputs and Impacts, Male) , as well as impacts that are marketised; ‘ A new antimicrobial drug to market ’. (Panel 6, Outputs and Impact, Male) .

There was also the perception that female academics would be better at engagement (Johnson et al., 2014 ; Crettaz Von Roten, 2011 ) due to its link with notions of ‘ duty ’ (as a mother), ‘ engagement ’ and ‘ public service ’ are reflected in how female evaluators were also more open to the idea that excellent Impact is achieved through productive, ongoing partnerships with non-academic stakeholders. Here, the reflections of ‘duty’ from the evaluators was also mirrored by in interviews with researchers. Indeed, the researchers merged perceptions of parenthood, an academic career and societal impact generation. One female researcher drew on her role as a mother as supportive of her ability to participate in Impact generation, ‘ I have kids that age so… ’ (Biology, UK, Senior Lecturer, Female) . Indeed, parenthood emerged from researchers of both genders in relation to the Impact agenda. Two male participants spoke positively about the need to transfer knowledge of all kinds to society referencing their role as parents: ‘ I’m all for that. I want my kids to have a rich culture when they go to school ’ (Engineering, Australia, Professor, Male, E2) , and ‘ My children are the extension of my biological life and my students are an extension of my thoughts ’ (Engineering, Australia, Professor, Male, E1) . One UK female biologist commented that she indeed enjoys delivering public engagement and outreach and implies a reference to having a family as enabling her ability to do so: ‘ It’s partly being involved with the really well-established outreach work ,’ (Biology, UK, Senior Lecturer, Female) .

For the evaluators, the idea that ‘public service’ as second nature for female academics, was reflected in how female evaluators perceived the long, arduous and serendipitous nature of Impact generation, as well as their commitment to assessing the value of Impact as a ‘pathway’ rather than in line with impact as a ‘product’. Indeed, this was highlighted by one male evaluator who suggested that the measurement and assessment of Impact ‘ …needs to be done by economists ’ and that

‘ you [need] to put in some quantification one everything…[that] puts a negative value on being sick and a positive large value on living longer. So, yeah, the greatest impact would be something that saves us money and generates income for the country but something broad and improves quality of life ’. (Panel 2, Impacts, Male)

Since evaluators tend to exercise cognitive bias in evaluative situations (Langfeldt, 2006 ), these preconceived ideas about Impact, its generation and the types of people responsible for its success are also likely to permeate the evaluative deliberations around Impact during the peer review process. What is uncertain is the extent that these messages are dominant within the panel discourse, and therefore the extent that they influence the formation of a consensus within the group, and the ‘dominant definition’ of Impact (Derrick, 2018 ) that emerges as a result.

Notions of gender from the evaluators post-evaluation

Similar notions of gender-roles in academia pertaining to notions of scientific productivity were echoed by academics who were charged with its evaluation as part of the UK’s 2014 Research Excellence Framework. Interviews with evaluators revealed not only that the panel working-methods and characteristics about what constituted a ‘good’ evaluator were implicitly along gendered norms, but also that the assumed credit assumptions of performativity were also based on gender.

In assessments of the Impact criterion, an assessment that is not as amenable to quantitative representation requiring panels to conceptualise a very complex process, with unstandardised measures of significance and reach, there was still a gendered perception of Impact being ‘women’s work’ in academia. This perception was based on the tendency towards conceptualising Impact as ‘slightly grubby’ and ‘not very pure’, which echoes previously reported pre-REF2014 tensions that Impact is a task that an academic does when they cannot do real research (de Jong et al., 2015 );

But I would say that something like research impact is — it seems something slightly grubby. It’s not seen as not — by the academics, as not very pure. To some of them, it seems women’s work. Talking to the public, do you see what I mean? (Main Panel, Outputs and Impact, Female)

In addition, gendered roles also relate to how the panel worked with the assessment of Impact. Previous research has outlined how the equality and diversity assessment of panels for REF2014 were not conducted until after panellists were appointed (Derrick, 2018 ), leading to a lack of equal-representation of women on most panels. Some of the female panellists reflected that this resulted not only in a hyper-awareness of one’s own identity and value as a woman on the panel, but also implicitly associating the role that a female panellist would play in generating the evaluation. One panellist below, reflected that she was the only female in a male-dominated panel, and that the only other females in the room were the panel secretariat. The panellist goes further to explain how this resulted in a gendered-division of labour surrounding the assessment of Impact;

I mean, there’s a gender thing as well which isn’t directing what you’re talking about what you’re researching, but I was the only woman on the original appointed panel. The only other women were the secretariat. In some ways I do — there was initially a very gendered division of perspective where the women were all the ones aggregate the quantitative research, or typing it all up or talking about impact whereas the men were the ones who represented the big agenda, big trials. (Main Panel, Outputs and Impact, Female)

In addition, evaluators expressed opinions about what constituted a good and a bad panel member. From this, the evaluation showed that traits such as the ability to work as a ‘team’ and to build on definitions and methods of assessment for Impact through deliberation and ‘feedback’ were perceived along gendered lines. In this regard, women perceived themselves as valuable if they were ‘happy to listen to discussions’, and not ‘too dogmatic about their opinion’. Here, women were valued if they played a supportive, supplementary role in line with Bellas ( 1999 ), which was in clear distinction to men who contributed as creative thinkers and forgers of new ideas. As one panellist described;

A good panel member is an Irish female. A good panel member was someone who was happy to — someone who is happy to listen to discussions; to not be too dogmatic about their opinion, but can listen and learn, because impact is something we are all learning from scratch. Somebody who wasn’t too outspoken, was a team player. (Panel 3, Outputs and Impact, Female)

Likewise, another female evaluator reflected on the reasons for her inclusion as a panel member was due to her ‘generalist perspective’ as opposed to a perspective that is over prescribed. This was suggestive of how an overly specialist perspective would run counter to the reasons that she was included as a panellist which was, in her opinion, due to her value as an ethnic and gender ‘token’ to the panel;

‘ I think it’s also being able to provide some perspective, some general perspective. I’m quite a generalist actually, I’m not a specialist……So I’m very generalist. And I think they’re also well aware of the ethnic and gender composition of that and lots of reasons why I’m asked on panels. (Panel 1, Outputs and Impact, Female)

Women perceived their value on the panel as supportive, as someone who is prepared to work on the team, and listen to other views towards as a generalist, and constructionist, rather than as an enforced of dogmatic views and raw, hard notions of Impact that were represented through quantitative indicators only. As such, how the panel operated reflects general studies of how work can be organised along gender lines, as well as specific to workload and power in the academy. The similarity between the gendered associations towards conceptualising Impact from the researchers and evaluators, combined with how the panel organises its work along gendered lines, suggests how panel culture echoes the implicit tendencies within the wider research community. The implications of this tendency in relation to the evaluation of non-academic Impact is discussed below.

Discussion: an Impact a-gender?

This study shows how researchers and evaluators in two, independent data sets echoed a gendered orientation towards Impact, and how this implies an Impact a-gender. That gendered notions of Impact emerged as a significant theme from two independent data sets speaks to the importance of the issue. It also illustrates the need for policymakers and funding organisations to acknowledge its potential effects as part of their efforts towards embedding a more inclusive research culture around the generation and evaluation of research impact beyond academia.

Specifically, this paper has identified gendered language around the generation of, and evaluation of Impact by researchers in Australia and the UK, as well as by evaluators by the UK’s most recent Research Excellence Framework in 2014. For the UK and Australia, the prominence of Impact, as well as the policy borrowing between each country (Chubb, 2017 ) means that a reliable comparison of pre-evaluation perceptions of researchers and evaluators can be made. In both data sets presumptions of Impact as either ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ by both researchers and evaluators were found to be gendered. Whereas it is not surprising that panel culture reflects the dominant trends within the wider academic culture, this paper raises the question of how the implicit operation of gender bias surrounding notions of scientific productivity and its measurement, invade and therefore unduly influence the evaluation of those notions during peer-review processes. This negates the motivation behind a broad Impact definition and evaluation as inclusive since unconscious bias towards women can still operate if left unchecked and unmanaged.

Gendered notions of excellence were also related to the ability to be ‘competitive’, and that once Impact became a formalised, countable and therefore competitive criterion, it also become masculine where previously it existed as a feminised concept related to female academic-ness. As a feminised concept, Impact once referred to notions of excellence requiring communication such as public engagement, or stakeholder coordination—the ‘softer’ impacts. However, this association only remains ‘soft’ insofar as Impact remains unmeasurable, or more nuanced in definition. This is especially pertinent for the evaluation of societal impact where already conceived ideas of engagement and ‘ women’s work ’ influence how evaluators assess the feasibility of impact narratives for the purposes of its assessment. This paper also raises the question that notions of gender in relation to Impact persist irrespective of the identities assumed for the purposes of its evaluation (i.e., as a peer reviewer). This is not to say that academic culture in the UK and Australia, where Impact is increasingly being formalised into rewards systems, is not changing. More that there is a tendency in some evaluations for the burden of evidence to be applied differently to genders due to tensions surrounding what women are ‘good’ at doing: engagement, versus what ‘men’ are good at doing regarding Impact. In this scenario, quantitative indicators of big, high-level impacts are to be attributable to male traits, rather than female. This has already been noted in student evaluations of teaching (Kogan et al., 2010 ) and of academic leadership performance where the focus on the evaluation is on how others interpret performance based on already held gendered views about competence based on behaviours (Williams et al., 2014 ; Holt and Ellis, 1998 ). As such, when researchers transcend these gendered identities that are specific to societal impact, there is a danger of an Impact-a-gender bias arising in the assessment and forecasting of Impact. This paper extends this understanding and outlines how this may also be the case for assessments of societal impact.

By examining perceptions, as well as using an inductive analysis, this study was able to unearth unconsciously employed gendered notions that would not have been prominent or possible to pick up if we asked the interviewees about gender directly. This was particularly the case for the re-analysis of the post-evaluation interviews. However, future studies might consider incorporating a disciplinary-specific perspective as although the evaluators were from the medical/biomedical disciplines, researchers were from a range of disciplines. This would identify any discipline-specific risk towards an Impact a-gender. Nonetheless, further work that characterises the impact a-gender, as well as explores its wider implications for gender inequities within HE is currently underway.

How research evidence is labelled as excellent and therefore trustworthy, is heavily dictated by an evaluation process that is perceived as impartial and fair. However, if evaluations are compounded by gender bias, this confounds assessments of excellence with gendered expectation of non-academic impact. Consequently, gendered expectations of excellence for non-academic impact has the potential to: unconsciously dissuade women from pursuing more masculinised types of impact; act as a barrier to how female researchers mobilise their research evidence; as well as limit the recognition female researchers gain as excellent and therefore trustworthy sources of evidence.

The aim of this paper was not to criticise the panellists and researchers for expressing gendered perspectives, nor to present evidence about how researchers are unduly influenced by gender bias. The results shown do not support either of these views. However, the aim of this paper was to acknowledge how gender bias in research Impact generation can lead to a panel culture dominated by academics that translate the implicit and explicit biases within academia that influence its evaluation. This paper raises an important question regarding what we term the ‘Impact a-gender’, which outlines a mechanism in which gender bias feeds into the generation and evaluation of a research criterion, which is not traditionally associated with a hard, metrics-masculinised output from research. Along with other techniques used to combat unconscious bias in research evaluation, simply by identifying, and naming the issue, this paper intends to combat its ill effects through a community-wide discussions as a mechanism for developing tools to mitigate its wider effect if left unchecked or merely accepted as ‘acceptable’. In addition, it is suggested that government and funding organisations explicitly refer to the impact a-gender as part of their wider EDI (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) agendas towards minimising the influence of unconscious bias in research impact and evaluation.

Data availability

Data is available upon request subject to ethical considerations such as consent so as not to compromise the individual privacy of our participants.

Change history

19 may 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

For the purposes of this paper, when the text refers to non-academic, societal impact, or the term ‘Impact’ we are referring to the change and effect as defined by REF2014/2021 and the larger conceptualisation of impact that is generated through knowledge exchange and engagement. In this way, the paper refers to a broad conceptualisation of research impact that occurs beyond academia. This allows a distinction between Impact as central to this article’s contribution, as opposed to academic impact, and general word ‘impact’.

Impact scholars or those who are ‘good at impact’ are often equated with applied researchers.

One might interpret this as meaning ‘economic impact’.

This is described in the next section as ‘women’s work’ by one evaluator.

Ahmed S (2006) Doing diversity work in higher education in Australia. Educ Philos Theory 38(6):745–768

Article   Google Scholar  

Amâncio L (2005) Reflections on science as a gendered endeavour: changes and continuities. Soc Sci Inf 44(1):65–83

Andrews E, Weaver A, Hanley D, Shamatha J, Melton G (2005) Scientists and public outreach: participation, motivations, and impediments. J Geosci Educ 53(3):281–293

Astin HS (1978) Factors affecting women’ scholarly productivity. In: Astin AS, Hirsch WZ (eds) The higher education of women: essays in honor of Rosemary Park. Praeger, New York, pp. 133–157

Google Scholar  

Baker M (2008) Ambition, confidence and entrepreneurial skills: gendered patterns in academia. Australian Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Melbourne. Retrieved from https://www.tasa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Baker-Maureen-Session-46-PDF1.Pdf

Bank BJ (2011) Gender and higher education. JHU Press

Becher T (1989) Academic tribes and territories. Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham

Becher T (1994) The significance of disciplinary differences. Stud High Educ 19(2):151–162

Bellas ML (1999) Emotional labor in academia: the case of professors. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 561(1):96–110

Biglan A (1973a) The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. J Appl Psychol 57:195–203

Biglan A (1973b) Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. J Appl Psychol 57(3):204

Bird S, Litt J, Wang Y (2004) Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “Women’s Work”. NWSA J 194–206

Blackmore J (2002) Globalisation and the restructuring of higher education for new knowledge economies: New dangers or old habits troubling gender equity work in universities? High Educ Q 56(4):419–441

Brink MvD, Benschop Y (2012) Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization 19(4):507–524

Burkinshaw P (2015) Higher education, leadership and women vice chancellors: fitting in to communities of practice of masculinities. Springer

Caplan N (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci 22(3):459–470

Carey G, Dickinson H, Cox EM (2018) Feminism, gender and power relations in policy–Starting a new conversation. Aust J Public Adm 77(4):519–524

Carnes M, Bartels CM, Kaatz A, Kolehmainen C (2015) Why is John more likely to become department chair than Jennifer? Trans Am Clin Climatological Assoc 126:197

Cassell J (2002) Perturbing the system: “hard science,” “soft science,” and social science, the anxiety and madness of method Hum Organ 61(2):177–185. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44127444

Chubb JA (2017) Instrumentalism and epistemic responsibility: researchers and the impact agenda in the UK and Australia (Doctoral dissertation, University of York)

Clegg S (2008) Academic identities under threat? Br Educ Res J 34(3):329–345

Davies J, Syed J, Yarrow E (2017) The research impact agenda and gender. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 15298). Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY

Davies J, Yarrow E, Syed J (2020) The curious under-representation of women impact case leaders: Can we disengender inequality regimes? Gend Work Organ 27(2):129–148

Deem R (1998) New managerialism’ and higher education: the management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. Int Stud Sociol Educ 8(1):47–70

Derrick GE (2018) The Evaluators’ Eye: Impact assessment and academic peer review. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK

Book   Google Scholar  

Ellemers N, van den Heuvel H, de Gilder D, Maass A, Bonvini A (2004) The underrepresentation of women in science: differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? Br J Soc Psychol 43(Pt 3):315–338

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Geertz C (1983) Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, Basic Books, New York

Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(6761 Suppl):C81–C84

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gromkowska-Melosik A (2014) The masculinization of identity among successful career women? A case study of Polish female managers. J Gend Power 1(1) http://hdl.handle.net/10593/11289

Grummell B, Devine D, Lynch K (2009) The care-less manager: gender, care and new managerialism in higher education. Gend Educ 21(2):191–208

Hazelkorn E, Gibson A (2019) Public goods and public policy: What is public good, and who and what decides? High Educ 78(2):257–271

Heaton J (1998) Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Soc Res Update 22(4):88–93

Heilman ME (1995) Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don't know. J Soc Behav Pers 10(4):3

ADS   Google Scholar  

Holt C, Ellis J (1998) Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles 39 929941:11–12

Johnson D, Ecklund E, Lincoln A (2014) Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Sci Commun 36:81–105

Jong S, Smit J, Drooge LV (2015) Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: a policy paradox. Sci Public Policy 43(1):102–114

Keller JF, Eakes E, Hinkle D, Hughston GA (1978) Sexual behavior and guilt among women: a cross-generational comparison. J Sex Marital Ther 4(4):259–265

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kogan L, Schoenfeld-Tacher R, Hellyer P (2010) Student evaluations of teaching: perceptions of faculty based on gender, position, and rank. Teach High Educ 15(6):623–636

Kretschmer H, Kretschmer T (2013) Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women’s discriminations in research careers. Scientometrics 97(1):25–36

Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions: University of Chicago press

Langfeldt L (2006) The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Res Evaluation 15(1):31–41

Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR (2013) Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature 504(7479):211–213

Leathwood C, Read B (2008) Gender and the changing face of higher education: a feminized future? McGraw-Hill Education, UK

Lee JH, Noh G (2013) Polydesensitisation with reducing elevated serum total IgE by IFN-gamma therapy in atopic dermatitis: IFN-gamma and polydesensitisation (PDS). Cytokine 64(1):395–403

Lorber M (2005) Endocarditis from Staphylococcus aureus . JAMA 294(23):2972

Lorenz C (2012) If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance?: universities, neoliberalism and new public management’. Crit Inquiry 38(3):599–629

Lundine J, Bourgeault IL, Clark J, Heidari S, Balabanova D (2019) Gender bias in academia. Lancet (Lond, Engl) 393(10173):741–743

Merton R (1942) On science and democracy. J Legal Polit Sociol 1942(1):115–126

Morley L (2003) Quality and power in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education, UK

Nature (2019) A kinder research culture is possible. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02951-4

Pantin CFA (1968) The relations between the sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Paulus JK, Switkowski KM, Allison GM, Connors M, Buchsbaum RJ, Freund KM, Blazey-Martin D (2016) Where is the leak in the pipeline? Investigating gender differences in academic promotion at an academic medical centre. Perspect Med Educ 5(2):125–128

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Poggio B (2006) Outline of a theory of gender practices. Gend Work Organ 13(3):225–233

Rausch DK (1989) The academic revolving door: why do women get caught? CUPA J 40(1):1–16

Reay D (n.d.) Cultural capitalists and academic habitus: classed and gendered labour in UK higher education. In Womens studies international forum (Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 31–39) Pergamon

Rossiter MW (1993) The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Soc Stud Sci 23(2):325–341

Santos G, Phu S (2019) Dang van gender and academic rank in the UK. Sustainability 3171, 11(11):1–46

Sax LJ, Hagedorn LS, Arredondo M, DiCrisi FA (2002) Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Res Higher Educ 43(4):423–446

Schatteman A (2014) Academics meets action: Community engagement motivations, benefits, and constraints. J Community Engagem High Educ 6(1):17–30

Schommer-Aikins M, Duell O, Barker S (2003) Epistemological beliefs across domains using Biglan’s classification of academic disciplines. Res High Educ 44(3):347–366

Severin A, Martins J, Delavy F, Jorstad A, Egger M, Heyard R (2019) Gender and other potential biases in peer review: Analysis of 38,250 external peer review reports. Peer J Preprints 7:e27587v3

Simpson A (2017) The surprising persistence of Biglan’s classification scheme. Stud High Educ 42(8):1520–1531

Smart J, Feldman K, Ethington C, Nashville T (2000) Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty, 1st edn. Vanderbilt University Press

Snow CP (2012) The two cultures. Cambridge University Press

Stern N (2016) Research Excellence Framework review: building on success and learning from experience. Gov. UK

Storer NW (1967) The hard sciences and the soft: Some sociological observations. Bull Med Libr Assoc 55(1):75–84

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sugimoto CR, Ni C, West JD, Larivière V (2015) The academic advantage: gender disparities in patenting. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0128000

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Thelwall M, Bailey C, Tobin C, Bradshaw N (2019) Gender differences in research areas, methods and topics: Can people and thing orientations explain the results? J Informetr 13(1):149–169

Trowler PR (2001) Academic tribes and territories. McGraw-Hill Education, UK

Upton S, Vallance P, Goddard J (2014) From outcomes to process: evidence for a new approach to research impact assessment. Res Evaluation 2014 23(4):352–365

UKRI (2019) Excellence with Impact. Retrieved from https://www.ukri.org/innovation/excellence-with-impact/

UKRI (2020) Pathways to impact: impact core to the UK Research and Innovation application process. Retrieved from https://www.ukri.org/news/pathways-to-impact-impact-core-to-the-uk-research-and-innovation-application-process/

Von Roten F (2011) Crettaz gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Sci Commun 33(1):52–75

Ward KB, Grant L (1996) Gender and academic publishing. (Vol. 11, pp. 172–212) Higher Education-New York-Agathon Press Incorporated

Weinstein N, Wilsdon J, Chubb J, Haddock G (2019) The Real Time REF Review: A Pilot Study to Examine the Feasibility of a Longitudinal Evaluation of Perceptions and Attitudes Towards REF 2021. Retrieved from https://re.ukri.org/news-events-publications/publications/real-time-ref-review-pilot-study/

Weed M (2005) “Meta Interpretation”: A Method for the Interpretive Synthesis of Qualitative Research. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 6, No. 1)

Wheatle K, BrckaLorenz A (2015) Civic engagement, service-learning, and faculty engagement: a profile of Black women faculty. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting

Williams BAO (2002) Truth & truthfulness: An essay in genealogy. Princeton University Press

Williams J, Dempsey R, Slaughter A (2014) What works for women at work: four patterns working women need to know. New York University Press, New York

Yarrow E, Davies J (2018) The gendered impact agenda-how might more female academics’ research be submitted as REF impact case studies? Impact of Social Sciences Blog

Zinken J, Hellsten I, Nerlich B (2008) Discourse metaphors. Body, Lang Mind 2:363–385

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Future Research Leaders Programme (ES/K008897/2). We would also like to acknowledge their peers for offering their views on the paper in advance of publication and in doing so thank Dr. Richard Watermeyer, University of Bath, Professor Paul Wakeling, University of York and Dr. Gabrielle Samuel, Kings College London.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, UK

Centre for Higher Education Research & Evaluation, Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

G. E. Derrick

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to J. Chubb or G. E. Derrick .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chubb, J., Derrick, G.E. The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research Impact and its evaluation. Palgrave Commun 6 , 72 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0438-z

Download citation

Received : 05 December 2019

Accepted : 18 March 2020

Published : 28 April 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0438-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

research paper on gender roles

The Development of Gender Role Attitudes During Adolescence: Effects of Sex, Socioeconomic Background, and Cognitive Abilities

  • Empirical Research
  • Open access
  • Published: 15 July 2022
  • Volume 51 , pages 2114–2129, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Ricarda Ullrich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2505-9258 1 ,
  • Michael Becker 1 , 2 &
  • Jan Scharf 1  

11k Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

How gender role attitudes develop during adolescence, and how biological, social, and cognitive factors predict this development, remains a matter of debate. This study examines the development of gender role attitudes from early adolescence to emerging adulthood and investigates how the developmental trajectory is affected by sex, socioeconomic status, and cognitive abilities (intelligence). Four waves of the large-scale longitudinal German dataset BIJU between 1991 (grade 7; N = 3828, M age = 13, SD = 0.61, 53.1% female, 96.4% German nationality), 1995 (grade 10, M age = 17), 1997 (grade 12, M age = 19) and 2001/2002 (university/career entry, M age = 24) were used. Measurement invariance was examined across waves and gender. Latent growth curve models showed that adolescents developed more egalitarian gender role attitudes. Differences between the sexes decreased over time but remained significant. Socioeconomic status seemed less relevant, while adolescents, especially those with lower intelligence scores, developed more egalitarian gender role attitudes during adolescence. The results showed that teenagers developed more open and egalitarian attitudes during adolescence, and that the development trajectories of female and male adolescents converge.

Similar content being viewed by others

research paper on gender roles

Parental Educational Expectations and Academic Achievement in Children and Adolescents—a Meta-analysis

Martin Pinquart & Markus Ebeling

research paper on gender roles

Work Motivation Is Not Generational but Depends on Age and Period

Martin Schröder

research paper on gender roles

Relations between students’ well-being and academic achievement: evidence from Swedish compulsory school

Thea Klapp, Alli Klapp & Jan-Eric Gustafsson

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Gender role attitudes, and the ways in which gender roles are lived out, change not only over time, but also throughout the life course with different ages and contexts (e.g., Dotti Sani & Quaranta, 2017 ). In particular, adolescence is a period when gender-related constructs, such as gender role attitudes, are especially salient. Teenagers experience biological, cognitive, and social changes during adolescence that can affect their gender role attitudes (Eagly & Wood, 2012 ). Nevertheless, few studies have addressed how gender role attitudes develop during adolescence. Theoretically as well as empirically, the approaches and results are quite contradictory. Some studies have demonstrated a trend towards more traditional gender role attitudes (e.g., Halimi et al., 2021 ), while other studies have shown a development towards a more egalitarian direction (e.g., Updegraff et al., 2014 ). There is also limited research on key predictors of the development of gender role attitudes during adolescence. Using four waves of the BIJU dataset, this study aims to answer the research question of how gender role attitudes develop during adolescence and how this development varies by sex, socioeconomic status, and cognitive abilities.

The Development of Gender Roles During Adolescence

Gender roles, as a psychological and social construct, comprise both societal expectations and cognitive structures. From a societal perspective, gender roles describe the division of labor and power within a specific cultural and historical context between men and women, with respect to topics such as romantic partnerships, the familial division of labor, and workforce careers. Gender roles are assigned on the basis of sex, traditionally categorized as either male or female. The male role is associated with serving as the family breadwinner, while the female role is associated with social and domestic activities (e.g., Eagly & Wood, 2012 ). The traditional division of gender roles began to break down in the 20th century, and this process has continued in recent decades. In particular, the female role has undergone substantial change and expanded into areas outside the domestic sphere. As a result, Western-influenced societies have come to exhibit egalitarian gender role attitudes, where both partners share income-earning and domestic and care work on an equal basis (Lomazzi & Seddig, 2020 ). However, while attitudes are changing, the majority of care work continues to be carried out by women (Zucco & Lott, 2021 ). Children and adolescents learn through observation that there are societal gender roles, and by internalizing these observations, adolescents develop attitudes towards these gender roles (Eagly & Wood, 2012 ), which can change over the course of adolescence. However, it remains unclear how gender role attitudes develop during adolescence.

In general, adolescence is an important phase for gender-related changes. Young people discover their individual sexual identity, undergo hormonal and physical changes, and experience their first romantic relationships. Accordingly, the gender intensification hypothesis posits that gender role behavior intensifies during adolescence as young people learn to inhabit their later adult roles (including their gender roles) through early experiences with romantic relationships (Hill & Lynch, 1983 ). This means that traditional gender role attitudes intensify during adolescence. This hypothesis has been confirmed for early adolescent boys, who exhibit an increase in traditional gender role attitudes from grade 7 to grade 8 (Halimi et al., 2021 ).

In contrast, from a cognitive developmental perspective, it would be argued that the process of discovering one’s own sexuality during adolescence leads young people to question morally built constructs and reconfigure their gender role assumptions (Eccles, 1987 ). As a result of cognitive maturation, adolescents are able to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive gender norms and create cognitive representations of newer, more complex social arrangements. Competing concepts can be cognitively integrated to avoid cognitive dissonance, e.g., women can be both loving mothers and have successful careers (Harter, 2003 ). By investigating gender-based categorization schemes during childhood, research has found that at the end of childhood and the transition to adolescence, previously established categories begin to soften and children no longer rigidly distinguish between male and female characteristics (Trautner et al., 2005 ). With respect to later development, research has shown that traditional gender role attitudes among Mexican-American boys and girls continuously decline during adolescence (Updegraff et al., 2014 ). These findings have been confirmed for African-American adolescents (Lam et al., 2017 ). For Mexican immigrant students, egalitarian gender role attitudes continuously increase across adolescence (Schroeder et al., 2019 ); this was likewise found for egalitarian attitudes at the end of adolescence, during the transition to adulthood (Fan and Marini 2000 ). Nevertheless, although traditional gender role attitudes decline initially during adolescence, they can increase towards its end depending on individual and contextual factors (Crouter et al., 2007 ).

The findings concerning how and to what extent gender role attitudes develop during adolescence are mixed and therefore more research is required. Likewise, it remains unclear which predictors moderate the developmental trajectory. Studies that have examined this question from a developmental perspective have delivered relatively heterogeneous results, partly due to the challenges in the measurement of gender role attitudes. Problematic aspects include modelling one-dimensional scales with egalitarianism at one pole and traditionalism at the other, and capturing temporal dynamics in gender role attitudes, as gender role attitudes change over the individual life course (the focus of this study) while societal gender roles are also changing (Lomazzi, 2017 ). Consequently, recent studies have sought to test the measurement invariance of the gender role attitudes construct. Internationally comparative studies have shown that complete measurement invariance across countries cannot be assumed. Therefore the use of measurement invariance testing to ensure construct validity before conducting substantive investigations of gender role attitudes is recommend (e.g., Seddig & Lomazzi, 2019 ). This makes it possible for individual items (e.g., specific questions that might be more or less age-appropriate) to be replaced, or flexible measurement invariance constructs (e.g., partial measurement invariance) to be applied. However, previous studies have not tested the measurement invariance of gender role attitudes in individuals over a longer period of time. Research should investigate whether measurement with a uniform metric is possible over such a long period of individual development, and which restrictions must be placed on measurement invariance assumptions with respect to specific instruments.

Influences on Gender Role Attitudes

Gender roles are assigned on the basis of supposed biological differences between men and women. These gender roles are taken on by individuals in a society and represent shared normative expectations within a given cultural and historical context (Eagly & Wood, 2012 ). These gender-based attributions, in turn, are taken up by children as cognitive categories that help structure the social environment (Martin et al., 2002 ). This study focuses on three key predictive factors for the development of gender role attitudes over time: (1) sex, (2) parents’ socioeconomic status as a key social frame of reference conveying normative attitudes about men and women, and (3) individual cognitive abilities, which influence the categories of cognitive representation that are manifested and expressed in gender role attitudes.

Sex differences

Since gender roles are based on the (supposed) biological difference between the sexes, it is important to examine the differences in attitudes towards these roles that emerge between the sexes. Prior research has shown that men and women exhibit different degrees of traditional and egalitarian gender role attitudes (e.g., Bryant, 2003 ). Traditionally, men and women took on different roles attributed to their biological predispositions. In recent years, as this stereotypical division of roles has broken down, the significance of sex has decreased and the significance of gender as a social construct has increased (Athenstaedt & Alfermann, 2011 ). This has resulted in a general trend towards more egalitarian attitudes. However, prior research has found evidence for sex differences in such attitudes. Overall, women exhibit more egalitarian attitudes than men (e.g., Bryant, 2003 ). Internationally comparative research confirms this finding when the social context is considered (Dotti Sani & Quaranta, 2017 ). Thus, because women are particularly aware of the implications and limitations of the traditional female role, it is especially relevant for them to implement egalitarian structures and endorse egalitarian attitudes, for example, for equal participation in the labor market (Thijs et al., 2019 ).

Both young women and men develop more egalitarian attitudes during adolescence (e.g., Bryant, 2003 ). However, there are inconsistent findings with respect to the trajectory of sex differences in gender role attitudes. Some studies have shown that sex differences in gender role attitudes increase during adolescence as female adolescents develop stronger egalitarian attitudes, leading to an increase in sex differences (e.g., Schroeder et al., 2019 ). However, other studies have shown that male adolescents exhibit a stronger shift towards more egalitarian attitudes during the transition from adolescence to adulthood, leading to a reduction in sex differences (Fan & Marini, 2000 ). Some studies have found no differences in the two sexes’ trajectories (Updegraff et al., 2014 ), except regarding the influence of family (Crouter et al., 2007 ). Overall, the current state of empirical research on the development of sex differences in gender role attitudes can be described as heterogeneous or even contradictory.

Social factors

Gender roles represent socially shared assumptions about a certain gendered division of labor and power. Children and adolescents’ first point of reference for the formation and socialization of gender role attitudes is the family. The family is a learning context for gender role behavior, and the family socioeconomic context and parental level of education are predictive of gender role attitudes. Maternal employment and parental occupational prestige influence children’s gender role attitudes, particularly those of girls (McHale et al., 2003 ). Moreover, a family’s socioeconomic situation is closely linked to children’s aspirations for their future school and career trajectories (Stocké et al., 2011 ). Girls from socioeconomically privileged households should be particularly likely to develop egalitarian attitudes, as they develop higher aspirations that can only be achieved through egalitarian participation in the labor force (e.g., Mays, 2012 ).

Families with a high socioeconomic status exhibit more egalitarian gender role attitudes than less socially privileged families. This link can be partially explained by their level of education (e.g., Schroeder et al., 2019 ), although occupational prestige (particularly of the mother) is also considered relevant (e.g., Lühe et al., 2018 ). A high level of parental education and maternal employment have a positive effect on teenagers’ egalitarian gender role attitudes. There are differences in effects between male and female adolescents (Fan & Marini 2000 ). In contrast, research has found that the attitudes of female and male adolescents develop differently over time depending on whether their parents endorse more egalitarian or traditional attitudes. Male adolescents with traditionally oriented parents exhibit almost no changes in attitudes over time. In contrast, a curvilinear trajectory is found for male adolescents with egalitarian-oriented parents. These male adolescents initially develop more egalitarian attitudes, which become more traditional again at the end of adolescence. Female adolescents exhibit a decline in traditional attitudes during adolescence, regardless of their parents’ attitudes. Parents only influence the level of attitudes: female adolescents with more traditional parents also tend to have more traditional attitudes than female adolescents from egalitarian households (Crouter et al., 2007 ). In summary, the research has shown that higher socioeceonomic status is supportive for egalitarian gender role attitudes among female adolescents, whereas the results for male adolescents are mixed and inconsistent.

Cognitive factors

Cognitive factors are the third component that influence gender role attitudes. It can be assumed that higher cognitive abilities are associated with more egalitarian attitudes, as teenagers with higher cognitive abilities are more able to process, reflect, and integrate competing concepts, such as the idea that a woman can be both a good mother and pursue her career ambitions (avoidance of cognitive dissonance: Harter, 2003 ). This leads to a better understanding of societal structures and potentially critically questioning traditional gender roles (Mays, 2012 ). Research on cognitive flexibility has demonstrated that children develop more flexible attitudes towards gender stereotypes during the transition to adolescence (Trautner et al., 2005 ). This is attributed to the fact that children become more cognitively flexible during this period. However, researchers have not been able to empirically investigate any of the cognitive abilities identified as important predictors of change in attitudes during the transition from childhood to adolescence (Trautner et al. 2005 ).

If one takes cognitive abilities as an increase in education and knowledge, it has been shown that increased education is associated with a stronger preference for egalitarian attitudes, and particularly with a critical view of traditional gender roles (e.g., Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004 ). Attending college, education in general, and a continuation of education in particular exhibit a significant positive effect on egalitarian gender role attitudes (e.g., Fan & Marini, 2000 ). However, the association between cognitive abilities and the development of gender role attitudes over time, and the question of whether the effects of cognitive abilities differ between men and women, remains unclear. It might be assumed that women with high cognitive abilities should have a particular interest in the implementation of egalitarian attitudes, which are associated with higher educational aspirations and the pursuit of a career (e.g., Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004 ). It could also be hypothesized that female adolescents with higher cognitive abilities realize that following egalitarian attitudes towards career orientation and being family orientated may be conflicting goals and conclude that pursuing more traditional attitudes is more advantageous. Moreover, it could be argued that men do not benefit from gender equality or even see it as a threat to their economic position; higher cognitive abilities might not be associated with egalitarian attitudes among men. However, a higher level of education has been shown to be associated with less traditional attitudes among both men and women (Mays, 2012 ).

Current Study

Research on developmental trajectories of gender role attitudes and their key influencing factors during adolescence produced ambiguous findings. This study aims to answer the question how gender role attitudes are developing for male and female adolescents and how this trajectory is differing by parents socioeconomic status and cognitive abilities. The first research question is whether gender role attitudes can be measured with a uniform metric over time and sex. The second research question addresses the development of gender role attitudes over time and its associations with the following predictors: sex, socioeconomic status, and cognitive abilities. Based on the aforementioned theoretical considerations and prior empirical findings, it is hypothesized that, in absolute terms, female adolescents should exhibit more egalitarian attitudes than male adolescents at the first measurement point in grade 7 ( M age = 13). Building upon these assumptions, an exploratory investigation was conducted of whether male and female adolescents exhibit different trajectories and how the difference between the sexes develops over time. Moreover, as the state of research concerning the socioeconomic status and the gender role attitudes is quite heterogeneous (especially for male adolescents), this study examines this correlation exploratively. It is hypothesized that higher individual cognitive abilities are associated with more egalitarian attitudes, as adolescents with higher cognitive abilities should be able to integrate competing concepts more easily. No presumptions are made on how cognitive abilities might predict the developmental trajectory of adolescents’ attitudes over time.

The study on Educational Careers and Psychosocial Development in Adolescence and Young Adulthood (BIJU; Baumert et al., 1996 ) was used for the following analyses. BIJU is a multi-cohort longitudinal study with data collection led by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin in cooperation with the Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education in Kiel. Data collection took place in the German federal states of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Saxony-Anhalt, and was extended to include schools from Berlin starting in the second wave. Secondary schools from these federal states were sampled, and then two seventh-grade classes were sampled from each of these schools. This resulted in a clustered random sample of N = 212 schools with two classes each for the 1991/1992 school year.

The initial seventh-grade sample comprised N = 5944 secondary school students. Students from the federal state of Berlin were included in the second wave, increasing the sample size to N = 8043. However, the sample size dropped to N = 5386 by the fourth wave in grade 10 (1995), as some students left school after obtaining a lower secondary school leaving certificate in grade 9 ( Hauptschulabschluss ) and other students changed schools or were held back a year. Due to the dissolution of existing lower secondary school classes as students entered (university-preparatory) upper secondary school, there was an intentional oversampling of all students in upper secondary schools during the fifth wave (1997, grade 12). This increased the sample size to N = 8061. During the sixth wave (2001/2002, university/career entry), data collection took place exclusively by post, reducing the sample size to N = 3261 (for more details see Becker et al., 2020 ).

This study includes the four measurement points at which gender role attitudes were assessed (waves 1, 4, 5 and 6). Students who answered the gender role scale at the first measurement point were used as the sampling basis ( N = 3837) and were tracked in the following waves (therefore, students from Berlin and the oversampling within the upper secondary schools were excluded through missing by design). Students were excluded if they had either a missing value on the gender and/or weighting variable, resulting in a final sample of N = 3828 (Table 1 ). The sample size dropped to N = 1257 by the fourth, N = 1167 by the fifth wave and N = 732 by the sixth wave (a more detailed attrition analysis is included in the sensitivity analyses). For the selected sample, this led to an overall distribution of participants by gender of 53.8% female and 46.2% male, and the overall weighted distribution of schools was 35.5% academic schools and 64.5% comprehensive schools. From the second wave onwards, 96.4% of the participants were of German nationality, and the students stated at the last wave that 94.9% of their mothers and 94.5% of their fathers were born in Germany.

Data collection up to students’ graduation (wave 4: grade 10 for vocational education students, wave 5: grade 12 for students enrolled in upper secondary school) took place in the classroom context by trained test administrators. Surveys after students graduated from school (after wave 5 for students out of general upper secondary education, and after wave 6 for all students) were conducted via post; students were asked to provide their addresses for follow-up during the fourth and fifth measurement waves. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants and their parents, conducted in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s principles for research with human participants. The study was evaluated and approved by the relevant state school boards and the ethics commissions of the participating research institutions (Baumert et al., 1996 ).

  • Gender role attitudes

Gender role attitudes were assessed with attitude-based items measuring gender role orientations (Krampen 1979 ). The items concerned topics such as romantic partnerships, the family, the workplace, and the rights of men and women (Appendix Table 8 ). Items addressed an egalitarian division of labor within the family, career ambitions, and normative gender-related attitudes. Responses to all items were recorded on Likert scales ranging from “1 = does not apply at all” to “4 = applies completely”; higher values corresponded to egalitarian attitudes and lower values to non-egalitarian attitudes. The scales exhibited satisfactory to very good reliability scores (wave 1: Cronbach’s α = 0.65; wave 4: Cronbach’s α = 0.84; wave 5: Cronbach’s α = 0.82; wave 6: Cronbach’s α = 0.71). The differences in reliability coefficients are (at least partially) due to the different numbers of items assessed in each wave (range: N = 3 to N = 7 items) (Hancock & Buehl, 2008 ).

The data on sex were cleaned to be consistent across waves; boys were coded as 0 and girls as 1.

Parental socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status was assessed with both parental occupational prestige and parental level of education. Four indicators of mothers and fathers’ occupational prestige were employed. Two indicators (one each for mother and father) are based on filled-in information from the first three waves, supplemented by information from the fourth wave. Two additional indicators were used from the fifth wave to control for measurement error. Occupational prestige was coded based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-68; International Labour Office, 1968 ) in waves 1–3 and the ISCO-88 in wave 5 (International Labour Organization, 1990 ) and converted into the Treiman Prestige Scale (Treiman, 1977 ). In addition to their parents’ occupations, participants were asked to report the highest level of their parents’ academic and vocational education. Two indicators of parental education were used. First, it was determined whether or not each parent had qualified for higher education ( Abitur ), and second, whether or not each parent had obtained a university degree. Information on both parents was combined: A score of 0 meant that neither parent had an Abitur /university degree, while a score of 2 meant that both parents had an Abitur /university degree (Becker et al., 2019 ). For subsequent analyses, these indicators were modelled latently as a time-invariant construct and tested for measurement invariance by sex (Appendix Table 9 ). Even the model for strict measurement invariance had a very good model fit (RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.06). Overall, the latent mean value of the socioeconomic status is 5.31 (see also Table 4 ; by gender males = 5.39 (0.29), females = 5.26 (0.30)).

Cognitive abilities

Two different ability tests were employed in the BIJU study to measure the participants’ cognitive abilities. Two subscales on verbal and figural analogies from the Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest (KFT; Heller et al., 1985 ) and two subscales on numeric and spatial reasoning from Amthauer’s ( 1955 ) Intelligence Structure Test (IST) were used. The KFT scales exhibited satisfactory reliability (figural: Cronbach’s α = 0.93; verbal: Cronbach’s α = 0.82). However, the IST scales exhibited only acceptable reliability (spatial: Cronbachs α = 0.71/0.70 (Versions A and B); numerical: Cronbach’s α = 0.90) (Becker et al. 2020 ). These four scales were also modeled as a latent intelligence factor for subsequent analysis (Appendix Table 10 ). A strict level of measurement invariance by sex was confirmed (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.04). The cognitive abilities have a latent mean value of 2.44 (see also Table 4 ; by gender males = 2.39 (0.07), females = 2.52 (0.09)).

Statistical Analyses

To answer the first research question—whether the gender role attitudes construct can be assessed with the same scale over the entire period from early adolescence to emerging adulthood and whether its developmental trajectory can be modelled with a uniform metric—a latent factor structure of gender role attitudes for each measurement wave was constructed and tested for both longitudinal invariance and multigroup invariance by sex in Mplus 8.4. To compare means on a common metric, and thus to examine questions related to the development of gender role attitudes over time, at least scalar measurement invariance had to be achieved in which both factor loadings and intercepts were constrained to be equal (Meredith, 1993 ). To achieve longitudinal measurement invariance and measurement invariance by sex, measurement invariance over time and between female and male adolescents was required (Kim & Willson, 2014 ). For model comparison, the most common absolute measures of model fit (RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR) were applied, enabling the evaluation of model fit independently of sample size. Model fit was regarded as accepted when the following criteria were met: RMSEA < 0.08, CFI ≥ 0.90, TLI ≥ 0.90, SRMR < 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014 ). In addition, changes in the model fit indices across models were evaluated: RMSEA should not increase by a maximum of 0.03 between the configural and metric invariance models, and CFI should not decline by more than 0.02. Between the metric and scalar invariance models, RMSEA should increase by no more than 0.01 and CFI should decrease by no more than 0.01 (Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014 ).

To answer the second research question on how gender role attitudes develop during adolescence and which predictors are associated with this trajectory, (latent) means and estimated second-order multigroup latent growth curve models were compared. The mean differences provide an indication of whether any statistically significant changes in means arise between measurement points (wave-specific gender differences). Building upon such changes, growth curve models tested which specific developmental trajectories occur across measurement points and how the included predictors are associated with the overall level and trajectory (Duncan et al., 2006 ; Hancock & Buehl, 2008 ). Hence, the multigroup second-order model could be used to investigate the development directly in the latent constructs (e.g., Hancock et al., 2001 ), so the factor loadings and intercepts over time and groups could be constrained while conducting the growth curve model (Fig. 1 ). The growth curve models were also used to test how socioeconomic status and cognitive abilities predict changes in gender role attitudes and how these two independent variables are associated with initial attitudes in grade 7 ( M age = 13, Fig. 1 ). In this context, effects are used in the sense of regression coefficients. Thereby, statements about causality remain open.

figure 1

Model of the second-order latent growth curve model and multigroup testing between males and females

Missing values were treated with the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) procedure integrated within Mplus. FIML enables the inclusion of participants with missing values, making full use of the information available in the sample and minimizing the risk of bias in the parameter estimates (Lüdtke et al., 2007 ). Sampling weights were used to establish a representative proportion of students in academic tracks (Gymnasium) and comprehensive schools. To take the clustered structure of the data into account, the analysis option type = complex in Mplus was used to estimate standard errors, employing maximum likelihood estimation procedures with robust standard error estimates (mlr).

Measurement of Gender Role Attitudes Across Time and Gender

Building upon the first research question examining the presence of a uniform metric for gender role attitudes over time and sex, the factor structure of the egalitarian gender role attitudes scale was tested with a separate confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for each wave (Table 2 ). The CFA of the first measurement point was saturated; for the CFAs of the other three waves, wave-specific correlations had to be allowed to adequately represent the items and achieve a satisfactory model fit. For the second measurement point, a correlation between items about whether men or women should enter gender non-conforming professions (gr06 and gr10, see Appendix A7) was allowed. The same applied to measurement time points three and four, where a wave-specific correlation was allowed (in both cases between gr03 and gr05).

Regarding the test of longitudinal measurement invariance, the configural model exhibited very good model fit (Table 3 , Model 1). When constraining the factor loadings (Table 3 , Model 2) and intercepts (Table 3 , Model 3) to be equal over time, the absolute model fit remained good. The model with the restricted intercepts was maintained and used to test for measurement invariance by sex. As explained in the statistical analyses section, scalar longitudinal measurement invariance was tested and this model was extended step-by-step for measurement invariance by sex (Kim & Willson, 2014 ).

The model assuming scalar measurement invariance over time and configural invariance between the sexes (Table 3 , Model 4) exhibited unsatisfactory model fit. Based on the modification indices reported in Mplus, one correlation for each sex was allowed at the fourth measurement point (female: gr04 and gr07; males: gr08 and gr09). To further improve the model fit, one constrained intercept for female adolescents from the first measurement point was set free over time (gr01). These model specifications led to a good model fit (scalar measurement invariance over time and partial configural measurement invariance between groups; Table 3 , Model 6; Byrne, 2013 ). In the next step, the factor loadings and intercepts, already fixed over time, were fixed across groups (Table 3 , Models 7 and 8). Overall, these models also showed satisfactory absolute fit up to scalar measurement invariance between groups. Thus, with a few limitations, the scale could be confirmed to represent a largely uniform metric over time and across sexes with at least partial measurement invariance. The measurement invariance test was cross-checked with scales containing only items over at least three measurement points. The same pattern emerged (e.g., measurement specific correlations, release of the intercept) and partial scalar measurement invariance over time and between sexes was confirmed (RMSEA = 0.02, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.10).

Changes in Gender Role Attitudes Across Time

Table 4 shows the bivariate correlations, demonstrating how the constructs of gender role attitudes and the predictor’s sex, socioeconomic status, and cognitive abilities are interrelated. All latent gender role attitudes factors were positively correlated with one another, with particularly strong correlations for the latent factors representing neighboring measurement points. Among the predictors, sex correlated particularly strongly with gender role attitudes; female adolescents displayed more egalitarian attitudes than male adolescents. At the first measurement point only, socioeconomic status correlated positively with egalitarian gender roles, whereas higher cognitive abilities were associated with more egalitarian attitudes at all measurement points. Thus, a more privileged socioeconomic status (only for the first measurement point) and higher cognitive abilities were associated with more egalitarian gender role attitudes. With the exception of the non-significant correlations for socioeconomic status and gender role attitudes at measurement points two, three, and four, all other correlations were in line with the expected pattern.

To address the research question of how gender role attitudes develop over time in greater depth, mean comparisons were employed to ascertain the general trajectory of gender role attitudes across waves and gender-specific differences in the trajectory of mean differences across waves. Both genders developed more egalitarian gender role attitudes on average over the measurement points (see Fig. 2 , Table 5 : male t 1 = 2.944 to t 4 = 3.580; female t 1 = 3.559 to t 4 = 3.795). For both sexes, significant mean changes appeared from the second measurement point onwards, while no significant mean change was evident between the first two measurement points (Table 5 , ∆ t-(t-1), males /∆ t-(t-1), females ). Although no significant change was found between the first two measurement points, the overarching picture indicated that teenagers developed more egalitarian attitudes throughout adolescence.

figure 2

Trajectory of mean values for male and female adolescents during adolescence with trend line

Comparing the means by gender, female adolescents in grade 7 ( M age = 13) exhibited more egalitarian gender role attitudes than male adolescents (Table 5 , ∆ male-female ). This trend continued throughout adolescence, with female adolescents showing more egalitarian gender role attitudes than male adolescents across all measurement points. With respect to the exploratory research question concerning whether male and female adolescents exhibit different developmental trajectories, the mean differences by gender indicate that significant differences remained across all waves but became smaller in magnitude over time (Table 5 , ∆ male-female = −0.615 to ∆ male-female = −0.215).

SES and Cognitive Abilities as Predictors for Gender Role Attitude Development: Latent Growth Curve Models

To ascertain the extent to which socioeconomic status and cognitive abilities predict the development of gender roles, an overarching developmental curve needs to be aggregated across adolescence. To achieve this, second-order multigroup latent growth curve models were specified with a linear growth curve parameter that considered the different time intervals between measurement waves. Analogously to the mean comparisons, the overarching results across waves (Table 6 , Model 1) indicate that both female and male adolescents had a significant positive change coefficient over time. The intercept for female adolescents is higher than for male adolescents, while the slope coefficient is higher for male adolescents than for female adolescents. This confirms the results of the mean comparisons, with female adolescents tending to exhibit more egalitarian initial attitudes than male adolescents, and male adolescents experiencing stronger (positive) changes during adolescence than female adolescents.

In Model 2, the parental socioeconomic status was added to the model to investigate the extent to which socioeconomic status can predict the development of gender role attitudes. The results show a significant positive effect on gender role attitudes in grade 7 ( M age = 13) among both male and female adolescents. This indicates that higher parental socioeconomic status is associated with more egalitarian attitudes among teenagers. However, no significant effects of socioeconomic status on the trajectory over time were found in Model 2 for either gender.

As expected, higher cognitive abilities (Model 3) were associated with more egalitarian gender role attitudes in grade 7 ( M age = 13) for both genders. Regarding the question of how cognitive abilities predict this development, the results show a significant negative effect on the slope. Teenagers with weaker cognitive abilities are particularly likely to develop egalitarian attitudes. In contrast, children with higher cognitive abilities already exhibited more egalitarian attitudes at the beginning of puberty, which did not increase as strongly during adolescence.

When simultaneously considering cognitive abilities and socioeconomic status (Model 4), parental socioeconomic status no longer has a significant effect among male adolescents. However, among female adolescents, comparisons of Model 4 with Model 3 reveal a weak suppression effect, with socioeconomic status exerting a negative effect on initial attitudes in grade 7 ( M age = 13) and a positive effect on changes during adolescence. Both effects for female adolescents do not reach a sufficient significance level. Controlling for socioeconomic status does not change the pattern of effects of cognitive abilities, but the slope effect for male adolescents becomes insignificant.

Sensitivity Analyses

The first measurement point was used as a reference and the students were tracked in following waves. Due to the study’s longitudinal design, selective dropout is unavoidable. Dropout by individuals is usually rather systematic, with higher achieving and socially positively selected students showing a higher compliance (e.g., Damian et al., 2015 ). Therefore, it was tested whether the dropout was systematically related to the constructs being examined. Table 7 documents the sample selectivity of the BIJU study, comparing individuals who participated in the sixth wave with those who no longer participated. As with the aforementioned studies, panel mortality was stronger among students from less socioeconomically privileged households and students with lower cognitive abilities. The selective reduction in the sample is partly due to participants leaving school after the 9th/10th grade, after which these students were only surveyed by post. Moreover, it is important to test whether the sample attrition is related to gender role attitudes. Selective dropout is also discernible here but to a lesser extent. As this attrition has a systematic component related to the constructs of analyses, it is essential to include all individuals in the analyses and not using missing data strategies such as pairwise or listwise deletion, as these rely on more restrictive assumptions for not returning biased estimates (i.e., missing completely at random, which is not the case here; Graham, 2009 ). FIML was used to retain all students from the first wave in the analyses, which is equivalent to other strategies such as missing data imputation. This minimizes the risk of bias due to selective dropout with respect to the predictors of interest (socioeconomic status and cognitive ability) and maintains maximal test power, as all available information is used.

To check for robustness, the results were further replicated with an even more inclusive data strategy using the complete sample. This included students from the federal state of Berlin who entered the study from the second wave onwards, students who joined the study through restructured class compositions (especially in the fourth wave/10th grade when many students entered the original classes), and students from an intentional oversample assessing all students within upper secondary schools during the fifth wave (grade 12, Mage = 19). This increased the test power of the sample to a sample size of N = 11,713. This sample is less representative, mainly due to grade 12 oversampling. Using this sample, analyses showed a similar pattern (Appendix Fig. 3 ), except that the socioeconomic status correlated significantly with gender role attitudes at all measurement points. This is most likely due to the higher test power in the extended sample.

A second analysis was conducted with participants who rated the gender role attitudes scale at all measurement points (i.e., relying on a casewise deletion strategy; N = 561). The overall developmental pattern of gender role attitudes remained the same for male and female adolescents (Appendix Fig. 4 ). No significant effects were found regarding socioeconomic status and cognitive abilities. However, it is unclear whether this is due to the more restrictively selected sample, the reduced test power, or even biased due to the assumptions this sample selection makes (missing completely at random which does not apply here; see dropout analyses, Table 7 ).

Since gender roles are a changing construct, it is sometimes necessary to exchange indicators in longitudinal studies to ensure that they continue to represent sufficient variance (see also gender role scales of the European Values Study, EVS, 2021 ). To determine whether measurement invariance is just an artefact, analyses were conducted in which the items were linked across at least three measurement points. Scalar invariance over time and groups was achieved without any partial adjustments (RMSEA = 0.02, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.10). The following developmental analyses confirmed the pattern of the analyses with the complete scales.

Gender role attitudes develop during adolescence. However, previous studies have shown inconsistent findings, and no study has yet examined the full period from early adolescence through emerging adulthood. This study investigated the development of gender role attitudes across the entirety of adolescence against the backdrop of existing societal gender differences. Adolescence is particularly relevant, as gender-related constructs are especially salient during this time. The extent to which greater endorsement of egalitarian gender role attitudes is associated with sex, socioeconomic status, and individual cognitive abilities was analyzed with a series of structural equation models to further evaluate the measurement models and build upon and expand prior studies on the appropriate modelling of gender role attitudes (e.g., Lomazzi & Seddig, 2020 ).

Overall, the results indicate that both male and female adolescents develop more egalitarian gender role attitudes during adolescence. This finding can be linked to the assumption that young people increasingly question morally built constructs, leading to the endorsement of more egalitarian gender roles (Eccles, 1987 ). Moreover, it confirms prior research that has shown that egalitarian attitudes increase during adolescence (e.g., Schroeder et al., 2019 ). Consequently, the finding that boys experience an increase in traditional gender role attitudes during early adolescence was not replicated (Halimi et al., 2021 ). Likewise, the opposing gender intensification hypothesis —that gender role behavior increases during adolescence and sex differences increase (Hill & Lynch, 1983 )—was not supported. Although teenagers discover their gender identity during this time, the results show that attitudes towards gender roles nevertheless soften, and explicit role attributions are less supported. Moreover, contrary to the gender intensification hypothesis , male adolescents experience greater change towards egalitarian direction than female adolescents. This reduces gender differences, although they remain at a significant level. Thus, endorsing egalitarian attitudes seems to be particularly important for women. To participate equally in the labor market, it is particularly relevant for women to pursue egalitarian attitudes, as they are traditionally assigned the domestic role. When female adolescents begin to consider their future plans (which first include decisions on careers after school), egalitarian attitudes are particularly relevant. While egalitarian attitudes are especially important for women, male adolescents develop more strongly towards an open and egalitarian direction. Thus, the finding that sex differences in gender role attitudes decline during adolescence (Fan & Marini, 2000 ) was replicated.

Cognitive abilities were found to have significant positive effects on egalitarian gender role attitudes. This could be an indication that young people with higher cognitive abilities are better able to process seemingly competing concepts and critically question social structures, including critically reflecting on traditional gender role attitudes (Harter, 2003 ). No gender differences were found with respect to this relationship; higher cognitive abilities promote egalitarian attitudes among both male and female adolescents. However, a negative slope effect was found, indicating that young people with weaker cognitive abilities are particularly likely to develop more egalitarian attitudes over time.

More ambiguous results were found for the effects of family background. Socioeconomic status correlated positively with gender role attitudes only at the first measurement point. Moreover, no significant slope effect was found, and when controlling for cognitive abilities, the significant intercept effect of parental socioeconomic status became insignificant. Despite the presence of a link between family socioeconomic background and gender role attitudes, this factor is not predictive for changes during adolescence. This may be because young people become more independent of their family during adolescence, distancing themselves from certain attitudes imparted within the family. A more important contextual factor than the family could be peer groups and school classes, which form a primary point of reference for teenagers (Halimi et al., 2021 ). In particular, gender-related attitudes of peer groups could be relevant in the formation of gender identity and gender role attitudes. Also, by the end of the study period the adolescents had already entered adulthood and their own socioeconomic status may have become more relevant than their parents’ socioeconomic status. The study demonstrates that gender role attitudes experience changes during adolescence, confirming prior results that have observed an increase in egalitarian attitudes over the course of adolescence (Eccles, 1987 ). That these trajectories converge during adolescence seems to be a central and overarching aspect of development.

Limitations

The longitudinal dataset employed in this study provided an overview of the development of gender role attitudes across the entire period of adolescence. It captured long-term developmental trajectories from early adolescence to emerging adulthood while using an extensive sample ( N = 3828). A partially uniform metric was applied over time and across groups to measure the development of gender role attitudes over time. Despite these advantages, the study also exhibited several limitations with relevant implications for future research.

Some challenges arose when attempting to model the gender role attitudes construct in this study. Previous research (e.g., Knight & Brinton, 2017 ) has shown that gender roles cannot necessarily be mapped on a one-dimensional scale with egalitarianism at one end and traditionalism at the other. The item statements used to assess gender role attitudes (Appendix Table 8 ) encompass both descriptive statements on how men and women actually relate to one another and prescriptive statements about how they ought to relate to one another (Krampen, 1979 ). In addition, gender role attitudes can be divided into different facets. They encompass models for dividing domestic and paid labor among couples, while also including normative and legal aspects of gender equality and women’s greater presence in public life (Constantin & Voicu, 2015 ). This multidimensional perspective on gender role attitudes cannot always be converted into a one-dimensional scale with egalitarianism at one end and traditionalism at the other. These various facets of gender role attitudes are also contained within the construct used here. A scale measuring egalitarian gender role attitudes was employed for two key reasons: first, due to the increasing endorsement of egalitarian attitudes in Western societies (Lomazzi & Seddig, 2020 ), and second, because the egalitarian attitudes scale included sufficient linkages between items across measurement waves to examine developmental trajectories. Nevertheless, the use of the scale may have had an effect on the results, as acquiescence led adolescents to agree more with egalitarian statements, leading to the rejection of the gender intensification hypothesis .

Following recent recommendations, the egalitarian gender role attitudes scale was embedded in structural equation models and tested for measurement variance over time and across genders (e.g., Lomazzi & Seddig, 2020 ). This study was able to partially confirm the scale’s measurement invariance in both ways. However, due to the aforementioned complexity, recourse to partial measurement invariance was unavoidable in some cases (Byrne, 2013 ). Moreover, the indicators shifted across measurement points, as the number of items measuring egalitarian attitudes was lower in the beginning and increased over time. This meant that only two anchor items were available for the first measurement point (Hancock & Buehl, 2008 ). However, the exchange of items over time is not necessarily avoidable in a longitudinal perspective with a changing social construct. Agreement with items, such as that women should have the same rights as men, reaches a ceiling by no longer reflecting variance after a certain point in time (see also gender role scales of the European Values Study, EVS, 2021 ). However, the sensitivity analysis concerning the shorter scale showed that measurement invariance and the developmental pattern were confirmed.

It was not possible to model a quadratic slope in the latent growth curve models due to convergence problems. This might have been due to the relatively low variance of the slope parameters. This issue could not be solved with the presented models because the most common solutions (e.g., fixing the residuals of the same indicators over time) did not achieve satisfactory model fit. This may be a further indication that modelling gender role attitudes remains a key issue requiring more extensive and in-depth research.

A typical issue of longitudinal analyses, which also affected this study, is panel attrition. People with lower cognitive abilities and socioeconomic status are more likely to drop out of the study. This is particularly relevant in this context, as these are key predictors of the developmental trajectory. Therefore, it is important to use missing data strategies such as FIML, as this strategy enables the retention of all students. Thereby, all existing information is used, maintaining the test power and minimizing the risk of selective dropout (Graham, 2009 ). Nevertheless, the generalizability should be interpreted with caution and the effects may be underestimated. Further replications with other data sets are needed to test the robustness of the findings presented here.

It was also not possible to control for relevant predictors. No data was available from the parents themselves, so there was no information on the gender role attitudes of the parents. Moreover, it was not possible to look at time-variant confounders like biological changes (e.g., hormonal changes) or the time point when the participants had their first romantic and sexual experiences. Likewise, time-invariant confounders, such as genes or personality traits, could not be considered. Future research should consider whether these could be relevant and specific predictors for the development of gender role attitudes.

Lastly, the results need to be discussed from a historical perspective as the data basis refers to the 1990s and 2000s. In the last decade, societal discourses have increasingly engaged topics such as #metoo, nonbinary gender identities, and new ways to understand masculinity (Walter, 2018 ). This discourse is currently being led by a (publicly very present) section of adolescents and young adults with an intensity that was not as characteristic and polarizing for the same age group in the 1990s. Nevertheless, the adolescents in this study developed more egalitarian attitudes, and this can also be assumed for today’s teenagers based on current debates. The results highlight the changes in attitudes towards gender roles that take place during adolescence, and the importance of this perspective when studying gender inequalities. Although the data refers to the 1990s, there are few research approaches and datasets with a developmental perspective on the whole of adolescence.

Implications

This study has key implications for future research. Methodologically, increased latent modelling of gender role attitudes combined with extensive measurement invariance testing is required to adequately deal with shifting indicators. First, social change needs to be reflected in attitudes towards gender roles so that adequate variance can be modelled. Second, young people’s attitudes to gender roles change as they move through adolescence. While young people in the seventh grade may only be observers of their parents, they will have already made occupational decisions by the end of the study period that may go hand in hand with their gender roles. Moreover, future research should compare the development of traditional and egalitarian gender role attitudes to separate descriptive and prescriptive parts of the items. Intensive content and methodological research on the development of attitudes towards gender roles in adolescence is required, as the results show that adolescents develop in an egalitarian direction, while gender differences continue to emerge in occupational decisions. This may clarify how gender differences manifest early on.

Attitudes towards gender roles change during adolescence, yet the state of research is limited and inconsistent. This study investigated how gender role attitudes develop during adolescence and whether the trajectories differ by gender, socioeconomic status of the parents and cognitive abilities. The results highlight that both male and female adolescents developed egalitarian gender roles during adolescence and that their trajectories were converging by the end of the measurement period, leading to the rejection of the gender intensification hypothesis (Hill & Lynch, 1983 ). The assumption was supported that adolescents increasingly question moral constructs and, accordingly, develop in a more egalitarian direction (Eccles, 1987 ). In particular, cognitive abilities play an important role in egalitarian gender role attitudes. Studying the development of gender role attitudes is important in understanding gender inequalities, as gender-related constructs are particularly salient during adolescence, when teenagers discover their own gender identity and lay important foundations for their occupational and family-related futures. Since the data set refers to the 1990s, it would be useful to compare how attitudes towards gender roles develop during adolescence in the context of current social debates and changes to separate cohort effects from individual development processes. This study can serve as a central point of reference in this endeavor.

Code availability

We used Mplus 8.4 to model the latent structure of our interested factors. Furthermore, we tested for longitudinal measurement invariance and measurement invariance by sex and we modeled our final multigroup second order latent growth curve model with Mplus 8.4. The related code is available by contacting the corresponding author: [email protected].

Amthauer, R. (1955). I-S-T: Intelligenz-Struktur-Test: Handanweisung für die Durchführung und Auswertung (2nd ed.). Hogrefe.

Athenstaedt, U., & Alfermann, D. (2011). Geschlechtsrrollen und ihre Folgen: Eine sozialpsychologische Betrachtung . Kohlhammer.

Baumert, J., Roeder, P. M., Gruehn, S., Heyn, S., Köller, O., Rimmele, R., Schnabel, K., & Seipp, B. (1996). Bildungsverläufe und psychosoziale Entwicklung im Jugendalter (BIJU). In K.-P. Treumann, G. Neubauer, R. Möller, & J. Abel (Eds.), Methoden und Anwendungen empirischer pädagogischer Forschung (pp. 170–180). Waxmann.

Becker, M., Baumert, J., Tetzner, J., Maaz, K., & Köller, O. (2019). Childhood intelligence, family background, and gender as drivers of socioeconomic success: The mediating role of education. Developmental Psychology , 55 (10), 2231–2248. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000766 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Becker, M., Tetzner, J., & Baumert, J. (2020). Schulformen und sozioökonomischer Erfolg im jungen Erwachsenenalter: Werden unterschiedliche Ausbildungswege auf dem Arbeitsmarkt gleich honoriert. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft , 23 , 979–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-020-00973-7 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bolzendahl, C. I., & Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974-1998. Social Forces , 83 (2), 759–789. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0005 .

Bryant, A. N. (2003). Changes in attitudes towards woman’s roles: Predicting gender-role traditionalism among college students. Sex Roles , 48 (3/4), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022451205292 .

Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming . Routledge.

Constantin, A., & Voicu, M. (2015). Attitudes towards gender roles in cross-cultural surveys: Content validity and cross-cultural measurement invariance. Social Indicator Research , 123 (3), 733–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0758-8 .

Crouter, A. C., Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Osgood, D. W. (2007). Development of gender attitude traditionality across middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development , 78 (3), 911–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01040.x .

Damian, R. I., Su, R., Shanahan, M., Trautwein, U., & Roberts, B. W. (2015). Can personality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status attainment in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 109 (3), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000024 .

Dotti Sani, G. M., & Quaranta, M. (2017). The best is yet to come? Attitudes toward gender roles among adolescents in 36 countries. Sex Roles , 77 (1–2), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0698-7 .

Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues and applications . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In Van Lange, Paul A. M., A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgings (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 2 (pp. 458–476). Sage.

Eccles, J. (1987). Adolescence: Gateway to gender-role transcendence. In D. B. Carter (Ed.), Current conceptions of sex roles and sex typing: Theory and Research (pp. 225–242). Praeger.

EVS. (2021). EVS Trend File 1981-2017 . https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13736

Fan, P. ‑L., & Marini, M. M. (2000). Influences on gender-role attitudes during the transition to adulthood. Social Science Research , 29 (2), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1999.0669 .

Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology , 60 , 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 .

Halimi, M., Davis, S. N., & Consuegra, E. (2021). The power of peers? early adolescent gender typicality, peer relations, and gender role attitudes in Belgium. Gender Issues , 38 (2), 210–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-020-09262-3 .

Hancock, G. R., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). Second-order latent growth models with shifting indicators. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods , 7 (1), Article jmasm.eP1420 https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1209614640 . 39–55.

Hancock, G. R., Kuo, W. ‑L., & Lawrence, F. (2001). An illustration of second-order latent growth models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 8 (3), 470–489. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_7 .

Harter, S. (2003). The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (610-642). Guilford Press.

Heller, K. A., Schoen-Gaedike, A.‑K., & Weinlaeder, H. (1985). Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest: KFT 4-13+ (2nd ed.). Beltz.

Hill, J. P., & Lynch, M. E. (1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. In J. Brooks-Gunn & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), Girls at puberty: Biological and psychosocial perspectives (pp. 201–228). Springer.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 6 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 .

International Labour Office. (1968). International Standard Classification of Occupations: Revised edition . International Labour Office.

International Labour Organization. (1990). International standard classification of occupations: ISCO-88 . International Labour Organization.

Kim, E. S., & Willson, V. L. (2014). Testing measurement invariance across groups in longitudinal data: multigroup second-order latent growth model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 21 (4), 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919821 .

Knight, C. R., & Brinton, M. C. (2017). One egalitarianism or several? Two decades of gender-role attitude change in Europe. American Journal of Sociology , 122 (5), 1485–1532. https://doi.org/10.1086/689814 .

Krampen, G. (1979). Eine Skala zur Messung der normativen Geschlechtsrollen-Orientierung (GRO-Skala). Zeitschrift Für Soziologie , 8 (3), 254–266.

Lam, C. B., Stanik, C., & McHale, S. M. (2017). The development and correlates of gender role attitudes in African American youth. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 35 (3), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12182 .

Lomazzi, V. (2017). Testing the goodness of the EVS gender role attitudes scale. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin De Méthodologie Sociologique , 135 (1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106317710859 .

Lomazzi, V., & Seddig, D. (2020). Gender role attitudes in the international social survey programme: cross-national comparability and relationships to cultural values. Cross-Cultural Research , 54 (4), 398–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120915454 .

Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2007). Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau , 58 (2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.58.2.103 .

Lühe, J., Becker, M., & Maaz, K. (2018). Elterliche Geschlechterrollenvorstellungen, familiärer Hintergrund und Schulleistungen. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie , 32 (3), 1–15.

Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin , 128 (6), 903–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903 .

Mays, A. (2012). Determinanten traditionell-sexistischer Einstellungen in Deutschland – eine Analyse mit Allbus-Daten. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie , 64 (2), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-012-0165-6 .

McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003). The family context of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development , 12 (1), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00225 .

Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika , 58 (4), 525–543.

Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 74 (1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257 .

Schroeder, K. M., Bámaca-Colbert, M. Y., & Robins, R. W. (2019). Becoming more egalitarian: a longitudinal examination of Mexican-origin adolescents’ gender role attitudes. Developmental Psychology , 55 (11), 2311–2323. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000811 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Seddig, D., & Lomazzi, V. (2019). Using cultural and structural indicators to explain measurement noninvariance in gender role attitudes with multilevel structural equation modeling. Social Science Research , 84 , Article 102328 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102328 .

Stocké, V., Blossfeld, H. ‑P., Hoenig, K., & Sixt, M. (2011). Social inequality and educational decisions in the life course. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft , 14 , 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-011-0193-4 .

Thijs, P., Te Grotenhuis, M., Scheepers, P., & van den Brink, M. (2019). The rise in support for gender egalitarianism in the Netherlands, 1979-2006: The roles of educational expansion, secularization, and female labor force participation. Sex Roles , 81 (9–10), 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-1015-z .

Trautner, H. M., Ruble, D. N., Cyphers, L., Kirsten, B., Behrendt, R., & Hartmann, P. (2005). Rigidity and flexibility of gender stereotypes in childhood: Developmental or differential. Infant and Child Development , 14 (4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.399 .

Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective . Academic Press.

Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Zeiders, K. H., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Perez-Brena, N. J., Wheeler, L. A., & Rodríguez De Jesús, S. A. (2014). Mexican-American adolescents’ gender role attitude development: The role of adolescents’ gender and nativity and parents’ gender role attitudes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 43 (12), 2041–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0128-5 .

Walter, J. G. (2018). The adequacy of measures of gender roles attitudes: A review of current measures in omnibus surveys. Quality & Quantity , 52 (2), 829–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0491-x .

Zucco, A., & Lott, Y. (2021). Stand der Gleichstellung: Ein Jahr Corona (WSI Report No. 64) . Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut (WSI). https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/232557

Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the BIJU study team and, in particular, the principal investigators of the BIJU study, Jürgen Baumert, Olaf Köller, and Kai S. Cortina, for allowing us to use their dataset. Furthermore, we thank Gerrit Hasche for support during the preparation of the manuscript and Keri Hartman and Roisin Cronin for language editing.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Governance, DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Rostocker Straße 6, 30323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Ricarda Ullrich, Michael Becker & Jan Scharf

Center for Research on Education and School Development (IFS), Technical University Dortmund, Vogelpothsweg 78, 44227, Dortmund, Germany

Michael Becker

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RU contributed to the study conception and design, wrote the first manuscript and performed the statistical analyses; MB contributed to the study conception and design, performed the statistical analyes and coordinated and helped to draft the manuscript; JS contributed to the study conception and design, participated in the interpretation of the data, coordinated and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Data Sharing Declaration

We re-analyzed the large-scale longitudinal German dataset BIJU (Educational Careers and Psychosocial Development in Adolescence and Young Adulthood). This study was conducted by the principle investigators Jürgen Baumert, Olaf Köller, and Kai S. Cortina who allowed us to use the data for answering the research question. This manuscript’s data will not be deposited.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricarda Ullrich .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Consent to Participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants and their parents before the BIJU study began. It was conducted in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s ethical principles for research with human participants.

Consent for Publication

All authors have agreed to the by-line order and to submission of the manuscript in this form. I have assumed responsibility for keeping my colleagues informed of our progress throughout the editorial review process, the content of the reviewers, and any revisions made.

Ethics Approval

The conduction of the study was approved by the relevant state school boards and the ethics commissions of the participating research institutions of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and the Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education in Kiel. The ethical standards of the American Psychological Association were followed in the conduct of the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Tables 8 – 10

Figs. 3 – 4

figure 3

Trajectory of mean values for male and female adolescents during adolescence with trend line. N = 11713

figure 4

Trajectory of mean values for male and female adolescents during adolescence with trend line. N = 561

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ullrich, R., Becker, M. & Scharf, J. The Development of Gender Role Attitudes During Adolescence: Effects of Sex, Socioeconomic Background, and Cognitive Abilities. J Youth Adolescence 51 , 2114–2129 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01651-z

Download citation

Received : 11 February 2022

Accepted : 22 June 2022

Published : 15 July 2022

Issue Date : November 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01651-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Longitudinal development
  • Adolescence
  • Measurement invariance
  • Growth curve model
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Traditional gender role beliefs and career attainment in stem: a gendered story.

\r\nAnna-Lena Dicke*

  • School of Education, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States

Gender role beliefs (i.e., beliefs about gender-specific responsibilities) predict one’s educational and occupational aspirations and choices ( Eccles et al., 1983 ; Schoon and Parsons, 2002 ). Focusing on STEM careers, we aim to examine the extent to which traditional work/family related gender role beliefs (TGRB) in adolescence predict within and across gender differences in subsequent educational and STEM occupational attainment in adulthood. Using longitudinal data from the Michigan Study of Adolescent and Adult Life Transitions ( N = 744; 58% female), participants’ educational attainment and their occupations were assessed at age 42. Their occupations were then categorized into three categories: traditional STEM-related careers in the physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology (PMET); life sciences (e.g., health sciences, LS); and non-STEM. For females, TGRB at age 16/18 significantly predicted lower educational attainment as well as a lower likelihood to be in PMET-related occupations in comparison to non-STEM occupations – controlling for their own educational attainment. TGRB also predicted a higher likelihood to be in LS-related in comparison to PMET-related occupations. No significant associations were found for males. However, patterns of findings for males were similar to those of females. TGRB also mediated across gender differences in educational and PMET-related occupational attainment. Findings reveal TGRB to be one underlying psychological factor influencing gender disparity in educational and STEM occupational attainment.

Introduction

There has been an increasing number of students aspiring to careers in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in the last decade. The STEM workforce is also increasingly diversifying with respects to gender as female students outnumber male students in some STEM fields, such as biology, medicine, and chemistry ( Beede et al., 2011 ). However, females are still underrepresented in engineering, computer science, and physical sciences ( Chen and Ho, 2012 ). A multitude of reasons for the gender disparities in STEM participation have been investigated, including gender differences in attitudes and beliefs, such as the valuing of various STEM domains ( Eccles et al., 1993 ; Ceci et al., 2014 ; Lauermann et al., 2015 ; Cheryan et al., 2017 ). One of the relevant underlying beliefs that might be driving gender differences in STEM participation are traditional gender role beliefs. These general beliefs about responsibilities and behaviors deemed appropriate for women and men ( Eccles, 1987 ; Williams and Best, 1990 ) predict aspirations, choices, and occupational outcomes ( Eccles et al., 1990 ). However, the long-term impact of traditional gender role beliefs on STEM participation is less understood.

In the current study, we address this gap in research by investigating the long-term association of traditional gender-role beliefs in adolescence with subsequent educational and STEM occupational attainment in adulthood for females and males using a longitudinal dataset spanning over 20 years. To explore the complexity of the impact of traditional gender role beliefs on these outcomes, we investigated the impact of traditional gender role beliefs within as well as across genders.

Understanding Gender Disparity in STEM Fields

To better address the gender disparities across various STEM fields, the mechanisms behind its emergence need to be better understood. Research has shown that gender differences are evident in the valuing of gender-stereotyped domains such as mathematics and physics with males showing a stronger inclination toward typically male-stereotyped domains and vice versa for females (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993 ). Similarly, the values underlying various career-related choices are often gendered. For example, females tend to value helping others, improving society, and giving back to their communities relative to males and to other career values such as making lots of money ( Lyson, 1984 ; Eccles, 1987 ; Konrad et al., 2000 ). This is consistent with their prevalent interest in human services occupations ( Lauermann et al., 2015 ). Males, on the other hand, are more likely than females to value working with tools and machines and making lots of money, as well as to aspire to careers within traditional male dominant STEM domains ( Su et al., 2009 ; Wang and Degol, 2013 ; Ramaci et al., 2017 ).

According to the Eccles et al. (1983) Expectancy-Value theoretical framework, social and contextual factors (such as cultural values, gender role belief systems, social beliefs and behaviors, and prior aptitude and experiences) exert influence onto adolescents’ self-beliefs, aspirations, choices, and attainment through their socialization experiences. Thus, gender differences in valuing and subsequent choices are likely results of internalized cultural values and social expectations linked to such belief systems as gender roles (see Eccles et al., 1983 , 1990 ; Eccles, 2015 ).

Traditional Gender Role Beliefs and Educational and STEM Occupational Attainment

Amongst important internalized social and cultural values are the general beliefs about responsibilities and behaviors deemed appropriate for women and men ( Eccles et al., 1983 ; Eagly, 1987 ; Williams and Best, 1990 ; Corrigall and Konrad, 2007 ): Individuals holding traditional gender role beliefs support women’s role as the caretaker at home and in the family and men’s role is to provide financial support as the breadwinner of the family. Research has shown that traditional gender role beliefs are more strongly endorsed by men than women ( Larsen and Long, 1988 ; Brewster and Padavic, 2000 ). These beliefs are linked to greater emphasis being put on men’s and husbands’/fathers’ careers than on women’s and wives/mothers’ careers. Such beliefs are then likely to be reflected in individual women’s and men’s social identities, anticipated future social roles, and short-and long-term goals ( Eccles and Bryan, 1994 ; Eccles et al., 1999 ). They are also key predictors of their aspirations and both educational and occupational choices (e.g., Schoon and Parsons, 2002 ; Webb et al., 2002 ).

Women who endorse traditional gender role beliefs related to family and work roles are more likely to focus on family responsibilities with consequences for the choices they make with regards to educational and occupational aspirations and attainment. For instance, the decrease in traditional work/family related gender role beliefs within society is likely related to increases in educational attainment for females ( Buchmann et al., 2008 ). Female participation in higher education has increased as the prevalence of traditional family related gender role beliefs decreased over time ( Brooks and Bolzendahl, 2004 ; Goldin, 2006 ). Furthermore, Scott (2004) found a direct link between traditional gender role beliefs and educational attainment: Using data from a National Panel study in Britain, females holding more traditional beliefs about family and work were more likely to show worse performance in their high school exams than females not endorsing traditional beliefs. As expected, given the emphasis of the males’ role as a breadwinner within the traditional gender role belief system, this association was not as pronounced for males.

Past studies have also shown associations of endorsement of traditional work/family related gender role beliefs with employment and earnings for females ( Cassidy and Warren, 1996 ; Christie-Mizell, 2006 ; Corrigall and Konrad, 2007 ; Buchmann et al., 2008 ). For instance, Corrigall and Konrad (2007) found that women with more traditional attitudes in their early twenties worked fewer hours and had lower income than women with more egalitarian views in their late twenties using a large nationwide United States sample. In addition, Christie-Mizell (2006) found that endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs was most strongly associated with a decrease in income for white women compared to white and black men and black women within a large-scale longitudinal United States sample.

Although traditional gender role beliefs have become less prevalent over time ( Bolzendahl and Myers, 2004 ; Brooks and Bolzendahl, 2004 ; Raley et al., 2006 ), these core beliefs about the roles of women and men in society might help explain still existing differences in STEM occupational choices across gender. According to the Expectancy-Value theoretical framework ( Eccles et al., 1983 ), links between gender role belief systems operate through the association of gender role beliefs with both individuals’ gendered expectations for success in and the relative attainment values of various gender typed occupations. Thus, traditional gender role beliefs likely drive across gender differences in STEM-related occupational attainment. With males typically holding more traditional gender role beliefs, they are more likely to seek out high status jobs and thus, pursue STEM-related careers than females, in particular in the traditional STEM fields.

However, the impact of traditional gender role beliefs is likely to be even more complex and might be able to also explain within gender variation in STEM occupational choices. Females are overrepresented in the medical, social, and life sciences, which concern caring and helping others – a value typically endorsed by women with more traditional work/family related gender role beliefs. Females’ interest in these specific STEM fields may be due to the values they attach to these specific fields and the extent to which they identify with these values more than other science disciplines. Thus, a stronger endorsement of traditional work/family related gender role beliefs might be perceived to be in accordance with the pursuit of STEM occupations in the life and medical sciences. In contrast, the more traditional STEM fields, such as physics and engineering, are perceived as male-dominated, isolated, and incompatible with the goals of helping others ( Eccles et al., 1999 ; Cheryan et al., 2015 ). In other words, traditional gender role beliefs should lead those females who go into STEM to be more likely to go into careers in the medical and life sciences than into more traditional STEM fields. The extent to which traditional gender role beliefs can help explain the unequal distribution of females and males in various STEM fields has not been investigated.

Previous research, however, has shown that females with more traditional work/family related gender role beliefs are less likely than males to persist in STEM occupational aspirations than non-STEM occupational aspirations. In a study using earlier waves of the MSALT dataset used in the present study, Frome et al. (1996) found that traditional work/family gender role beliefs held at age 20 were significantly associated with changes in STEM-related occupational aspirations for females. More specifically, they found that females with more traditional gender role beliefs were more likely to change from an occupational aspiration in math, engineering or physical science in 12th grade to an occupational aspiration outside of these fields at age 20. These links were not found for males. Given the wide variation of STEM and non-STEM careers that fit with male gender roles, the association of traditional work/family related gender role beliefs with within gender variation of occupational choices for males is likely to be less pronounced. Frome et al. (2006) found that the impact of traditional work/family related gender role beliefs persisted for females in a follow-up study of a subsample of females that aspired to male-dominated occupational fields in 12th grade. A higher desire for a family flexible job reported in 12th grade was associated with a change of aspirations away from male-dominated occupational fields by age 25.

In sum, gendered beliefs about suitable social roles inform both the pathways and opportunities that are perceived as accessible or socially desirable, as well as the related educational and occupational choices that young people make along the way toward professional attainment. However, despite some exceptions ( Frome et al., 1996 ; Corrigall and Konrad, 2007 ), more longitudinal studies investigating the long-term associations of traditional gender role beliefs are needed. In addition, there is a lack of studies investigating the associations of traditional gender role beliefs with gendered patterns of STEM-related occupational attainment using a differentiated conceptualization of traditional STEM fields and medical and life sciences.

Current Study

In the current study, we address these gaps in existing research by examining a developmental model spanning over 20 years investigating the association of traditional work/family related gender role beliefs in adolescence with educational and STEM-related occupational attainment in adulthood. Furthermore, to accurately capture the representation of males and females in various STEM fields, we created and used a classification of STEM occupations that differentiates the classic STEM disciplines (i.e., physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and technology, PMET) from the life and medical sciences (LS). In addition, to account for the impact of participants’ socio-demographic family background, we included mother’s educational background as a predictor of participant’s educational and occupational attainment. Using a longitudinal dataset and building on work from Frome et al. (1996) , we asked the following research questions:

RQ1: To what extent do traditional gender-role beliefs held in adolescence (age 16/18) predict subsequent educational and STEM occupational attainment in adulthood (age 42) for females and males?

Taking into account the within gendered pattern of occupational choices found in previous work by Frome et al. (1996) , we first investigated the associations of traditional gender role beliefs and subsequent educational and STEM occupational attainment separately for male and female adolescents. Based on previous research (e.g., Scott, 2004 ), we hypothesized that stronger endorsements of traditional gender role beliefs during adolescence would be associated with lower levels of education in adulthood (as measured by years of formal education) amongst females, but not males. We hypothesized that stronger endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence would be associated with a reduced likelihood of occupational attainment within male-typed STEM domains (i.e., PMET) compared to non-STEM occupations amongst females, but not males. We also hypothesized that stronger endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence would increase the likelihood to be in less male-typed STEM domains (i.e., LS) compared to non-STEM careers. Lastly, we hypothesized that traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence would decrease the likelihood of occupational attainment in less male-typed STEM domains (i.e., LS) relative to male-typed STEM domains (i.e., PMET).

RQ2: Are gender differences in educational and STEM occupational attainment in adulthood (age 42) mediated by traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence (age 16/18)?

We hypothesized that across gender differences in educational and STEM occupational attainment will be mediated by traditional gender role beliefs. Given previous research ( Brewster and Padavic, 2000 ), we hypothesized that males will hold more traditional gender role beliefs than females. Thus, we hypothesized that gender differences in the endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs by males than females will explain differences in rates of educational attainment and STEM-related occupational attainment between males and females. More specifically, we hypothesized that stronger endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs by males will explain a higher rate of attainment of PMET-related compared to non-STEM occupations. In contrast, we hypothesized that a higher rate of attainment of LS-related compared to non-STEM occupations of females will be explained by males’ higher levels of traditional gender role beliefs. The same holds true for the comparison of LS-related and non-STEM related careers.

Materials and Methods

The current study used data from the large scale longitudinal Michigan Study of Adolescent and Adult Life Transitions (MSALT) that followed 2,474 participants over a time span of 30 years from the end of elementary school at age 11 into adulthood at age 42. Participants were from largely middle-income communities located within a large industrial Midwestern city in Michigan, United States and largely from European American descent (91%). We used parent reported data from Wave 1 (participants in grade 6/age 12) and participant self-reported data from Waves 5 and 6 (grade 10/age 16 and grade 12/age 18), and Wave 10 (age 42). In Wave 10, data was collected through surveys via mail, via phone interviews and via web search using social media profiles (i.e., LinkedIn, Facebook). For participants located through web search, educational and occupational attainment was assessed using the information presented in online profiles. All Wave 10 participants with valid data for occupational attainment were included in the current study ( n = 744; 58% female; 93% European American). This subsample constituted 89% of the overall Wave 10 sample and 30% of the original sample. Attrition analyses using the original sample of 2,474 participants showed that Wave 10 participants differed significantly from the participants that had dropped out of the study: The Wave 10 sample had a significantly higher rate of females than the original sample [ t (2,470) = 3.435, p = 0.001], participants reported significantly lower levels of traditional gender beliefs at age 16/18 [ t (1,840) = 3.240, p = 0.001], and their mothers reported significantly higher educational background [ t (1,927) = -6.524, p = 0.000].

All measures were assessed using survey questionnaires. Up to Wave 6 of data collection, participants received and filled out surveys at school. Parents filled out surveys at home. In Wave 10, surveys were mailed to prior participants. In addition, four percent of Wave 10 data were collected through phone interviews and 33 percent of Wave 10 were collected via web search.

Traditional Gender Role Beliefs

Participants’ traditional gender role beliefs with regards to job responsibilities were assessed at Wave 5 (age 16) and Wave 6 (age 18) with a 5-item scale (α = 0.83/0.80, e.g., “It is usually better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family,” see Appendix A ). This scale assesses beliefs about the relative importance of a man’s vs. a woman’s career and beliefs about better dispositions of men for career success. The scale was developed by Eccles et al. (1983) and validated in previous studies ( Belansky et al., 1993 ; Frome et al., 1996 ). Students rated items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Disagree to 7 = Agree. To minimize missing data, missing students’ reports from Wave 6 were supplemented by Wave 5 reports.

Participants’ Educational Attainment

At Wave 10 (age 42) participants reported their highest attained educational level (Range: 1 = “12th grade or less” to 10 = “Doctorate degree”). For Wave 10 participants that were located through web search, information was coded using available information.

Maternal Educational Attainment

Participants’ mothers were asked to report their highest attained educational level at Wave 1 (Range: 1 = “Grade school” to 9 = “Ph.D or professional degree”). In addition, participants were asked to report their mother’s educational level at Wave 5 (age 16) with responses ranging from 1 = Grade school to 6 = Graduate school. To minimize missing data, parents’ reports from Wave 1 were converted to the 1–6 response scale and supplemented by Wave 5 student reports.

Participants’ Occupational STEM Attainment

At Wave 10 (age 42) participants were asked to report their current occupation. If participants were not currently working, they were asked to report their most recent occupation ( n = 75).

For the present analyses, the open-ended answers were first coded using employment classification standards set by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and the 2010 standard occupational classification (SOC) system manual ( U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010 ). Next, SOC-coded occupations were further coded for STEM using U.S. Department of Labor’s STEM classification recommendations and subsequently collapsed to three categories to capture the type of STEM-relatedness: traditional STEM-related careers in the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, computing and technology (PMET; e.g., engineers, surveyors, and mapping scientists, mathematical scientists, physicists, and astronomers, etc); LS (e.g., biology, health sciences, LS; e.g., biologist, physical therapists, nurses, dentists, and veterinarians, etc); and non-STEM. The categorization of non-STEM occupations was guided by our research question and therefore comprised occupations in the social sciences as well all other occupations (including legislators, chief executives and general administrators, teachers, social workers, homemaker, etc). Three dichotomized indicator variables for each of the STEM categories (LS, PMET, and Non-STEM) indicating membership in the respective category (e.g., 1 = LS-related occupation) were computed.

Statistical Analyses

To investigate the longitudinal associations of traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence with occupational and educational STEM attainment in adulthood for females and males, multi-group manifest path analyses by gender were conducted. In addition, we used the model comparison approach advocated by Judd et al. (1995 , 2009 ) in our analyses, which encourages the use of specific focused comparisons to test specific theoretically derived comparisons. In this case, we conducted three separate path models comparing the different types of STEM-related careers using the following pair comparisons: LS vs. non-STEM, PMET vs. non-STEM, and LS vs. PMET. These comparisons not only allowed us to compare the differentiated STEM careers with non-STEM careers, but also with each other. In the models, educational attainment and STEM occupational attainment in adulthood (Wave 10, age 42) were regressed on traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence (Waves 5 and 6, ages 16 and 18). Educational attainment also predicted STEM occupational attainment. To take into account participants’ educational family background, mother’s educational attainment was included in the model as a covariate of educational attainment and STEM occupational attainment in adulthood. To address the associations with dichotomous STEM categories (LS, PMET and non-STEM), logistic regressions path analyses were estimated using mixture modeling in MPlus 7.1 ( Muthén and Muthén, 2013 ). Separate models for females and males were estimated using the KNOWNCLASS option in MPlus. To address missing data (≤14%), models were estimated using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors as well as Montecarlo integration ( Muthén and Muthén, 2013 ).

To investigate whether gender differences in educational and STEM occupational attainment were mediated by traditional gender role beliefs, separate mediation path analyses were conducted for each of the four outcomes of interest (educational attainment, LS vs. non-STEM, PMET vs. non-STEM and LS vs. PMET). For each set of analyses, gender was used to predict the outcome to test for existing gender differences in a first step. Then, a path model was estimated, in which gender and traditional gender role beliefs predict the outcome. In addition, gender predicted traditional gender role beliefs. In order for mediation to be met, four conditions had to be met: First, gender must be related to the outcome. Second, gender must be related to traditional gender role beliefs. Third, traditional gender role beliefs should be a significant predictor of the outcome. Fourth, gender should no longer significantly predict the outcome. If all four conditions are met, full mediation is supported. If only the first three conditions are met, partial mediation is supported ( Hayes, 2009 ). To test for the significance of the indirect effect of gender on the outcome via traditional gender role beliefs, the MODEL INDIRECT command in Mplus was used. In addition, models were estimated in Mplus using maximum likelihood estimation as well as Montecarlo integration to address missing data and dichotomous outcome variables ( Muthén and Muthén, 2013 ).

Descriptive analyses revealed gender differences in the endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs and educational attainment (see Table 1 ). Female participants reported lower endorsement of the traditional gender role beliefs scale [ t (638) = -13.610, p = 0.000] in adolescence and higher educational attainment [ t (689) = 2.964, p = 0.003] in adulthood than male participants. The majority of participants were engaged in non-STEM occupations ( n = 511, 61%) followed by PMET-related ( n = 147, 18%) and LS-related occupations ( n = 87, 10%). As shown in Figure 1 , gender differences in the distribution emerged. Females were more likely than males to be in LS- related occupations in adulthood [ t (742) = 6.328, p = 0.000], whereas males were more likely than females to be in PMET-related occupations [ t (742) = -4.422, p = 0.000].

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for relevant study variables.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 1. Distribution of STEM-related careers by gender.

Table 2 presents correlations of traditional gender role beliefs, educational and occupational attainment, and their mother’s educational attainment separately for males and females. Some gender differences in correlation patterns were evident. For females, traditional gender role beliefs were statistically significantly negatively associated with their mothers’ educational attainment and their own educational attainment as adults. Traditional gender role beliefs among females were also statistically significantly negatively associated with being in a PMET-related occupation, but positively associated with being in a non-STEM occupation. Employment within a LS-related occupation (vs. any other occupation) was not associated with traditional gender role beliefs. Females’ educational attainment in adulthood was positively associated with their mother’s educational attainment and employment in LS- or PMET-related occupations; and negatively associated with being in non-STEM-related occupations. For males, traditional gender role beliefs were also statistically significantly negatively associated with their mother’s educational attainment. Educational attainment in adulthood showed the same correlation pattern as for females: It was positively correlated with mother’s educational attainment and employment in a LS- or PMET-related occupation, but negatively correlated with employment in a non-STEM occupation.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 2. Bivariate correlations of relevant variables by gender.

Traditional Gender Role Beliefs Predicting Subsequent Educational and STEM Occupational Attainment

Figures 2 – 4 present the results of the multi-group path analyses by gender for each of the STEM category comparisons in our examination of the long-term associations of traditional gender role beliefs with educational and occupational STEM attainment (RQ1).

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 2. Results of multi-group path analyses by gender for LS-related careers vs. non-STEM careers. (A) Results for females and (B) results for males. Standardized coefficients are shown for continuous variables. OR, Odds Ratio. 95% Confidence intervals in brackets. Confidence intervals excluding 0/1 for regression coefficients/odds ratios indicate statistical significance.

Educational Attainment

With regards to participants’ educational attainment the following pattern was found across all three models (see Figures 2 – 4 ): For females, traditional gender role beliefs were significantly negatively associated with mother’s educational attainment and with their own educational attainment in adulthood. In other words, female participants that endorsed stronger traditional gender role beliefs were more likely to have mothers with lower educational attainment and also more likely to attain lower levels of education themselves. Moreover, their educational attainment was statistically significantly and positively associated with their mother’s educational attainment. In other words, females were more likely to attain a higher degree of education when their mothers were also more highly educated. For males, traditional gender role beliefs were marginally negatively associated with mother’s educational attainment. Mother’s educational attainment was also statistically significantly positively associated with males’ own educational attainment in adulthood. However, traditional gender role beliefs were not statistically associated with educational attainment in adulthood for males.

STEM-Related Occupational Attainment

With regards to attainment of LS-related occupations in comparison to non-STEM occupations (see Figure 2 ), traditional gender role beliefs were not associated with attainment of a LS-related occupation for either males or females after taking into account their educational attainment. Educational attainment was statistically significantly associated with a higher likelihood to be in a LS-related career for females, but not males.

With regards to attainment of PMET-related occupations in comparison to non-STEM occupations (see Figure 3 ), females with more traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence were statistically significantly less likely to be employed in PMET-related careers as adults after controlling for their educational attainment. For males, no statistically significant association of traditional gender role beliefs with the likelihood to be in PMET-related careers was found. Higher educational attainment statistically significantly increased the likelihood for being in a PMET-related career for males and females.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 3. Results of multi-group path analyses by gender for PMET-related careers vs. non-STEM careers. (A) Results for females and (B) results for males. Standardized coefficients are shown for continuous variables. OR, Odds Ratio. 95% Confidence intervals in brackets. Confidence intervals excluding 0/1 for regression coefficients/odds ratios indicate statistical significance.

With regards to attainment of LS-related occupations in comparison to PMET-related occupations (see Figure 4 ), traditional gender role beliefs statistically significantly increased the likelihood of being in a LS-related career instead of a PMET-related career for females. However, higher educational attainment significantly decreased the likelihood of being in a Non-STEM related career for females. The likelihood of being in a LS- vs. a PMET-related occupation was not associated with endorsements of traditional gender role beliefs for males. Moreover, higher educational attainment did not significantly predict the likelihood of being in a LS- vs. a PMET related occupation for either gender.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 4. Results of multi-group path analyses by gender for LS-related careers vs. PMET-related careers. (A) Results for females and (B) results for males. Standardized coefficients are shown for continuous variables. OR, Odds Ratio. 95% Confidence intervals in brackets. Confidence intervals excluding 0/1 for regression coefficients/odds ratios indicate statistical significance.

Gender Role Beliefs as Mediators of Gender Differences in Educational and STEM Occupational Attainment

To examine whether traditional gender role beliefs explain the gender differences in educational and STEM occupational attainment, separate mediation path analyses were conducted for each of the relevant outcomes (RQ2). Gender was significantly related to all outcomes: Males were more likely to be in a PMET-related career in comparison to a non-STEM career [OR = 1.86, 95% CI (1.28, 2.70)]. In contrast, females were more likely to be in a LS-related career compared to a non-STEM career [OR = 0.17, 95% CI (0.09, 0.34)] as well as when compared to a PMET-related career [OR = 0.09, 95% CI (0.05, 0.20)]. Females also had more years of schooling than males [ b = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.19, -0.04)].

For educational attainment (see Figure 5A ), gender differences in educational attainment were fully mediated by traditional gender role beliefs, as the association of gender and educational attainment was no longer significant after including traditional gender role beliefs as the mediator. In addition, results indicated that the indirect effect was significant [ b = -0.10, 95% 95% CI (-0.14, -0.05)].

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 5. Results of path analyses investigating the mediation of the association of gender with educational and STEM occupational attainment outcomes via traditional gender role beliefs. Gender coded 1, male. (A) Results for educational attainment, (B) results for comparison of LS-related vs. non-STEM related careers, (C) results for comparison fo PMET-related vs. non-STEM related careers, and (D) results for comparison of LS-related vs. PMET-related careers. Standardized coefficients are shown for continuous variables. OR, Odds Ratio. 95% Confidence intervals in brackets. Confidence intervals excluding 0/1 for regression coefficients/odds ratios indicate statistical significance.

Gender differences in the likelihood to be in a LS-related career vs. a non-STEM career were not statistically significantly mediated by traditional gender role beliefs (see Figure 5B ). The association between gender and endorsement of a LS-related career remained significant after including traditional gender role beliefs in the model and no significant association of traditional gender role beliefs with LS-related career attainment was found. Thus, the indirect effect was not significant [OR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.64, 1.20)].

However, gender differences in the likelihood to be in PMET-related career vs. a non-STEM career were partially mediated by traditional gender role beliefs (see Figure 5C ). The higher likelihood of males to be in a PMET-related career remained statistically significant after the inclusion of traditional gender role beliefs in the model, but results indicated a statistically significant indirect effect [OR = 0.76; 95% CI (0.61, 0.92)].

Lastly, gender differences in the likelihood to be in a LS- vs. a PMET-related occupation were not mediated by traditional gender role beliefs (see Figure 5D ). The higher likelihood of females to be in a LS-related career remained statistically significant after the inclusion of traditional gender role beliefs in the model and no significant association of traditional gender role beliefs and LS-related vs. PMET-related attainment was found. Thus, the indirect effect was not statistically significant [OR = 1.43, 95% CI (0.87, 1.99)].

The current study investigated the impact of traditional work/family related gender role beliefs in adolescence on educational and STEM occupational attainment in adulthood using a longitudinal dataset spanning 20 years. As an important determinant of life choices, traditional work/family related gender role beliefs were used to investigate impacts on educational and occupational attainment in PMET, LS, and non-STEM occupational attainment within and across gender. By doing so, we fill a need for longitudinal studies on the impact of traditional gender role beliefs as well as address the lack of STEM differentiation when investigating its impact on gendered occupational choices in previous research. This is particularly noteworthy given the misrepresentation of women in STEM when LS occupations and PMET occupations are not differentiated. By highlighting these differentiated associations we can better contribute to the conversation of how we can better represent and support females’ STEM-related choices.

Impacts of Traditional Gender Role Beliefs on Subsequent Educational and STEM Occupational Attainment Within Gender

Our investigation of the impact of traditional work/family related gender role beliefs revealed a nuanced pattern of findings for females. As hypothesized, females with stronger traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence attained lower levels of education in adulthood – a finding that further supports previous work by Scott (2004) . One explanation for this association could be that the endorsement of traditional gender roles during adolescence (e.g., beliefs about women’s role as the caretaker at home and in the family) may be a reflection of young women’s expectations for marriage and child bearing early on and their reliance on men’s role to provide financial support as the breadwinner of the family. If so, this explanation would be in congruence with findings by Corrigall and Konrad (2007) that found that women with more traditional attitudes worked fewer hours and had lower income than women with more egalitarian views in their late twenties.

By using a differentiated classification of STEM-related occupations, we also found, as hypothesized, that females’ endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs in adolescence reduced the likelihood of occupational employment within PMET domains, but was not associated with their occupational attainment within LS domains. In addition, more traditional gender role beliefs actually predicted occupational attainment within LS domains over PMET domains. The reduced likelihood of occupational attainment in a PMET domain among females that endorse traditional gender role beliefs lends further support to research that has documented male and female value of gender-stereotyped domains in alignment with their respective gender (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993 ). However, our nuanced findings with regards to the effects on occupational attainment in PMET- and LS-related careers underline the importance of using a differentiated conceptualization of STEM domains. Endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs did not affect females’ occupational attainment in LS domains negatively. Thus, to truly capture and understand the origins of gender differentiation in the STEM field, a broader conceptualization of STEM-related occupations that is fully inclusive of LS such as health and medicine is needed. This will not only allow for a better scope of STEM-related or, more broadly speaking, science-related occupations, but it will also more accurately represent the participation of women in STEM.

However, it is important to note that our models accounted for females’ educational attainment in adulthood; and for females, their endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs were negatively associated with their educational attainment. It may be that there is an indirect link between traditional gender role beliefs and STEM-typed occupational attainment that is mediated by educational attainment. This might be especially relevant as STEM occupations generally require a higher degree of educational attainment and technical training relative to non-STEM occupations.

Traditional gender role beliefs did not significantly associate with educational or STEM-related occupational attainment for male participants. However, interestingly, associations of traditional gender role beliefs and STEM occupational attainment were in the similar direction as for females, pointing to a similar pattern of impact for males as for females, only less pronounced. Particularly with regards to STEM-related occupational attainment, one reason for the non-significance of the effects for males might be the small sample size of males in LS-related careers. It also needs to be noted that coefficients for females and males were not statistically significantly different from each other.

Gender Differences in Educational and STEM Occupational Attainment: Impact of Traditional Gender Role Beliefs

Our investigation of whether traditional work/family related gender role beliefs are related to across gender differences revealed that gender differences in the endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs explain differences in the rates of educational attainment and STEM-related occupational attainment of males and females. More specifically, as expected higher educational attainment by females was mediated by lower endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs by females. In addition, as expected stronger endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs by males partially explained a higher rate of attainment of PMET-related careers compared to non-STEM careers. However, gender differences in attainment of LS-related occupations in comparison to non-STEM occupations and PMET-related occupations were not mediated by traditional gender role beliefs. The found effects were, however, in the expected direction and might have been affected by the low sample size of males in LS occupations in the current sample. Thus, in accordance with the Expectancy-Value theoretical framework ( Eccles et al., 1983 ), our study provides some evidence that traditional gender role beliefs are one potential underlying psychological factor that can help explain gender disparity in attainment. This finding further highlights that it is important to have a differentiated conceptualization of STEM occupations, as STEM occupations encompass a variety of occupations with differential values attached to them by males and females.

Given our findings, one potential way to address the existing gender disparity in the traditional STEM fields could be to better contextualize the human applications of these fields to attract more females. It would be equally prudent to address the stereotype of PMET-related occupations as male-typed domains, that are isolating and incompatible with the goals of helping others ( Cheryan et al., 2015 ). This might be deterring females from aspiring to such occupations. On the other hand, our findings indicate that changes in the socialization of societal gendered expectations with a movement to more egalitarian gender role beliefs, as currently ongoing ( Brooks and Bolzendahl, 2004 ), will ultimately help ease gender disparities in educational and STEM occupational attainment.

Limitations and Future Research

While the longitudinal dataset used in the present study allowed for an investigation of the long-term impact of traditional gender role beliefs, it needs to be kept in mind that the present longitudinal sample was biased toward lower levels of traditional gender role beliefs due to attrition. As a result, the present study did not present the full variation in traditional gender role beliefs that likely exist in the general population. Our present sample was also biased toward having mothers with a higher level of education. Our results, thus, do not represent the full spectrum with regards to participant’s socioeconomic background. Given these constraints with regards to variation in traditional gender role beliefs and socio-economic background, our findings likely underestimate the effects of traditional gender role beliefs on educational and STEM occupational choices. Lastly, the present sample also consisted of a higher rate of females than males due to attrition. As a result, the sample size for individual STEM categories (e.g., LS) was small for male participants. This means that these particular findings need to be interpreted with caution due to the lack of power. To address the bias in our present sample, future research should replicate the findings using a more gender balanced sample capturing effectively the whole spectrum of traditional gender role beliefs, STEM occupations, and socio-economic backgrounds to test generalizability.

Our findings illustrate how general beliefs about societal norms, i.e., traditional gender role beliefs, can affect specific life choices in important life domains, i.e., educational and occupational attainment. Our findings did, however, not look into the educational and occupational trajectories of the participants to see how educational and occupational aspirations and choices developed over time. This important future avenue for research would allow us to better understand the educational and occupational pathways taken by females and males. Such analyses might shine a light on whether females and males differ in the timing or variation of educational and occupational choices, which might, in turn, affect their eventual educational, and occupational attainment.

Future research should also examine the mechanisms through which traditional gender role beliefs affect educational and occupational choices. As previously discussed, traditional gender role beliefs are likely to inform valuing of education and particular STEM domains, which, in turn, determine occupational choices ( Wigfield and Eccles, 2000 ). They might also inform gender-specific stereotypes about women’s lack of competencies in STEM majors and occupations, which have been found to negatively influence STEM choices for women ( Nosek and Smyth, 2011 ; Cundiff et al., 2013 ). These possible ways through which traditional gender role beliefs might differentially affect educational and occupational choices for females and males, particularly in STEM, need to be empirically tested.

In addition, apart from exploring the processes driving the impact of traditional gender role beliefs on career choices, future analyses should explore how other important life choices (e.g., marriage, children) mediate or moderate the impact of traditional gender role beliefs on educational and occupational attainment. More importantly, particularly life choices with regards to the timing of marriage and child bearing very likely affect educational and occupational pathways differentially for females and males. As such, another significant avenue of research will also be to examine actual, and perceived, opportunities for employment and lifestyle affordances (i.e., number of hours worked, work-life balance) of STEM-related domains by men and women that could contribute to gender-differentiated choices and pathways as a function of their gender role beliefs. For example, women might gravitate more toward LS-typed careers if there are a greater number of opportunities for work in non-academic settings as opposed to traditional science domains ( Ceci et al., 2014 ). Research is beginning to examine the congruence of perceived affordances and desired goals in explaining gender-differentiated STEM occupational choices (e.g., Diekman et al., 2016 ). It will be imperative to continue this avenue of research and examine how gender roles beliefs inform a socially constructed narrative of perceived abilities, affordances, and anticipated goals and resultant choices, if we are to support continued opting into these STEM fields.

Overall, our findings showcase the importance of culturally socialized general beliefs about society, in this case traditional work/related gender role beliefs, in influencing the specific life choices women and men make, and specifically their potential in explaining disparate gender participation in STEM.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan and the University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States with written informed consent from all subjects. Written informed consent for subjects under the age of 16 was obtained from parents. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Michigan and the University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.

Author Contributions

A-LD and NS conceived the idea of the study. JE was the architect of the data used in the study. A-LD conducted the analyses and wrote the manuscript with feedback and assistance from NS and JE.

This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (# BNS 85-10504 and # 1108778), the National Institute of Mental Health (# MH31724), and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (# HD17296) to JE.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., and Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief No. 04-11 . Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1964782 (accessed November 15, 2018).

Belansky, E. S., Early, D. M., and Eccles, J. S. (1993). “The impact of mothers and peers on adolescents’ gender role traditionality and plans for the future,” in Poster Session Presented at the Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development , New Orleans, LA.

Google Scholar

Bolzendahl, C. I., and Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Soc. Forces 83, 759–789. doi: 10.1353/sof.2005.0005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brewster, K. L., and Padavic, I. (2000). Change in gender-ideology, 1977–1996:the contributions of intracohort change and population turnover. J. Marriage Fam. 62, 477–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00477.x

Brooks, C., and Bolzendahl, C. (2004). The transformation of US gender role attitudes: cohort replacement, social-structural change, and ideological learning. Soc. Sci. Res. 33, 106–133. doi: 10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00041-3

Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T. A., and McDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 34, 319–337. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134719

Cassidy, M. L., and Warren, B. O. (1996). Family employment status and gender role attitudes: a comparison of women and men college graduates. Gend. Soc. 10, 312–329. doi: 10.1177/089124396010003007

Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., and Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: a changing landscape. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 15, 75–141. doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, X., and Ho, P. (2012). STEM in Postsecondary Education: Entrance, Attrition, and Coursetaking Among 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students (NCES 2013-152). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Cheryan, S., Master, A., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Front. Psychol. 6:49. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049

Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., and Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychol. Bull. 143, 1–35. doi: 10.1037/bul0000052

Christie-Mizell, C. A. (2006). The effects of traditional family and gender ideology on earnings: race and gender differences. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 27, 48–71. doi: 10.1007/s10834-005-9004-5

Corrigall, E. A., and Konrad, A. M. (2007). Gender role attitudes and careers: a longitudinal study. Sex Roles 56, 847–855. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9242-0

Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., and Lo, L. (2013). Do gender–science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Soc. Psychol. Educ. 16, 541–554. doi: 10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8

Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Brown, E. R., Belanger, A. L., and Clark, E. K. (2016). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21, 142–175. doi: 10.1177/1088868316642141

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychol. Women Q. 11, 135–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00781.x

Eccles, J. S. (2015). Gendered socialization of STEM interests in the family. Int. J. Gend. Sci. Technol. 7, 116–132.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). “Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors,” in Achievement and Achievement Motivation , ed. J. T. Spence (San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman), 75–146.

Eccles, J. S., Barber, B., and Jozefowicz, D. (1999). “Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices,” in Sexism and Stereotypes in Modern Society: The Gender Science of Janet Taylor Spence , eds W. B. Swann, J. H. Langlois, and L. A. Gilbert (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 153–192. doi: 10.1037/10277-007

Eccles, J. S., and Bryan, J. (1994). “Adolescence: critical crossroad in the path of gender-role development,” in Gender Roles Through the Life Span , ed. M. R. Stevenson (Muncie: Ball State University Press), 110–147.

Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., and Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. J. Soc. Issues 46, 183–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.x

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: the impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. Am. Psychol. 48, 90–101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.48.2.90

Frome, P. M., Alfeld, C. J., Eccles, J. S., and Barber, B. L. (2006). Why don’t they want a male-dominated job? An investigation of young women who changed their occupational aspirations. Educ. Res. Eval. 12, 359–372. doi: 10.1080/13803610600765786

Frome, P. M., Alfeld-Liro, C. J., and Eccles, J. S. (1996). Why don’t young women want to pursue male-typed occupational aspirations? A test of competing hypotheses. Paper Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence , Boston, MA. doi: 10.1080/13803610600765786

CrossRef Full Text

Goldin, C. (2006). The quiet revolution that transformed women’s employment, education, and family. Am. Econ. Rev. 96, 1–21. doi: 10.1257/000282806777212350

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond baron and kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76, 408–420. doi: 10.1080/03637750903310360

Judd, C., McClelland, G., and Ryan, C. (2009). Data Analysis: A Model Comparison Approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H., and Culhane, S. E. (1995). Data analysis: continuing issues in the everyday analysis of psychological data. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 46, 433–465. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.46.020195.002245

Konrad, A., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., and Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 126, 593–641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593

Larsen, K. S., and Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles 19, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/BF00292459

Lauermann, F., Chow, A., and Eccles, J. S. (2015). Differential effects of adolescents’ expectancy and value beliefs about math and english on math/science-related and human services-related career plans. Int. J. Gend. Sci. Technol. 7,205–228.

Lyson, T. A. (1984). Sex differences in the choice of a male or female career line: an analysis of background characteristics and work values. Work Occup. 11, 131–146. doi: 10.1177/0730888484011002001

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus user’s Guide , 7th Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nosek, B. A., and Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 48, 1125–1156. doi: 10.3102/0002831211410683

Raley, S. B., Mattingly, M. J., and Bianchi, S. M. (2006). How dual are dual-income couples? documenting change from 1970 to 2001. J. Marriage Fam. 68, 11–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00230.x

Ramaci, T., Pellerone, M., Ledda, C., Presti, G., Squatrito, V., and Rapisarda, V. (2017). Gender stereotypes in occupational choice: a cross-sectional study on a group of Italian adolescents. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 10, 109–117. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S134132

Schoon, I., and Parsons, S. (2002). Teenage aspirations for future careers and occupational outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 60, 262–288. doi: 10.1006/JVBE.2001.1867

Scott, J. (2004). Family, gender, and educational attainment in Britain: a longitudinal study. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 35, 565–589. doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2013.02.001

Su, R., Rounds, J., and Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychol. Bull. 135, 859–884. doi: 10.1037/a0017364

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). Standard Occupational Classification User Guide. Washington, DC: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Wang, M.-T., and Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Dev. Rev. 33, 304–340. doi: 10.1016/J.DR.2013.08.001

Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., and Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: new perspectives on their educational and vocational development. J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 785–794. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.785

Wigfield, A., and Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 68–81. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Williams, J. E., and Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Multination Study (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Traditional Gender Role Belief Scale

In general, men are more reliable on the job than women.

In general, men are naturally more competitive than women.

It bothers me to see a man being told what to do by a woman.

Men are naturally better than women at mechanical things.

It is usually better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.

Keywords: traditional gender role beliefs, educational attainment, STEM, occupational attainment, gender differences

Citation: Dicke A-L, Safavian N and Eccles JS (2019) Traditional Gender Role Beliefs and Career Attainment in STEM: A Gendered Story? Front. Psychol. 10:1053. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01053

Received: 08 January 2019; Accepted: 24 April 2019; Published: 08 May 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Dicke, Safavian and Eccles. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Anna-Lena Dicke, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (JGG); [email protected] (MJS)

Affiliations Wom = n Equity & Research Committee, Society of Spanish Researchers in the United Kingdom (SRUK/CERU), International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London, London, United Kingdom

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Wom = n Equity & Research Committee, Society of Spanish Researchers in the United Kingdom (SRUK/CERU), International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Wom = n Equity & Research Committee, Society of Spanish Researchers in the United Kingdom (SRUK/CERU), International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

ORCID logo

  • Judit García-González, 
  • Patricia Forcén, 
  • Maria Jimenez-Sanchez

PLOS

  • Published: December 5, 2019
  • https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763
  • Reader Comments

Table 1

There is extensive evidence of gender inequality in research leading to insufficient representation of women in leadership positions. Numbers revealing a gender gap in research are periodically reported by national and international institutions but data on perceptions of gender equality within the research community are scarce. In the present study, a questionnaire based on the British Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET 2016) was distributed among researchers working in Spain. Consistent with the original UK-based study, women in research perceived a greater degree of gender inequality than men. This difference was consistent from junior to senior positions, within public and private universities as well as research centres, and across all research disciplines. When responses were compared with the existing UK-based questionnaire, researchers in Spain felt that women and men are treated more equally in the workplace, yet they perceived their home departments to be less supportive regarding matters of gender equality. The results of this study provide clear evidence that men and women do not share the same perceptions of gender equality in science and that their differing perceptions are relatively consistent across two major European countries. The fact that men occupy the majority of senior positions while not perceiving the same inequality as women do, may be critical when it comes to ensuring the fair ascent of women to senior positions in an academic system. These data encourage the implementation of measures to ensure that both men and women are aware of gender biases in research.

Citation: García-González J, Forcén P, Jimenez-Sanchez M (2019) Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions. PLoS ONE 14(12): e0225763. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763

Editor: Luís A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES

Received: April 28, 2019; Accepted: November 12, 2019; Published: December 5, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 García-González et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Worldwide, women represent 53% of bachelor’s and master’s graduates. Parity drops at the PhD level (43% women vs 57% men) and even more at postgraduate level, where only 28% of research positions are occupied by women [ 1 ]. This gender gap is more noticeable at the senior level, with a lower representation of women in leadership positions and consequently in decision- and policy-making. She Figures 2015, a report that investigates gender equality in research and innovation in Europe [ 2 ], showed that only 21% of grade A, top-level researchers were women and, strikingly, numbers have not improved much from the 20% observed in 2010. In the Spanish academic system, the representation of women is nearly identical to that of the rest of the EU (40.8% vs 41.0%), and women occupy 21.0% of senior positions in Spain vs 20.9% in the EU [ 2 , 3 ].

Gender perceptions may influence women’s ascent to senior positions [ 4 ]. Women are perceived as worse scientific leaders [ 5 , 6 ] and are stereotyped as not possessing the innate talent that is required in some fields [ 7 ]. These and other gender stereotypes may explain why women receive similar levels of research funding when they are judged on the quality of their research but less funding when judged on the excellence of the researcher [ 8 ], are less frequently invited to conferences [ 9 , 10 ], are less likely to be selected for scientific awards [ 11 , 12 ], are less represented on editorial boards [ 13 ], their work is less likely to be cited [ 14 ], they have less chances of being invited to participate in peer review [ 14 , 15 ], and they have a more restricted access to influential networks [ 16 ]. In 2015, Handley et al reported that men do not recognise the presence of gender bias in research to the same extent as women: when men and women were asked to read an abstract from a study reporting gender bias in research, men tended to evaluate this study less favourable, suggesting reluctance of men to acknowledge gender bias. The gender difference was more prominent among academics working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) [ 17 ]. Moreover, many women’s choices of undergraduate discipline are dependent on the potential discrimination that is anticipated in each field [ 18 ]. A lack of understanding of these issues, especially at the senior level, will likely result in fewer measures put in place to tackle them. It is therefore necessary to understand how gender biases are perceived by researchers in their workplace, and, importantly, whether gender, seniority, research area and type of institution influence these perceptions. While reports are published periodically to evaluate the current gender situation in science and its evolution over the years [ 1 – 3 , 19 ], much less is known about researchers’ perceptions of gender equality.

The Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET) 2016 [ 20 ] was commissioned by The Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, Royal Society of Biology and The Academy of Medical Sciences and managed by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) [ 21 ] to assess experiences, expectations and perceptions in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) in academia in the United Kingdom (UK). The survey, which expanded from previous iterations of the survey, had 4,869 respondents and covered six aspects of British academics’ working life: perception of gender equality, recruitment, job and career, caring responsibilities, training and leadership, and promotion and development. On average, men felt that the department where they worked was more committed to gender equality than women did. Also, although differences were relatively small, women perceived that men had an advantage regarding the allocation of tasks and resources related to career development, while men’s perceptions on this topic were more neutral.

In Spain, while public organisations such as the Spanish Research Council (CSIC) and the Women and Science Unit of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities publish periodic reports of statistics regarding women in research [ 3 , 19 , 22 ], to the best of our knowledge, there has not been a formal assessment of perceptions on gender equality. Moreover, policies to encourage and recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women have not yet being implemented systematically, in contrast to the UK, where charters such as Athena SWAN (Scientific Women's Academic Network) [ 23 ] have been active for more than ten years. The present study seeks to understand gender perceptions and experiences among researchers in Spanish academic institutions, and to compare these with the perceptions of researchers working in their British counterparts. A questionnaire with items adapted from the ASSET 2016 [ 20 ] ( S1 Table ) was distributed among researchers working in both public and private universities and public research institutes in Spain [ 24 ]. The effects of respondents’ gender, seniority, type of institution and research area on their perceptions of gender equality were systematically assessed, and the results of this survey were then compared with those of the ASSET 2016. Data from our survey show that men and women differ in the perceptions of gender equality and that findings are consistent across research areas, type of institutions and researchers’ positions. Our findings largely agree with those obtained from respondents in the UK, while highlighting differences in how researchers in Spain perceive less institutional support for gender-related issues.

Participants

A total of 2,619 individuals were contacted via email through their institutions or through the Society of Spanish Researchers in the UK (SRUK/CERU). Of these, we analysed the data provided by 2,255 respondents that were currently working in Spain and discarded the data from individuals that did not reach the end of the survey. To ensure that our sampling method did not introduce a non-response bias in our analyses, we compared responses from those that did not complete the survey with those that completed it and found no differences between them ( S2 Table for women and S3 Table for men). 10 individuals younger than 21 were discounted. While this survey included the opportunity for respondents to indicate that they would prefer not to disclose their gender (n = 11), the data presented are limited to those respondents who identified themselves as either men or women. The final sample for analysis contained 1,295 adults from 63 institutions (see S4 Table for a complete list of the institutions represented in the survey), of which 36% (n = 469) were men and 64% (n = 826) were women. For more details of the sample used in the study, see Table 1 and S1 Appendix .

Research ethics

The data in this study were analyzed anonymously. Data were collected through the website surveymonkey.com . At the beginning of the survey, all participants were informed about the purpose of the questionnaire and the anonymisation of their data. Responses were obtained between 5 February 2018 and 4 May 2018. Participants were given the option of not responding at each question. We only included data from participants older than 21 years old.

The present report is part of a wider survey to explore the perceptions and experiences of gender equality of academics working in STEMM, as well as in the arts, humanities, social sciences, business and law (AHSSBL) in Spain. Items included in the original survey were adapted from the Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET), managed by the Equality Challenge Unit [ 20 ]. The survey was circulated in English to ensure that the questions had the same meaning in both countries. In this study, only the responses relevant to the perception of gender biases were analysed. A description of the survey questions that were adapted from the ASSET survey and analysed in this study, their variable names and scales used is provided in S1 Table .

The measurement of gender equality in research is multidimensional. In this case, two dimensions of gender equality were explored: perceptions of gender equality in departments where respondents work and perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources . Perceptions of gender equality in departments were assessed using six statements such as “My department is committed to promoting gender equality” or “My department is (or would be) responsive to concerns about gender equality”. Each statement was rated using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 =“Strongly agree”. Perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources were assessed using 15 items, such as “Invitations to conferences”, “Appointments to editorships” or “Allocation of teaching”. Each item was evaluated using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = “Much easier for a woman” to 7 = “Much easier for a man” ( S1 Table ).

We performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to confirm that the two previously-described dimensions of gender equality are present in the Spanish research system. PCA calculates the correlating variation among a set of observed variables (items) to identify underlying latent variables (dimensions/constructs) by obtaining the covariance matrix of the variables, and then its eigenvectors and the corresponding eigenvalues. Cronbach’s alpha [ 25 ] was used to examine the internal validity of the items for each component. To assess whether respondents’ gender had a significant effect on their perceptions of gender equality, independent samples t-tests were performed for each survey question and for the sum of all items within each dimension. Effect sizes were assessed using Cohen's d [ 26 ], where 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 indicated a small, medium and large effect, respectively. To evaluate the effects of research area, position, type of institution, as well as the interaction between those and the respondents’ gender, two-way ANOVA tests were used (three ANOVA tests were run, one for each factor). Mean, standard deviation and sample sizes for male and female respondents in the UK were obtained from ASSET 2016 and t-tests were carried out separately to compare each question and gender group.

To account for multiple testing when exploring group differences between men and women, a Bonferroni correction was applied based on 21 independent t-tests (one for each question for the Spain based questionnaire) and significance was declared at a threshold of 0.002. For the comparison across countries, a Bonferroni correction was applied based on 38 independent t-tests (19 questions available in both countries stratified by male and female respondents). In this case significance was declared at a threshold of 0.001. Analyses were undertaken using Minitab v.17 and v.18 and R version 3.4.3.

To assess how researchers working in Spain perceive gender equality, a survey adapted from the ASSET 2016 in the UK, was distributed among researchers working in Spanish universities and research centres. A total of 1,295 complete responses were collected from 63 institutions, of which 36% (n = 469) were men and 64% (n = 826) were women. Respondents’ ages ranged between 21 and 66 or over and represented all stages of the research and academic ladder ( Table 1 ). The survey was composed of two categories: perceptions of gender equality in departments and perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources . We first confirmed the existence of two defined categories among the questions by performing a principal component analysis (PCA) and their internal reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. With Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.7 to 0.9, we confirmed that the items within each component were closely related. These results are in line with the ASSET 2016 survey structure, ensuring a reliable comparison between both countries (see S2 Appendix in supporting information and S1 Fig for details on the psychometric analyses).

thumbnail

  • PPT PowerPoint slide
  • PNG larger image
  • TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.t001

We then assessed the impact that gender, position, research area and type of institution may have on perceptions of gender equality in the Spanish academic system. T-tests and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to assess the effect of these factors as well as the interaction between them and the respondents’ gender. In addition, responses were compared with those from the ASSET 2016 to investigate potential differences in perceptions across Spain and the UK.

Gender differences in perceptions of gender equality in departments

In the first part of the survey, a total of six items were used to evaluate how participants perceived gender equality in their departments in terms of (1) leadership (assessing how well women and men perceive women as leaders ( Fig 1A )), (2) equality treatment (assessing whether men and women are treated equally in their departments ( Fig 1B )), and (3) promotion of gender equality (investigating whether participants perceived that their departments have measures in place to promote gender equality ( Fig 1C )). Perceptions of gender equality in the respondents’ department was overall lower for women, with average score across the six items close to neutral ( M = 4.44, SD = 1.93) compared to men, who perceived their departments are somewhat committed to gender equality ( M = 5.18, SD = 2.13) ( p <0.002, S6 Table ). The distribution of responses for this category also showed that, despite the high variability in responses within each gender, most of men responses were 6 = ‘Agree’ and 7 = ‘Strongly agree’ (that there is gender equality in their departments), whereas women responses were more variable and a larger percentage of them failed to perceive gender equality (1 = ‘Strongly disagree’, 2 = ‘Disagree’ and 3 = ‘Somehow disagree’) ( Fig 1 ).

thumbnail

Graph shows the distribution of responses by gender where responses ranged from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. The neutral value is 4 = “Neither agree nor disagree”. Sample sizes ranged from 1,287 to 1,293 respondents (n = 465 to 468 men and n = 821 to 826 women). Sample sizes for each question are detailed in S6 Table .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g001

The largest gender differences were observed when participants were asked about leadership perception ( Fig 1A ). Although both women and men mostly agreed with the statement ‘Women are perceived as good leaders by women’, there was a slight shift in the distribution of responses towards a more negative perception by women ( M = 5.05, SD = 2.26) than men ( M = 5.40, SD = 1.76). The difference between women and men’s perception was more striking for the question “Women are perceived as good leaders by women ”, which showed that women felt that women’s leadership abilities are less recognised by men ( M = 4.03, SD = 1.88) ( p <0.002, S6 Table ).

When respondents were asked whether men and women receive equal treatment in their departments ( Fig 1B ), 87% of men agreed (strongly agree/agree/somehow agree). In contrast, women’s perceptions of equality were significantly lower and only a 69% agreed with that statement, while 25% of them strongly disagreed, disagreed or somehow disagreed with the equality of the treatment received. With an average of 6.05 ( SD = 1.41) for men versus 5.06 ( SD = 1.79) ( p <0.002, S6 Table ) for women, female researchers perceived less gender equality in the treatment provided by their departments.

To evaluate whether participants perceived that their departments have measures in place to promote gender equality, we used three items that included questions such as “I would know who to approach if I had concerns about gender equality” or “My department is responsive to concerns about gender equality” ( Fig 1C ). For both men and women, item means ranged between 3.90 ( SD = 2 . 15 ) and 5.07 ( SD = 1 . 90 ) (scores of 3, 4 and 5 correspond to “Somehow disagree”, “Neither agree nor disagree” and “Somehow agree”, respectively). For these three items, women perceived that their departments had significantly lower commitment to promote gender equality compared to men ( p <0.002, S6 Table ).

Overall, these results show that in the Spanish research system men have a more positive perception about their departments treatment and commitment to gender equality than women do. Importantly, we found that women felt they are not valued as good leaders by men.

Gender differences in perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources

To evaluate whether men and women perceive that the tasks and resources are equally allocated in their departments, 15 tasks and resources were assessed and stratified by: (1) allocation of markers of esteem ( Fig 2A ), (2) allocation of professional development resources ( Fig 2B ) and allocation of academic duties (3) ( Fig 2C ) ( S7 Table ).

thumbnail

Gender differences in perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources related to A) markers of esteem, B) professional development and C) additional professional duties. The item ‘Distribution of office/laboratory space or equipment’ refers to both A) markers of esteem and B) professional development. Graphs show distribution of responses by gender where responses ranged from 1 = “Much easier for a woman” to 7 = “Much easier for a man”. The neutral value is 4 = “Neither agree nor disagree”. See S4 Table for descriptive statistics and t-test results. Sample size ranged from n = 1,259 to 1,287 respondents (n = 455 to 467 men and n = 804 to 821 women). Sample sizes for each question are detailed in S7 Table .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g002

Compared to men, a larger percentage of women perceived that the recognition of intellectual contributions, invitations to conferences, distribution of office/laboratory space or equipment and appointments to editorships, all markers of esteem, are more easily allocated to men ( Fig 2A ), with mean scores between 4.01 ( SD = 2.07) and 4.88 ( SD = 1.43) ( S7 Table ). However, male respondents mostly rated the allocation of these resources as ‘the same for men and women’, with mean scores between 3.81 ( SD = 1 . 02) and 4.07 ( SD = 1 . 13 ) , Fig 2A and S7 Table).

Similarly, most of the men perceived that the allocation of resources related to professional development ( Fig 2B and S7 Table ) are allocated to men and women with similar ease ( M = 3.98, SD = 1.25). However, a larger proportion of female respondents felt that most of these resources are more easily allocated to men ( M = 4.75, SD = 1.46). Although these differences were subtle, they were statistically significant, with p<0.002 for all of the items individually and when considered together ( S7 Table ). The most noticeable differences were found when asked about promotion to senior posts or access to circles of influence (women: M = 5.29, SD = 1.57; men: M = 4.24, SD = 1.43; p<0.002, S7 Table ). Across all the items, the response distribution is markedly shifted between women and men. The percentage of women that think that it is slightly easier, easier or much easier for a man to get these resources ranged between 24 and 65%, in contrast to a smaller fraction of men with similar opinion, between 6 and 34%. For the different questions, between 50 and 84% of men perceived that professional development resources are distributed equally ( Fig 2 ).

The results above contrast with the findings in relation to the allocation of academic duties ( Fig 2C ). Both women and men perceived that pastoral care roles, or the support provided for the well-being of students and trainees, are allocated more easily to women and no significant differences between genders were observed for this category ( S7 Table ). They also agreed that the allocation of teaching is more equally distributed ( Fig 2C and S7 Table ). While there is a general perception that administrative tasks are more easily allocated to women, women perceived this more strongly (women: M = 3.25, SD = 1.42; men: M = 3.60; SD = 1.19. p <0.002, S7 Table ).

Altogether, gender differences were observed for the allocation of all the items referring to professional development and markers of esteem, where women perceived that these are more easily allocated to men while men did not perceive a biased distribution to the same extent. On the contrary, men and women perceived similarly that academic duties (teaching, pastoral care roles and administrative tasks), which are tasks not directly related to research performance, are distributed more easily to women.

Interaction of gender and research area in perceptions of gender equality

We next determined whether these gender differences may vary across research areas. Results from a two-way ANOVA for gender and research area suggested that overall women and men differences in gender perception were independent of the research discipline, as no gender-by-research area interaction was statistically significant ( S8 – S10 Tables). When we compared how researchers from different disciplines perceive gender equality in their workplace, we observed a significant main effect of research area only on the items “In general, men and women are treated equally in my department” and “Allocation of pastoral care roles”. Compared to other research areas, women working on law and earth sciences perceived the lowest gender equality regarding the treatment that men and women receive in their departments ( S2 Fig ). Researchers in the areas of maths and physical sciences are the ones perceiving that pastoral care roles are more easily allocated to women, with mean scores for both women and men of around 2 (i.e. “Easier for a woman”), while law had the most neutral perception, with mean scores above 3 (i.e. “Slightly easier for a woman”) ( S3 Fig ). It is worth noting that law and earth sciences are the research areas with the lowest responses and larger samples are needed to reach further conclusions.

Interaction of gender and position in perceptions of gender equality

To investigate the effect of seniority on perceptions of gender equality, we created four groups of positions according to their experience level ( Table 1 ): senior researcher, intermediate career researcher, early career researcher and research student. Gender and position were included as factors in a two-way ANOVA. Women’s estimates of gender equality were lower than those of men regardless of seniority, as the interaction between position and gender did not reach statistical significance for any item ( S11 – 13 Tables). Similar results were obtained when the interaction was done between age and gender ( S11 – 13 Tables). Only for the item “receiving positive feedback from management” the effect of gender differed by age ( S13 Table )

The only significant main effect of position was found on the items “If I had concerns about gender equality in my department, I would know who to approach” ( S4 Fig ), and “Appointment to editorships” and “Allocation of administrative tasks” ( S5 Fig ). For all three items, junior researchers perceived more gender biases in the allocation of these resources than researchers in more advanced positions.

Interaction of gender and type of centre in perceptions of gender equality

We observed that perceptions of gender equality in departments and in the allocation of tasks and resources were consistent across research centres, private and public universities. There were no significant main effects of type of centre, nor any interactions between gender and type of centre ( S14 – S16 Tables), suggesting that the previously-observed gender differences did not vary as a function of the institution where the respondents work.

Perceptions of gender equality in the Spanish and British academic systems

Overall, results from our survey and from the ASSET 2016 indicate that lower gender equality was perceived by women researchers working at both Spain and the UK. When all the items from the category perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources were considered together, we found no significant differences between countries ( S17 Table ). In contrast, when the six items for the category perceptions of gender equality in the department were jointly assessed, male and female researchers in the UK perceived greater gender equality than their counterparts in Spain. In both countries, men perceived higher equality in their departments than women, but country differences were consistent across genders with p <0.001 ( S17 Table ).

We then evaluated all the items individually and compared the responses from both surveys. Significant differences in perceptions between participants from Spain and the UK were observed for both genders ( p <0.001) in 13 items as per t-test ( S17 Table ). The largest differences were observed for items related to the support provided by the department and the allocation of teaching and pastoral tasks.

Relative to British respondents, researchers from Spanish institutions perceived greater equality in the treatment that men and women receive in their departments ( p <0.001, S17 Table ) ( Fig 3A ). Conversely, respondents from Spain perceived a lower level of support from their departments concerning issues of gender equality relative to their British counterparts, with p <0.001 for the three items ( Fig 3B–3D and S17 Table ).

thumbnail

Responses range from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. The neutral value is 4 = “Neither agree nor disagree”. Spanish sample size ranged from 1,297 to 1,303 respondents (n = 467 to 468 men and n = 817 to 826 women). British sample size ranged from 4,804 to 4,862 respondents (n = from 2,466 to 2,491 men and n = from 2,338 to 2,372 women). Sample sizes for each question, country and gender are detailed in S17 Table .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g003

For perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development, we observed that differences between Spain and the UK were driven almost exclusively by female respondents ( Fig 4 ). Women working as researchers in Spain perceived to a greater extent that it is easier for a man to be allocated tasks and resources related to professional development such as receiving positive feedback, receipt of mentoring for career decisions, promotion to senior posts, recruitment for academic posts, attention from senior management or access to informal circles of influence ( Fig 4 ). For all these items, significant differences between Spain and the UK were observed for female respondents, where the UK-based respondents perceived higher levels of equality compared to their Spanish counterparts ( p <0.001).

thumbnail

Responses range from 1 = “Much easier for women” to 7 = “Much easier for men”. Spanish sample size ranged from n = 1,279 to 1,287 (n = 46 to 470 men and n = 810 to 827 women). British sample size ranged from 4,814 to 4,824 respondents (n = from 2,467 to 2,477 men and n = from 2,342 to 2,349 women). Sample sizes for each question, country and gender are detailed in S17 Table .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g004

Women in Spain perceived greater inequality in the recognition of intellectual contributions than women in the UK did (p<0.001) ( Fig 5A ), while no significant differences were observed across countries for other markers of esteem such as invitation to conferences ( Fig 5B ). Conversely, male Spanish researchers perceived that editorships were more easily allocated to women than British researchers did (p<0.001) ( Fig 5C ) ( S17 Table ). Regarding the allocation of teaching, administrative tasks and pastoral roles, Spain-based researchers perceived that these roles are more easily allocated to women while in the UK these would be equally allocated to women and men ( p <0.001) ( Fig 5D–5F and S17 Table ). Interestingly, opposite directions in the gender effect were observed between countries for the allocation of administrative tasks and pastoral care roles ( Fig 5E–5F ).

thumbnail

Perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources in the Spanish and British academic systems: markers of esteem (A-C) and additional professional duties (D-F). Responses range from 1 = “Much easier for women” to 7 = “Much easier for men”. Spanish sample size ranged from n = 1,259 to 1,286 respondents (n = 455 to 466 men and n = 804 to 820 women). British sample size ranged from 4,722 to 4,813 respondents (n = from 2,433 to 2,476 men and n = from 2,289 to 2,346 women). Sample sizes for each question, country and gender are detailed in S17 Table .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g005

Despite reaching similar conclusions, both studies also highlight significant differences in gender perception among Spain and the UK. Some of these disparities may arise from inherent characteristics existing between research systems, however it may also underline areas where more work is required to promote gender equality.

The present study is the first one assessing perception of gender equality and comparing it across two major European countries. It provides clear and significant evidence that men and women have a different understanding of the gender gap in academia regardless of the country, research area, junior or senior position and type of academic institution. Our results show that women perceive greater gender inequality than men do and encourage the implementation of measures to increase awareness and address the problem.

Firstly, we evaluated perceptions of gender equality in a sample of 1,295 researchers working in academic positions in Spain. Estimates of gender equality were lower amongst women than men, with small to medium effect sizes, and the largest effect sizes being observed for items related to leadership. Previous research has revealed a systematic, unconscious gender bias that hinders women’s ascent to senior positions [ 8 – 16 , 27 , 28 ]. Despite the considerable body of objective scientific evidence, data from our survey shows that male researchers perceive equal gender treatment in their departments, equal access to the resources that are necessary for professional development or that can be viewed as markers of esteem and a stronger commitment from their departments to ensure gender equality. Data from our survey suggests that gender inequalities previously reported in the Spanish research system [ 3 , 19 , 22 ] are perceived by women researchers in their daily life in their departments but not by men to the same extent. To ensure a fair ascent of women in the academic ladder and fair allocation of resources, it seems necessary that those who occupy senior positions, who are mostly men, have a fair perception of gender inequality.

No significant interactions were observed between academic position or age and gender in our analyses, indicating that men and women of varying ages and seniority shared similar feelings regarding gender equality. Gender inequality has often been explained by a generational effect [ 29 , 30 ], and such an effect was widely cited by respondents when given the option to add comments in our survey (data not shown). These opinions are consistent with reports claiming that women in academia no longer face systematic discrimination [ 29 , 30 ]. However, contrary to this view, EU reports show only a modest increase in the number of women reaching senior positions in recent years [ 2 ], while in Spain, the proportion of women occupying senior positions did not change between 2012 and 2017 [ 3 , 19 ]. Results from this survey show that a generational change in perception, which is necessary to reach equality, is not happening in the new generations. Therefore, our data do not support a scenario where perception of gender bias will change over time without a need for intervention.

Our results agree to a large extent with those obtained in the ASSET 2016. Male researchers in both the UK and Spain perceived greater gender equality in their departments compared to female researchers. Interestingly, our analyses also highlighted some key differences in perceptions between the two countries, especially in perceptions related to gender equality in the workplace. While researchers in Spain felt that women and men are treated more equally in the workplace than researchers in the UK did, British departments were perceived as more committed, concerned and responsive to matters of gender equality. Overall perception on the allocation of tasks and resources was more similar between countries, but female respondents based in Spain perceived greater inequality regarding the allocation of resources related to professional development than the UK-based female respondents, while male respondents from both countries perceived no gender inequality. In the UK, the representation of women in the academic system (44.0%) is slightly higher than in Spain (41.0%) and in the EU average (40.8%) [ 2 ]. On the contrary, for the representation of women in senior positions, Spain does better, with 21.0% compared to only 17.5% in the UK, which is far from the EU average, 20.9% [ 2 ]. We could hypothesize that higher representation of women in senior positions results in greater perceptions of equality among researchers working in Spain. This contrasts with a more positive perception in terms of commitment and support at the workplace in the UK and the resources allocated to professional development.

The UK has been a pioneer in the implementation of awards to encourage and recognise commitment of the institutions to advance the careers of women, such as the Athena SWAN Awards, established by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) in 2005. The differences that researchers in Spain and in the UK perceive in terms of institutional support and allocation of resources could be explained by the existence of these measures. Recent evaluations of this program have acknowledged that its implementation has resulted in structural and cultural changes as well as in an effort to advance gender equality in research institutions in the UK [ 31 – 33 ].

The observation of large country differences in the allocation of pastoral care roles and administrative tasks is of special interest. The allocation of these duties has been associated with high workload and low reward [ 34 ]. Therefore, some of these differences may arise from the inherent characteristics of both research systems, where the recognition of pastoral roles may not be equally valued. Initiatives such as Athena Swan in the UK, that recognize and value these roles, have potentially led to a more equal distribution in this country.

In the last few years, multiple countries have adopted policies to increment the participation of women in science and to foster their career progression. The Horizon 2020 programme in Europe has incorporated gender in its research and innovation strategy by promoting gender balance in research teams and in decision-making panels and advisory groups, as well as providing funds for initiatives that support gender balance [ 35 ]. In the US, the National Science Foundation has invested over $270M to help higher education and STEM-related organizations to support ADVANCE (Organizational Change for Gender Equity in STEM Academic Professions) projects that aim to increase the representation of women in science [ 36 ]. In the UK, the Athena SWAN Charter recognises the commitment of academic organisations to gender equality [ 23 ], in particular where active policies and specific programmes have been adopted. Gender bias influence decision-making [ 4 , 37 ], therefore how gender biases are perceived by those designing, implementing and assessing these and future measures is a critical aspect to take into consideration [ 38 , 39 ]. At the individual level, perceptions are likely to be shaped during childhood, and working with children to eliminate stereotypes may help eliminating women and men differences in perception from early on [ 40 ]. Studies in the social psychology field have shown that alerting about the existence of a certain bias, may reduce that bias [ 41 – 43 ]. Therefore, increasing self-awareness in adulthood through gender bias and unconscious bias workshops could also help shaping perceptions [ 44 ]. It is important to note, that identifying the source of bias is critical for an effective intervention [ 42 ] and that effective changes require more than a one-off diversity training [ 45 ]. More importantly, institutions need to put in place evidence-based, data-driven measures to ensure that perceptions do not have a negative impact in women’s careers progression [ 46 ]. Only by applying policy changes and action plans at multiple levels, we will be able to address and remove institutional, organisational, structural and systemic barriers to full gender equality in research.

The ASSET 2016 provided a valuable resource to evaluate perceptions of gender equality in British STEMM. The current survey represents a further attempt to robustly evaluate such perceptions in a representative sample from a different country, although it was limited by an unequal gender distribution, whereby there were twice as many female as male respondents. In addition, the survey was limited to researchers working in universities (public and private universities) and public research centres. Future efforts to better define policies that benefit the largest number of people should include initiatives that encourage the participation and support of men in gender equality surveys, as well as extending surveys to researchers in the private sector.

The present study represents the first formal comparison of men and women perceptions of gender equality between two European countries. Our data on the researchers based in Spanish institutions largely agree with the observations of the British ASSET 2016, while highlighting important differences in gender perceptions between the two research systems. This and future international surveys should aid the design and implementation of effective measures to drive a cultural change and to close the gender gap in research, by increasing our understanding of gender perceptions in academic environments.

Supporting information

S1 appendix. responses “perceptions in gender equality”..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s001

S2 Appendix. Psychometric properties of the survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s002

A) Loading plot of survey where first component is represented vs second component. B) Scree plot of the 21 items included in this analysis. As the number of components increases, the variance (within-group sum of squares) decreases. The elbow at two/three clusters represents the most parsimonious balance between minimum number of clusters that explain most of the variance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s003

S2 Fig. Research area by gender interaction in the perception of gender equality in departments.

Item represented in the figure corresponds to “In general, men and women are treated equally in my department”. Graph shows means by gender ranging from 1 =“Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. Sample size N = 1,293 (N = 468 men and N = 825 women).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s004

S3 Fig. Research area by gender interaction in the perception of gender equality in the allocation of pastoral care roles.

Figure represents the responses to perceptions of gender equality in the “allocation of pastoral care roles” and shows means by gender ranging from 1 =“Much easier for women” to 7 = “Much easier for men”. Sample size N = 1,259 (N = 455 men and N = 804 women).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s005

S4 Fig. Position by gender interaction in the perception of gender equality in departments.

Item represented in the figure corresponds to “If I had concerns about gender equality in my department, I would know who to approach” and shows means by gender ranging from 1 =“Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. Sample size N = 1,291 (N = 468 men and N = 823 women).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s006

S5 Fig. Position by gender interaction in the perception of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources.

A) Appointments to editorships and B) Allocation of administrative tasks. Graph shows means by gender ranging from 1 =“Much easier for a woman” to 7 = “Much easier for a man”. Sample size N = 1,275 to 1,279 (N = from 462 to 463 men and N = from 813 to 816 women).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s007

S1 Table. Description of the questions in the survey and variable names.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s008

S2 Table. Comparison between responses from female participants that did not complete the survey (excluded respondents) and participants included in the analysis (respondents that completed the survey).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s009

S3 Table. Comparison between responses from male participants that did not complete the survey (excluded respondents) and participants included in the analysis (respondents that completed the survey).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s010

S4 Table. List of the institutions represented in the sample analysed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s011

S5 Table. Cronbach alpha coefficients for each item and whole category.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s012

S6 Table. Descriptive and t-tests results for perceptions of gender equality in departments.

“sd” = standard deviation. “N” = sample size. “df” = degrees of freedom. “95CI” = 95% Confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s013

S7 Table. Descriptive and t-tests results for perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s014

S8 Table. Research area variable names, sample size for each research area and gender distribution by research area.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s015

S9 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by research area in perceptions of gender equality in departments.

“Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” = Total sum of squares. “Mean Sq” = Mean Squares.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s016

S10 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by research area in the perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s017

S11 Table. Position variable names, sample size for each position and gender distribution by position.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s018

S12 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by position in the perceptions of gender equality in departments.

“Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” = total sum of squares. “Mean Sq” = Mean Squares.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s019

S13 Table. Interaction of gender by position in the perceptions of gender equality in allocation of tasks and resources.

“Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” = total sum of squares. “Mean Sq” = mean Squares.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s020

S14 Table. Type of institution variable names, sample size for each type of institution and gender distribution.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s021

S15 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by type of institution in the perceptions of gender equality in departments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s022

S16 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by type of institution in the perceptions of gender equality in allocation of tasks and resources.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s023

S17 Table. Comparison of responses between Spain vs the United Kingdom-based researchers.

“N” = Sample size, “M” = mean, “SD” = Standard deviation, “df” = degrees of freedom. Note: The questions “women are perceived as good leaders by women/men” from the Spain based questionnaire are not reported in this analysis, as no equivalent questions were available in ASSET 2016. Significance declared at Bonferroni corrected threshold p = 0.001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.s024

Acknowledgments

We thank all members of the Wom = n Equity & Research committee of SRUK/CERU—especially Diego Alonso and Nerea Irigoyen-, members of the Board of Directors of SRUK/CERU -especially Javier Escudero and Rocio Gaudioso- as well as David Pritchett, Caroline Brennan, Kristin Hadfield, Elke Vlemincx, Frederike Beyer, Eulalia Perez Sedeño and Pavel Ovseiko for reviewing the manuscript, helpful comments and discussion. We thank the Spanish universities, scientific societies and research institutes that distributed the survey, as well as all the researchers who took the time to complete it. This work was possible thanks to the previous work done in the ASSET 2016, and we thank Amanda Aldercotte from the Equality Challenge Unit for sharing data that enabled comparisons between our surveys.

  • 1. UNESCO, Schlegel F, editors. UNESCO science report: towards 2030. Paris: UNESCO Publ; 2015. 794 p. (UNESCO science report).
  • 2. Europäische Kommission, editor. She figures 2015. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2016. 217 p.
  • 3. ana.guillamon_378. Científicas en cifras 2015 [Internet]. FECYT. 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 17]. Available from: https://www.fecyt.es/es/publicacion/cientificas-en-cifras-2015
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar
  • PubMed/NCBI
  • 6. Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists—Linda L. Carli, Laila Alawa, YoonAh Lee, Bei Zhao, Elaine Kim, 2016 [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361684315622645
  • 11. Popejoy AB, Cadwalader EL, Herbers JM. Disproportionate Awards for Women in Disciplinary Societies. In: Gender Transformation in the Academy [Internet]. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2014 [cited 2019 Mar 16]. p. 243–63. (Advances in Gender Research; vol. 19). Available from: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1529-212620140000019011
  • 16. Removing Barriers: Women in Academic Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education: Vol 1, No 1 [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2202/1940-7890.1020
  • 19. Cientificas_cifras_2017.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.ciencia.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Ministerio/FICHEROS/UMYC/Cientificas_cifras_2017.pdf
  • 20. Equality Challenge Unit ASSET 2016—Equality Challenge Unit [Internet]. [cited 2018 Nov 17]. Available from: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/asset-2016/
  • 21. Home [Internet]. Equality Challenge Unit. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/
  • 22. informes CMYC—csic.es [Internet]. [cited 2018 Nov 17]. Available from: http://www.csic.es/informes-cmyc
  • 23. Athena SWAN Charter [Internet]. Equality Challenge Unit. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/
  • 24. Public Research Organizations [Internet]. EURAXESS. 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 10]. Available from: https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/spain/science-spain/public-research-organizations
  • 31. Barrett PS, Barrett LC. Promoting positive gender outcomes in higher education through active workload management [Internet]. Salford: University of Salford; 2013. Available from: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/29489/
  • 34. GENDER-NET analysis report: award schemes, gender equality and structural change [Internet]. Equality Challenge Unit. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/gender-net-analysis-report-award-schemes-gender/
  • 35. kamraro. Promoting Gender Equality in Research and Innovation [Internet]. Horizon 2020—European Commission. 2014 [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/promoting-gender-equality-research-and-innovation
  • 36. ADVANCE at a Glance | NSF—National Science Foundation [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/advance/
  • 38. Kray L. Gender Bias in Negotiators’ Ethical Decision Making. 2011 Mar 30 [cited 2019 Mar 16]; Available from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1639379n#main
  • 39. Gender Politics and Public Policy Making: Prospects for Advancing Gender Equality—ScienceDirect [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1449403505700679

Read our research on: Immigration & Migration | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Gender roles, parents, young adult children and the transition to adulthood.

Most U.S. young adults are at least mostly financially independent and happy with their parents' involvement in their lives. Parent-child relationships are mostly strong.

About 8 in 10 women in opposite-sex marriages say they took their husband’s last name

Younger women, women with a postgraduate degree and Democratic women are more likely to keep their last name after marriage.

Almost 1 in 5 stay-at-home parents in the U.S. are dads

In 2021, 18% of parents didn’t work for pay, which was unchanged from 2016, according to a new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Key facts about dads in the U.S.

For Father’s Day, here are six facts about the views and experiences shaping fatherhood in the United States today.

Key facts about moms in the U.S.

For Mother’s Day, here’s a snapshot of what motherhood looks like in the U.S. today, drawn from government data and Pew Research Center surveys.

In a Growing Share of U.S. Marriages, Husbands and Wives Earn About the Same

Among married couples in the United States, women’s financial contributions have grown steadily over the last half century. Even when earnings are similar, husbands spend more time on paid work and leisure, while wives devote more time to caregiving and housework.

The Enduring Grip of the Gender Pay Gap

The difference between the earnings of men and women has barely closed in the United States in the past two decades. This gap persists even as women today are more likely than men to have graduated from college, suggesting other factors are at play such as parenthood and other family needs.

Gender pay gap in U.S. hasn’t changed much in two decades

In 2022, women earned an average of 82% of what men earned, according to a new analysis of median hourly earnings of full- and part-time workers.

Black Americans Firmly Support Gender Equality but Are Split on Transgender and Nonbinary Issues   

Nearly six-in-ten want organizations working for Black progress to address the distinct challenges facing Black LGBTQ people. Black Americans are more likely to know someone who is transgender or nonbinary than to identify as such themselves.

Parenting in America Today

Mental health concerns top the list of worries for parents, followed by concerns about their children being bullied. The vast majority of parents say being a parent is enjoyable and rewarding all or most of the time, but substantial shares also find it tiring and stressful.

Refine Your Results

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Springer Open Choice

Changing gender roles and attitudes and their implications for well-being around the new millennium

Helen sweeting.

1 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RZ UK

Abita Bhaskar

Michaela benzeval.

2 Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, CO4 3SQ UK

Frank Popham

Associated data.

Given evidence that gender role attitudes (GRAs) and actual gender roles impact on well-being, we examine associations between GRAs, three roles (marital status, household chore division, couple employment) and psychological distress in working-age men and women. We investigate time-trends reflecting broader social and economic changes, by focusing on three age groups at two dates.

We used British Household Panel Survey data from 20- to 64-year-olds in heterosexual couple households in 1991 ( N  = 5,302) and 2007 ( N  = 6,621). We examined: levels of traditional GRAs according to gender, age, date, household and employment roles; associations which GRAs and roles had with psychological distress (measured via the GHQ-12); whether psychological distress increased when GRAs conflicted with actual roles; and whether any of these associations differed according to gender, age or date.

Gender traditionalism was lower among women, younger people, those participating in 2007 and in ‘less traditional’ relationships and households. Psychological distress was higher among those with more traditional GRAs and, particularly among men, for those not employed, and there was some evidence of different patterns of association according to age-group. There was limited evidence, among women only, of increased psychological distress when GRAs and actual roles conflicted and/or reductions when GRAs and roles agreed, particularly in respect of household chores and paid employment.

Conclusions

Although some aspects of gender roles and attitudes (traditionalism and paid employment) are associated with well-being, others (marital status and household chores), and attitude-role consistency, may have little impact on the well-being of contemporary UK adults.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00127-013-0730-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

Over the latter part of the twentieth century and into the first decades of the twenty-first century, societal gender role attitudes (henceforth GRAs, also termed gender role beliefs or ideology) have become more egalitarian among both men and women [ 1 ], paralleling broader social and economic changes. There have been striking increases in the proportion of adults choosing to cohabit rather than marry [ 2 ] and also, among women, particularly those with children, in the proportion in employment (UK employment rates in 1974 and 2003, respectively, were 95 and 86 % in men, 67 and 73 % in childless women and 36 and 58 % in mothers) [ 3 ]. In contrast, although men’s involvement in domestic work rose from the 1960s, it reached a plateau in the mid 1990s, changing little in the following decade [ 1 ].

The implications of these changes in attitudes and roles for other aspects of life are not well understood. In particular, it has been suggested that ‘internalisation of sex roles and gender stereotypes and the ramifications of these roles, both of which can be measured at an individual level, are rarely among the inputs studied when health is the output’ (p. 370) [ 4 ]. Changes in GRAs and roles, or changes in the meanings associated with particular roles are, therefore, important in respect of the impact they might have on patterns of psychological distress in men and women [ 5 , 6 ]. In this paper we focus on how GRAs and indicators of men’s and women’s actual roles in the home and the labour market are associated with psychological distress. Inclusion of both GRAs and roles means we can investigate the relative importance of each. Analyses are based on data from the UK British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) which allows us to look at men and women from three different working age groups (20–34, 35–49 and 50–64) at two different dates (1991 and 2007).

Gender roles and attitudes: patterning and associations with well-being

Traditional GRAs privilege men’s roles in paid work and their status as the family ‘breadwinner’, while assuming women should prioritise caring for the home and family over other roles. Egalitarian GRAs, in contrast, support equality in all domains [ 7 ]. More traditional GRAs are more common among men [ 7 – 9 ] and older generations [ 10 – 12 ]. Several studies suggest they may be also associated with greater psychological distress. For example, more traditional GRAs were associated with poorer well-being among ‘Dutch mainstreamers’ and both Caribbean and Mediterranean immigrant men and women living in the Netherlands [ 8 ], while a study of 45- to 79-year-olds in the UK found GRAs was unrelated to mental health among men, but women with more traditional GRAs had poorer mental health [ 13 ]. Another UK study found more traditional GRAs were positively associated with suicidal thoughts in early and late middle-aged cohorts [ 14 ].

Existing evidence on gender-related roles rather than attitudes is very mixed. Shared household responsibilities are more likely among those with more egalitarian beliefs and higher levels of education, and among childless couples where both partners are working [ 8 , 15 – 17 ], although there is some evidence from Sweden that the association between parenthood and traditional gender differences in household tasks might be changing [ 18 ]. Several studies have reported lower well-being among both men and women who spend more time on housework, who live in households where household responsibilities are shared less equally and/or who perceive that household responsibilities are not equally shared [ 8 , 19 , 20 ]. However, some find no associations between the actual division of household labour and well-being [ 21 ]. Others find that poorer mental health among both men and women is associated with only certain types of domestic work such as routine and unavoidable (‘female’) tasks, but not with tasks such as gardening or home repairs which are more commonly undertaken by men [ 5 ]. Still others have suggested that well-being is related to other forms of ‘family work’ (such as childcare or ‘emotion work’ like suggesting solutions to their partner’s problems), but not housework [ 22 ]. Some studies have found associations between measures of actual or perceived levels of housework and marital satisfaction or well-being among women but not men [ 19 , 23 – 26 ]. The role of paid employment, which among women is more likely among those with more egalitarian GRAs [ 27 ], is generally associated with lower psychological distress among both men and women [ 19 , 28 – 30 ].

However, it is plausible that roles and attitudes should be considered in tandem, in respect of their relationships with well-being. In particular, consistency between attitudes and roles (i.e. whether an individual’s GRAs as more traditional or egalitarian are in line with their household and paid employment roles) may be important for predicting well-being. This notion can be traced back to the observation by Komarovsky [ 31 ] during the 1930s that unemployed American men were more likely to suffer depression if they had a traditional economic provider and ‘boss’ self-identity than if they perceived their role as father and husband was more important. All but two [ 1 , 25 ] of the studies of this ‘fit between self and situation’ (p. 638) [ 32 ].which we have identified have been conducted in the US and many have been based on small samples. Most focus on ‘fit’ between GRAs and household chores with marital satisfaction as the ‘outcome’, and a smaller number examine GRAs and employment status. Surprisingly, none have investigated another role which might plausibly be linked with GRAs in association with well-being, namely marital status.

Most studies of attitude-role inconsistency find that attitudes have a moderating effect on the relationship between employment and/or household chores and well-being, although there are a few exceptions [ 5 , 25 , 33 ]. We are aware of only one UK study in this area, based on analysis of data from participants in the 2002 and 2006 British Social Attitudes Surveys who were married/cohabiting and employed. It found that women categorised as ‘incongruent liberal’ (with egalitarian GRAs but more traditional division of household chores) were more likely to report disagreement over chores, while ‘congruent liberals’ (egalitarian GRAs and more egalitarian division of chores) were more likely to report a lack of stress at home. No such associations were found among men [ 1 ]. Several other (US) studies also suggest that inconsistency between GRAs and household chore division is associated with poorer well-being; most such studies have focused on women. For example, unequal division of housework was related to lower perceived spousal support and lower psychological well-being among egalitarian but not traditional wives [ 34 ]. Unequal housework division was also associated with perceived unfairness and poorer reported marital relationships, again in egalitarian but not traditional wives [ 35 ]. Another study found receipt of practical support in the home from a husband was associated with self-assessed marital quality more strongly among egalitarian than traditional wives [ 7 ], while among traditional, but not egalitarian wives, those whose husbands did more child-care than they had expected prenatally had higher levels of psychological distress [ 21 ]. A study of husbands found those with more traditional beliefs who performed fewer chores and those with more egalitarian beliefs who performed more chores had higher marital satisfaction than those whose beliefs and roles conflicted [ 17 ]. Finally, among members of couples with new babies or young children, marital satisfaction was lower for those with more traditional attitudes but more egalitarian division of household chores [ 16 ].

Among the smaller number of studies focusing on GRAs and employment status, analyses have also found conflicting attitudes and roles to be associated with psychological distress. Thus, a study which measured symptoms of depression found wives were less depressed when their preferences for doing paid work or not were consistent with their actual employment status and husbands were less depressed when their wives’ employment status matched what they stated they would prefer their wives to be doing [ 36 ]. Similarly, among working wives, ‘ambivalent co-providers’ (who realised their income was necessary but believed their husband should be the main breadwinner) had lower levels of marital satisfaction than those who believed in shared financial responsibility [ 37 ]. Among women with more egalitarian views, psychological distress was greater among housewives compared with those in employment [ 32 ] and those who returned to work part-time rather than full-time after childbirth [ 21 ].

Secular changes add further complexity and, as noted earlier, there is evidence of substantial differences in the experiences of people from different generations, even those not far apart in age. Thus, in the UK, there have been major changes in patterns of marriage and cohabitation, family formation, education and female employment since the mid Twentieth century [ 11 , 38 ]. However, studies of GRAs, roles and well-being have not paid attention to generational differences, nor whether having views which conflict with prevailing cultural trends and expectations is important. As gender relations and gender roles have changed over time, we might expect generational differences in the associations which GRAs and what we have termed ‘couple roles’ (specifically marital status, the gender balance of household chore performance and of the couple’s employment) have with psychological distress. For example, it has been suggested that those less committed to a particular identity will be less psychologically distressed by household arrangements which conflict with that identity [ 15 ], and it may be that for younger generations of women, egalitarian GRAs are so taken for granted [ 39 ] that they are actually less important. Consistent with this, one study found that education and employment status were strong predictors of GRAs in two older cohorts of women (aged 63–71 and 42–50 in 1996), but not in a younger cohort (aged 18–26) [ 40 ], and another that GRAs were associated with suicidal thoughts in early and late middle-aged cohorts, but, again, not in a younger cohort [ 14 ].

Our paper is based on data from the BHPS, as are several other studies in this area [ 10 , 13 , 27 , 41 ]. The most recent analysis (2011) and by far the most relevant here, examined how gender, family-related variables and GRAs were associated with psychological distress. The analysis focused on married couples aged 45–79 years who provided data in 2001. It found significantly increased levels of psychological distress among husbands reporting early fatherhood and co-residence with a child/children aged 16 or more, and among wives with traditional GRAs, while having had a child when aged 35 or more reduced levels of psychological distress among wives [ 13 ]. Our analysis, which draws on BHPS data obtained in 1991 and 2007, builds on this, using the same measure of psychological distress (the GHQ-12). It includes GRAs and several aspects of ‘couple roles’ (marital status, and the gender balance of both household chore performance and the couple’s paid employment) allowing us to investigate the association of each with psychological distress and, importantly, examine the effects of conflict between GRAs and each ‘couple role’. We include education in our analyses, given its known association with GRAs, ‘couple roles’ [ 8 ] and psychological distress [ 42 ] and also adjust for the presence of dependent children in the household as this is likely to affect the level and type of household chores.

On the basis of the existing literature we set out to test a number of hypotheses. We expected the following results:

  • Less traditional GRAs in women, younger people and people participating in the more recent BHPS wave [ 7 – 12 ].
  • Less traditional GRAs among people with more education and among those in ‘less traditional’ heterosexual couple relationships (i.e. cohabiting rather than married; the man doing/substantially sharing household chores; the woman employed and/or the man not employed; no dependent children) [ 8 , 15 – 17 ].
  • Greater psychological distress among the following groups: those with more traditional GRAs [ 8 , 13 , 14 ]; those reporting the gender-balance of household chores to be less equitable [ 8 , 19 , 20 ] (especially for women [ 19 , 23 – 26 ]); and those not in employment [ 19 , 28 – 30 ].
  • Greater psychological distress when GRAs conflict with actual roles (i.e. traditional GRAs combined with cohabitation rather than marriage, the man doing more chores and/or the woman as sole breadwinner, or egalitarian GRAs combined with marriage, the woman doing more chores and/or the man as sole breadwinner), again, particularly among women [ 1 , 7 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 32 , 34 – 37 ].

We include data from three different working-age groups (20–34, 35–49 and 50–64) collected at two different dates 16 years apart (1991 and 2007), allowing us to explore whether relationships differ by age and over time.

Data were taken from Waves 1 (1991) and 17 (2007—the most recent to include items measuring GRAs) of the BHPS, an annual survey of a nationally representative UK sample. The original sample included each adult (age 16+) member of more than 5,000 households, comprising around 10,000 individual interviews. Original sample members have been followed over successive waves; if they move out of their original household, all adult members of their new household are interviewed as are any adults moving in with an original sample member. Booster samples were added for Scotland and Wales in 1999 and for Northern Ireland in 2001. These respondents have been followed up over time and are included in the 2007 sample studied here to maximise our sample size, provided they meet the other eligibility criteria. The survey conforms with the Ethical guidelines of the Social Research Association in respect of confidentiality and informed consent [ 43 ].

Since our focus was on attitudes and gender divisions of labour between people in heterosexual couple households, we removed single parents, students, same-sex couples, etc., and also those living in households comprising more than one couple, where the division of roles was likely to be more complex. We removed other adult household members of couple households for the same reason. We also limited our sample to those of working age (20–64 years) and removed ‘proxy’ respondents (in whose respect GRAs were not measured). These exclusions reduced the initial sample sizes from 10,264 to 5,422 (1991) and from 14,910 to 6,934 (2007) (detailed numbers at each stage of this process available in Supplementary Table 1). Limiting the samples to those with complete cases on all variables resulted in final samples of 5,302 (1991) and 6,621 (2007) (see Table  1 ). Within these numbers there were 1,760 who participated at both dates: 821 from the 20- to 34-year-old age group in 1991 (of whom 750 were aged 35–49, and 71 were aged 50–64, in 2007) and 939 from the 35- to 49-year-old age group in 1991 (who were all aged 50–64 in 2007). Thus the dataset actually comprises 10,163 respondents, 3,542 (35 %) of whom participated only in 1991, 4,861 (48 %) only in 2007 and 1,760 (17 %) at both dates.

Table 1

Numbers (and percentages) of men and women in each age group at both dates with tests for significances of: gender differences for each age group at each date; differences between the three age groups for men and women at each date; and differences between the two dates for men and women in each age group a

a Basic distributions and analyses of group differences based on unweighted data

b Based on responses to four items asking who did particular household chores, each scored −1 if mostly done by the man, +1 if mostly the woman and 0 if shared or done by someone else. In this collapsed scale, ‘man does (almost) all’ = scores −4 or −3, ‘man does more’ = scores −1 or −2, equally shared = score 0, ‘woman does more’ = scores 1 or 2, ‘woman does (almost) all’ = scores 3 or 4

Psychological distress was measured via the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) [ 44 ] which has been extensively used as a screening instrument in large population surveys of psychological morbidity [ 45 , 46 ]. The GHQ is a brief self-report instrument for the detection of mental disorders in the community and among primary care patients. It was designed as a measure of state; thus respondents are asked to consider ‘the past few weeks’. The 12 items focus on both inability to carry out normal functions (e.g. ‘been able to enjoy your normal day-to-day activities’; ‘been able to concentrate on whatever you’re doing’) and the emergence of distressing symptoms (e.g. ‘felt constantly under strain’; ‘been losing confidence in yourself’). Each item includes four answer options ranging from ‘more than usual’ to ‘much less than usual’ (normal functions) or from ‘not at all’ to ‘much more than usual’ (distressing symptoms). Although the measure can be used categorically (those in the population scoring above specified cut-offs), it can also be scored as a Likert scale (0–1–2–3, resulting range 0–36), as we have done here, since we are interested in associations along the full spectrum of psychological distress. The GHQ is one of the most thoroughly tested of all health measures, and validation studies have been undertaken in many different countries [ 47 – 49 ]. Its psychometric properties are well established, with previous studies of the GHQ-12 reporting split-half reliability of 0.83 and alpha coefficients ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 [ 46 ].

To measure traditional GRAs, BHPS respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement (five-point scale, strongly agree—strongly disagree) with six statements. Three represented more traditional opinions (‘a pre-school child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works’; ‘all in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job’; ‘a husband’s job is to earn money; a wife’s job is to look after the home and family’) and three more egalitarian opinions (‘a woman and her family would all be happier if she goes out to work’; ‘both the husband and wife should contribute to the household income’; ‘having a full-time job is the best way for a woman to be an independent person’). The egalitarian statements were reverse coded so that a higher score indicated more traditional values, and a ‘traditionalism’ scale (possible range 1–5) was constructed using the mean of the scores for the six statements. This method is identical [ 27 ] or very similar [ 13 ] to that used in previous studies of GRAs within the BHPS and also to other studies of GRAs conducted in the US, UK and elsewhere in Europe [ 7 , 8 , 40 , 50 – 52 ]. The internal consistency of the traditionalism scale (alpha coefficientss), calculated for males and females in each of the three age groups at each of the two dates, ranged from alpha = 0.68 (20- to 34-year-old males in 2007) to alpha = 0.75 (20- to 34-year-old males in 1991). In other studies which provide these details, the alpha values for traditionalism scales also fall around 0.70 [ 7 , 8 , 13 , 27 ].

Three ‘couple role’ variables were included. Marital status was categorised as married vs. cohabiting. To investigate the gender-division of household chores, we created a gender-balance of daily chores scale based on responses to four items asking who did the grocery shopping, cooking, washing/ironing and cleaning. Studies have found these chores to be some of the most time-consuming [ 53 ] and ‘low-control’ in the sense of being routine and unavoidable [ 5 ]. (Note that we did not include items relating to childcare because they were not applicable to all respondents.) Each item was scored -1 if the man mostly did that chore, +1 if the woman did it and 0 if the chore was shared or done by someone else. Positive values on the resulting scale (range −4 to +4), therefore, represent more chores being performed by the woman. (Previous studies suggest that men tend to over-report their involvement in chores [ 1 , 8 ]. Where both couple members had responded, it was possible to determine their agreement in respect of who did each chore: if the woman responded ‘mostly self’ and the man ‘mostly spouse/partner’ this was agreement; however, if the man also responded ‘mostly self’, this was disagreement. Analyses [not shown] of levels of agreement found these were 80 % for ‘who does the cleaning’, 84 % for cooking and 85 % for grocery shopping and washing/ironing.) Finally, information on economic activity allowed couple employment to be categorised as both couple members employed (both full- and part-time paid employment or self-employed); only the man; only the woman; or neither (both couple members unemployed, retired, family care, full time student, long-term sick/disabled, maternity leave, government training scheme, other).

To account for educational level we used highest academic qualification, categorised as none; ‘O’ level/CSE or equivalent (basic secondary school qualifications); ‘A’ level or equivalent (secondary school qualifications required for university entrance); or university/college. Our analyses also included the BHPS-derived variable dependent children in the household, defined as those aged under 16, or aged 16–18 and in school or non-advanced further education, not married and living with a parent.

All analyses were carried out in Stata 11.1. Frequencies and descriptive statistics were obtained for the measures by gender, age group and date, with differences (gender differences for each age group at each date; differences between the three age groups for men and women at each date; and differences between the two dates for men and women in each age group) in proportions via Chi square and in means via bivariable linear regression ( t -statistic).

Although a small proportion of respondents (17 %) participated in both 1991 and 2007, the fact that these dates were 16 years apart meant that no respondent was in the same age-group at the two dates. Since analyses (described below) suggested very few differences between 1991 and 2007 in the associations which either traditionalism or GHQ had with ‘couple roles’, the decision was made to combine data from the two dates separately for each age-group and to focus on differences between the three age groups, for which there was more evidence.

To explore the relationship between traditionalism and marital status, the gender-balance of chores, couple employment, highest qualifications and dependent children in the household, a series of bivariable linear regression models were run separately for each of six gender and age sub-groups (i.e. men and women aged 20–34, 35–49 and 50–64), having combined the data from 1991 to 2007. Within each age group, regression models also examined whether associations differed for men and women (interactions with gender) and between 1991 and 2007 (interactions with date). In order to determine whether the separate regression coefficients obtained for the three age-groups differed from each other, the Stata ‘seemingly unrelated estimation’ (suest) procedure was used. This procedure is able to account for the fact that the separate regressions may feature (some of) the same respondents. Thus, to obtain the row of figures showing associations between marital status and traditionalism in Table  3 , we ran the following: bivariable regressions of marital status on the traditionalism score for both men and women in each of the three age-groups; regressions including marital status, gender and the marital status by gender interaction on the traditionalism score for each of the three age-groups; regressions including marital status, date and the marital status by date interaction on the traditionalism score for both men and women in each of the three age-groups; and ‘seemingly unrelated estimation’ to compare the regression coefficients in 20- to 34-year-olds vs. 35- to 49-year-olds, 20- to 34-year-olds vs. 50- to 64-year-olds, and 35- to 49-year-olds vs. 50- to 64-year-olds, for both men and women (detailed in Supplementary Table 2). Similar bivariable linear regression models then examined associations between GHQ and date, traditionalism, the three ‘couple role’ variables, qualifications and dependent children in each of the six gender and age sub-groups, also identifying differences according to gender, date and age-group (Table  4 and Supplementary Table 3). These were followed by multivariable linear regression models to examine the mutually adjusted associations between GHQ and date, traditionalism, the ‘couple role’ variables, qualifications and dependent children in each of the six sub-groups (Table  5 ).

Table 3

Unadjusted relationships with Traditionalism score: coefficients and significance for men and women, and significance of gender difference in each age group; indication of any significant differences between the two dates; and indication of any significant differences between the three age groups (further details in Supplementary Table 2)

a Significant interaction with date in youngest cohorts

b Significant interaction with date in middle cohorts

c Significant interaction with date in oldest cohorts

d Significant difference between youngest and middle cohorts

e Significant difference between youngest and oldest cohorts

f Significant difference between middle and oldest cohorts

Table 4

Unadjusted relationships with GHQ Likert score: coefficients and significance for men and women, and significance of gender difference in each age group; indication of any significant differences between the two dates; and indication of any significant differences between the three age groups (further details in Supplementary Table 3)

Table 5

Mutually adjusted relationships with GHQ likert score: coefficients and significance for men and women in each age group

Finally, in order to examine whether levels of psychological distress were higher when attitudes conflicted with actual roles, additional multivariable models also included interactions between the traditionalism score and each of the three ‘couple role’ variables (Supplementary Table 4). To further investigate any significant interactions, separate analyses were conducted for those in the lowest and highest tertiles of traditionalism (representing the least and most traditional individuals) in each sub-group (Table  6 ).

Table 6

Mutually adjusted relationships with GHQ likert score—‘egalitarian’ and ‘traditional’ women in each age group

Bold = significant interactions with (continuous) traditionalism (i.e. those shown as p  < 0.100 on Supplementary Table 4)

Given the inclusion of the booster samples in 2007 and the differential response to each survey wave, cross-sectional inverse probability weights [ 43 ] have been applied to all analyses (unless indicated) of the two separate waves employed here. These weights ensure each wave is representative of the general population in those years, but very slightly reduce the size of the 2007 sample (which includes booster samples that were proportionately oversampled originally, and so are down-weighted).

Descriptive results

In Table  1 , which describes the samples and shows the significance of differences according to gender, age-group and date, perhaps the most striking finding is differences in levels of cohabitation according to both date and age-group: in our sample around 3 % of 50- to 64-year-olds in 1991 were cohabiting, compared with half of 20- to 34-year-olds in 2007. Differences according to age group were evident for all five variables (marital status, gender-balance of chores, couple employment, highest qualification and dependent children) among both men and women and at both dates (all significant p  < 0.001). Thus, among the 50- to 64-year-olds at both dates, levels of cohabitation were lowest, the woman was more likely to do (almost) all the chores, the proportions reporting that only the woman was in paid employment or that neither couple member worked were highest, educational qualifications were lowest and the proportion reporting any dependent children in the household was much lower than in either of the other two age groups. Differences according to date were also evident for all five variables among both men and women in every age group (all significant p  < 0.001) with just a few exceptions. The exceptions included couple employment (no differences between 1991 and 2007 among 35- to 49-year-old women, while in all other groups the proportions reporting both couple members worked were higher at the later date) and dependent children in the home (no differences between 1991 and 2007 for 20- to 34-year-old men and both 20- to 34 and 35- to 49-year-old women, while in older groups the proportion with dependent children was higher at the later date).

At neither date, and in none of the three age groups was there a gender difference in marital status; however, in both the 20- to 34-year-old and 35- to 49-year-old groups, reports that chores were shared or done by the man were significantly more likely to made by men than women (similar gender differences among the oldest age groups were not significant at either date). While levels of chore sharing were somewhat higher among the youngest age groups and at the later date, even among 20- to 34-year-old respondents in 2007, around 70 % of men and women reported that chores were done more by the woman, 18 % of men and 14 % women that they were equally shared, and only 12 % men and 8 % women that they were done more by the man. Among 50- to 64-year-olds at both dates, greater proportions of men reported that both couple members worked and greater proportions of women reported that neither did, while in 2007 the proportion reporting only the man worked was higher among women. There were significant gender differences in qualification levels in every age group in 1991 and the mid and oldest age groups in 2007 (all p  ≤ 0.001, all higher qualifications among men). Finally, while there were no gender differences in reports of dependent children in the household among 20- to 34-year-old, 35- to 49-year-old men in 1991 and 50- to 64-year-old men at both dates were more likely than women to report living with dependent children.

Group differences in traditionalism

The first set of analyses in relation to our hypotheses examined whether traditionalism was lower: among women; among younger people; at the later of the two dates; among those in ‘less traditional’ heterosexual couple relationships; and among those with higher qualifications.

Table  2 shows traditionalism and GHQ likert scores in 1991 and 2007, both overall and by gender- and age-band. Traditionalism scores were significantly lower among women than men in both 1991 (gender difference t  = −6.7, p  < 0.001) and 2007 ( t  = −5.4, p  < 0.001), with somewhat greater gender differences among older age-groups. Among both men and women, traditionalism increased significantly with age at both dates and was higher at the earlier date in each age group.

Table 2

Mean (standard error) traditionalism and GHQ Likert scores for men and women in each age group at both dates with tests for significances of: gender differences for each age group at each date; differences between the three age groups for men and women at each date; and differences between the two dates for men and women in each age group

Table  3 shows the unadjusted relationships that the three ‘couple role’ variables, qualifications and dependent children in the household had with traditionalism, among men and women in each age band. Data from the two dates were combined since, as the right-hand section of the table shows, additional analyses demonstrated very few interactions with date (further details available in Supplementary Table 2). In all gender and age sub-groups, traditionalism was significantly lower among cohabiting than married respondents and traditionalism was positively associated with the female doing more chores. However, as the far right-hand section of the table shows, the association between traditionalism and the gender-balance of chores was significantly lower among 50- to 64-year-old men and women than those in the younger two age-groups. When compared with couple members from households where both were employed, traditionalism was significantly higher when only the man was employed (particularly in the younger two age groups) and when neither couple member worked (this relationship was weaker, although still significant, among women in the oldest age-group). Among women in all three age-groups, traditionalism was significantly lower among those with university/college education compared with those who had no qualifications; similar trends for men were non-significant. Finally, among both 20- to 34-year-old men and, to a lesser extent, 35- to 49-year-old men and women, traditionalism was higher among those with dependent children. However, there were no significant associations between traditionalism and dependent children in the oldest age-group. The pattern of associations was very similar for men and women, with only three significant interactions with gender (among the 20- to 34-year-olds, the positive association between traditionalism and dependent children was stronger in women; among the 35- to 49-year-olds, lower levels of traditionalism for those with university/college qualifications compared with none, was only significant in women; and among 50- to 64-year-olds, levels of traditionalism were increased to a greater extent among men than women when neither couple member worked compared with when both worked).

Overall, this first set of analyses shows lower traditionalism among women, younger people, those taking part in the survey at the more recent date and both men and women in ‘less traditional’ relationships and households. Although some associations with traditionalism differed between age groups, there was very little evidence of different associations in either men compared with and women or in 1991 compared with 2007.

Associations with psychological distress

The next set of analyses examined the associations which traditionalism and the three ‘couple role’ variables had with psychological distress. Education and the presence of dependent children in the household were also included in the models; education because of its associations with GRAs, roles [ 8 ] and psychological distress [ 42 ], and dependent children because of their assumed effect on household chores. Table  4 , therefore, shows the unadjusted relationships which traditionalism, each of the ‘couple role’ variables, highest qualification and dependent children had with GHQ Likert score. Again, results are shown for men and women in each age band and data from the two dates were combined since additional analyses showed almost no differences according to date (see right-hand section of Table  4 and further details available in Supplementary Table 3). Unadjusted associations between GHQ score and date are shown: among 35- to 49-year-old and, even more so, 50- to 64-year-old women, psychological distress was significantly higher in 2007 than in 1991.

In all gender and age sub-groups, higher traditionalism was associated with poorer mental health; all associations between traditionalism and GHQ score were significant and positive. Marital status was not related to GHQ score. However, in both 35- to 49-year-old and 50- to 64-year-old women there was an association between the gender-balance of chores and GHQ, with lower GHQ scores among those who reported doing more chores themselves. The far right-hand section of Table  4 shows that this contrasts with a non-significant association in the opposite direction among 20- to 34-year-old women. Couple employment showed by far the most marked associations with GHQ. When only the woman worked (compared with when both couple members did), GHQ scores were significantly higher among men of all ages, but particularly 35- to 49-year-olds; they were also significantly higher among 20- to 34-year-old women although not women in either of the other two age groups. When neither couple member worked, GHQ scores were significantly higher among men of all ages (although the association was strongest among 35- to 49-year-olds and weakest among 50- to 64-year-olds) and among women in the two younger age groups. GHQ scores reduced with increasing qualifications in most sub-groups, although the difference between those with none compared with university/college level qualifications was only significant among 20- to 34-year-old women and 50- to 64-year-old men and women. Finally, GHQ scores were higher for those with dependent children compared with none in both younger and older age groups (significant among all except older women), but there were no associations between dependent children and GHQ score among 35- to 49-year-olds. As the table shows, there were a number of significant interactions with gender, particularly in the oldest age group (GHQ score negatively associated with the woman doing more chores in women only and with university entry level qualifications in men only, and positively associated with only the woman working and with neither couple member working, in men only).

The mutually adjusted relationships which date, traditionalism, each of the ‘couple role’ variables, highest qualification and dependent children had with GHQ Likert score among men and women in each age band are shown in Table  5 . Mutual adjustment increased the strength of the relationship with date, resulting in significantly higher scores in 2007 compared with 1991 for both men and women in the 35- to 49-year-old and 50- to 64-year-old age groups. Adjustment weakened associations between traditionalism and GHQ score in the youngest age group, but had no impact in the two older age groups. Adjustment also had very little impact on associations between GHQ score and both the gender-balance of chores and couple employment. However, it reduced relationships between GHQ score and education in the 20- to 34-year-old women and between GHQ score and dependent children in 20- to 34-year-old men and women, to non-significance.

Overall, these analyses suggest that psychological distress was higher among those with more traditional GRAs. There was no evidence of lower psychological distress in households where men took on some of the chores; indeed, the opposite was the case among mid and older age women. In all gender and age sub-groups apart from the oldest women, psychological distress was most clearly associated with the man not working (i.e. only the woman worked or neither couple member worked).

Is psychological distress higher when attitudes and roles conflict?

Our third set of analyses examined whether levels of psychological distress were higher when attitudes conflicted with actual roles. In order to do this, additional multivariable analyses were conducted for each of the six gender and age sub-groups, entering all variables (as Table  5 ) together with the interactions between traditionalism and each of the three ‘couple role’ variables (marital status, gender-balance of chores and household work). The results of the interaction analyses are shown in Supplementary Table 4. Among men, none of the possible 15 interactions were significant at p  < 0.10; however, among women five were significant at this level.

In order to further investigate the interactions found for women, separate analyses were conducted for those in the lowest and highest tertiles of traditionalism (representing women who we describe as ‘egalitarian’ and ‘traditional’) in each age sub-group. These analyses examined the mutually adjusted associations which each of the three couple role variables, date, qualifications and dependent children had with GHQ score. Table  6 shows the results; the five boxes indicate significant ( p  < 0.10) interactions with traditionalism.

As Table  5 shows, each of these results ‘fits’ the hypothesis of greater psychological distress when attitudes and roles conflict. Thus, among 20- to 34-year-olds, ‘egalitarian’ cohabiters had lower, while ‘traditional’ cohabiters had higher GHQ scores than married women. In other words, among these young women in less traditional (cohabiting) households, psychological distress was somewhat lower among those with ‘egalitarian’ GRAs (the group for whom attitudes and role were consistent) and higher among those with ‘traditional’ GRAs (conflicting attitudes and role). Among the 35- to 49-year-olds, doing more chores oneself (rather than sharing them, or the man doing more) was associated with a significantly lower GHQ score among ‘traditional’, but not ‘egalitarian’ women. (Note also a similar pattern among the 50- to 64-year-old women, although this interaction was non-significant.) The remaining three of these interaction results related to couple employment. Thus, among both 20- to 34 and 50- to 64-year-olds, GHQ scores were significantly higher among ‘egalitarian’, but not ‘traditional’ women in households where the man was the sole breadwinner, compared with women in households where both couple members worked. Further, among the 20- to 34-year-olds, GHQ scores were significantly higher among ‘traditional’, but not egalitarian women in households where they themselves were the sole breadwinner, compared with women in households where both couple members worked.

Our analyses, based on UK samples of younger, middle and older working-age men and women in 1991 and 2007, aimed to examine levels of traditionalism and associations between GRAs, ‘couple roles’ and psychological distress. Expectations of lower traditionalism among women, younger people, at the later of the two dates, those in ‘less traditional’ heterosexual couple relationships (cohabiting, the man doing/sharing chores, the woman employed and/or the man not employed, no children) and those with more qualifications were, by and large, upheld. Previous studies suggest much of the generational difference is explained by educational level and, for females, labour market experience and marital status [ 8 , 40 ]. Other authors suggest relationships between female GRAs and their labour market participation [ 27 ], family formation [ 54 ] and division of household responsibilities [ 35 ] are reciprocal, but that this is less the case for men, for whom there are more pressures to remain in full-time employment [ 55 ]. Given this, we might have expected to find stronger associations between GRAs and our ‘couple employment’ measure for women. However, this was not the case, and it should also be recognised that for many women, as well as men, labour market and lifestyle choices are subject to structural and normative constraints [ 15 , 52 , 56 ].

Gender traditionalism was positively associated with psychological distress in both men and women; analysis of a BHPS sample of older married couples found similar associations, but in women only [ 13 ]. Previous authors have suggested this relationship is the result of the benefits felt by all from there being more equal sharing of power and status [ 8 ] or the possibility that those with traditional views feel at odds with contemporary society [ 14 ]. The results of a cross-cohort, cross-national analysis of changes in the traditionality of actual female roles are at variance with these ideas. This study found that despite lower traditionality in younger cohorts across both developed and developing countries, gender differences in anxiety disorders and almost all mood disorders remained stable. However, there was one exception: excess prevalence of major depressive disorder in women decreased as female gender roles became more egalitarian, which the study’s authors interpret as meaning that increasing female opportunities lead to improved female mental health [ 6 ].

There is evidence that, on average, mental health is better among married than unmarried people, particularly for men [ 57 ]. However, studies do not generally find the effects extend to those who cohabit [ 58 , 59 ], a result which has been attributed to the poorer quality of their relationships [ 60 , 61 ]. It is, therefore, somewhat puzzling that we did not find significant differences in GHQ scores between respondents who were cohabiting compared with married. This might reflect the continuing erosion of a distinction which held deep social significance until the mid twentieth century at least, particularly when a couple had children. If so, we might have expected a different pattern of associations at the two dates, or when the youngest and oldest age-groups were compared, given increasing rates (and normalisation) of cohabitation. However, there was no evidence of this either. Presumably if we had included a measure of relationship quality, we would have found this to be associated with psychological distress [ 62 ].

Several, but by no means all, previous studies have found lower well-being among both men and women who spend more time on housework, who share household responsibilities less equally and/or perceive them to be shared less equally [ 8 , 19 , 20 ]. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain why shared tasks might benefit both men and women, including the ideas that equitable relationships promote well-being and that the symbolic meaning of men’s contribution to the household is important [ 34 ]. We found no association between the gender-balance of household chores and psychological distress in men. In addition, and contrasting with a trend towards increasing distress among women in the youngest age-group who did more chores themselves, women in the mid and oldest age-groups who reported doing more chores had lower levels of distress. Importantly, however, our subsequent analyses, discussed later, suggested these results were driven by associations among women with more traditional GRAs.

Among men, particularly those of mid working age, not being in paid employment was associated with psychological distress, consistent with previous BHPS analyses [ 41 , 63 ] and a substantial amount of other evidence [ 29 , 30 ]. However, although women in the two younger age groups living in households where neither they nor their partner worked had higher levels of psychological distress (perhaps as a result of the associated poverty [ 28 ]), there was less evidence that women’s psychological distress was higher when they themselves were not in paid employment, but their partner was. Further, in the oldest age-group, psychological distress was raised among men who were not in paid employment, but not among women whose partners did not work. This might have been because the partners of these women were slightly older than themselves and thus defined as ‘retired’ rather than ‘unemployed’. More generally, stronger effects of unemployment on the mental health of men than women have been attributed to links between paid employment and masculine identity and the associated greater stigmatisation of male unemployment, together with the fact that because men generally earn more money than women, unemployed men tend to receive less financial support from working wives or partners than unemployed women receive from working husbands [ 30 ]. Indeed, for some women, their household’s economic circumstances will have allowed them to choose not to enter the labour market. In relation to this, it is interesting that one study found unhappily married wives were more likely to move into full-time employment than happily married ones [ 64 ].

This notion of choice leads to our final set of analyses, interactions conducted to see whether psychological distress might be greater when GRAs (as more traditional or egalitarian) conflicted with actual household and paid work roles. This was not the case for men. However, for women, there was some rather weak evidence that GRAs-role consistency might matter, particularly in respect of couple employment. It has been argued that GRAs act as ‘a kind of lens’ through which women view the division of household labour (p. 1031) [ 35 ] and, it might be added, other aspects of their lives as well. In line with this, we found evidence that a ‘traditional’ gender-balance of household chores was related to lower levels of psychological distress in mid and older working age women with ‘traditional’ GRAs. We might ask why ‘egalitarian’ women did not show increased psychological distress when faced with a ‘traditional’ household chores balance. The reason might be that such a situation is simply accepted. There is evidence that even among young, unmarried, undergraduates, females continue to expect inequity in the division of household labour and child-care [ 65 ] and that although women generally do more household chores they tend not to perceive this as unfair [ 53 ], perhaps because they compare themselves with other households with a similar or less equal gender-division, feel they are more competent to do the work, or more valued by it [ 66 , 67 ].

In respect of couple employment, there was evidence in two age-groups that psychological distress was higher among those women who had more egalitarian attitudes but were in a household where the man was the sole breadwinner, and/or among those with more traditional attitudes who were themselves the sole breadwinner. These results are each in line with the notion that while women with more egalitarian attitudes might feel confined by the traditional ‘housewife’ role, women with more traditional attitudes are not, but are instead more psychologically distressed by the ‘breadwinner’ role. However, we would have more confidence in this conclusion had we seen consistent interactions reflecting greater psychological distress among both women with more egalitarian attitudes in male breadwinner households and women with more traditional attitudes in female breadwinner households, which we did not. We would also have been more confident had we seen similar interactions among all age groups, which we did not. It is likely that a number of other factors will have affected these relationships, including whether the woman’s husband or partner held traditional or egalitarian GRAs (although previous studies, including analyses of the BHPS find moderate correlations between the GRAs of men and their wives or partners [ 10 , 68 ]), the nature of the woman’s employment (in particular whether full- or part-time) and her other roles. The authors of one paper which found no evidence that lack of fit between attitudes and behaviour impacted on marital dissatisfaction suggested that such inconsistencies may be tolerated as ‘unavoidable consequences of individual circumstances’ (p. 183) [ 33 ], while those of the two other analyses with similar findings provide no explanations [ 5 , 25 ]. What is interesting, is that it was the youngest age-group of women who showed most evidence of greater distress when GRAs and actual roles conflicted. In the introduction to this paper, we noted the suggestion that egalitarian GRAs are taken for granted among younger women [ 39 ] and suggested this might mean they are less important for this age-group. However, our analyses suggest the opposite.

We saw some differences in associations between GRAs, roles and psychological distress according to age, but there was almost no evidence of differences between the two dates. This is surprising, given increased egalitarianism, levels of cohabitation and participation of men in chores and of women in the labour market, evident not only in UK society generally over the life-course of the various respondent sub-groups [ 11 , 38 ], but also when examining our dataset by age and date. One reason might be that although changes in GRAs and roles did occur over the 16-year period, they were not large enough to impact on relationships with psychological distress. This is particularly the case for GRAs; for example, among the youngest age groups in our analyses mean traditionalism (on a 1–5 point scale) reduced by around 0.1 points in both men and women between 1991 and 2007. UK data on GRAs are only available from the early 1980s, and an examination of trends from 1980 to 2002 concluded that changes had been ‘surprisingly modest’ (p.167), while acknowledging that there may have been more marked changes before 1980 [ 50 ]. It is, therefore, possible that we might have seen more contrast had similar data been collected several decades earlier, at the time of greater political activity around gender equality.

Our study had a number of strengths. Unlike many studies in this area, ours was based on relatively large samples. Our measure of psychological distress, the GHQ-12, is a valid and reliable self-administered screening tool which was designed to detect mental disorders in community samples and has been extensively used in both surveys and clinical settings [ 45 , 46 ]. Our use of the GHQ-12 as a continuous measure of psychological distress ensured analytic power: if relationships were present, we should have detected them.

There are also a number of limitations, principal among which is that, given the already rather complex nature of the relationships we examined, some of our measures were fairly crude. In particular, we categorised respondents simply as in paid employment or not, rather than separating full- and part-timers. If we had done this, the combined ‘man’ and ‘woman’ employment variable would have been cumbersome. However, accounting for hours worked, particularly among women (since it has been suggested that it is only women’s full-time work which is associated with more equal chore division [ 1 ]) might be important. Given evidence of the importance of multiple roles and of work-life balance for well-being [ 23 , 41 , 69 ], analyses examining combinations of ‘couple roles’ might have revealed relationships with psychological distress not evident when examining each independently, as we did here. A second possible limitation is that our measure of chores did not include certain forms of ‘family work’ which some have found to be associated with well-being [ 22 ]. However, the chores we included were those identified in other studies as some of the most time-consuming [ 53 ] and ‘low-control’ [ 5 ], exactly the type of chores which one study found were associated with increased psychological distress [ 5 ]. Third, it is possible that had we chosen to focus on satisfaction with the marital/partner relationship (rather than psychological distress) as our dependent variable, we might have found clearer associations between this and our ‘couple role’ measures. Finally, although we controlled for dependent children in the household, analyses based on more detailed categorisations of children were precluded since there were very few/no respondents in the youngest age groups with older children or in the oldest age group with pre-schoolers.

Consistent with previous studies, gender role attitudes within the British Household Panel Survey around the new millennium were patterned according to gender, age, date and actual household and employment roles, and psychological distress was higher among those with more gender-traditional attitudes and, particularly among men, those not in paid employment. Associations between psychological distress and both marital status and household chore division were only seen in certain sub-groups of women, and it was only among women that we saw the rather weak and inconsistent evidence of lower well-being when GRAs and actual role conflicted. Although this may result from study limitations, it may reflect cultural differences since most previous studies in this area were conducted in the US. Finally, although we observed some different patterns according to age, there were almost none according to date, perhaps because changes in GRAs between 1991 and 2007 were not large enough to impact on relationships with psychological distress.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Acknowledgments

All authors are all funded by the UK Medical Research Council (University of Glasgow Cost Centre 25605200, Project Codes 68094 and 68090) and are grateful to the UK Data Archive for access to the British Household Panel Survey (ESDS usage number 67492). They would also like to thank Sally Macintyre for review of an earlier draft. They alone bear responsibility for the analyses and interpretation of the data reported here.

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The BHPS conforms with the Ethical guidelines of the Social Research Association in respect of confidentiality and informed consent.

Inclusion Economics Research RA: Gender, Governance, or the Environment

Inclusion Economics at Yale University, based at the Economic Growth Center and the MacMillan Center and in collaboration with Inclusion Economics India Centre at IFMR and Inclusion Economics Nepal at Governance Lab, draws upon economics, political science, and related fields to conduct cutting-edge research to understand how policy can promote inclusive, accountable economies and societies.

Our core research focuses on gender, labor economics and women’s economic opportunities; political economy and governance; and environmental economics. Throughout the research life cycle, we engage closely with policy counterparts to ensure we address questions of immediate relevance, and we regularly communicate data-driven insights with policy counterparts and the public.

Yale Inclusion Economics (YIE) is led by Professor Rohini Pande, Henry J. Heinz II Professor of Economics and Director of the Economic Growth Center, and Dr. Charity Troyer Moore, Director of South Asia Economics Research at the MacMillan Center; YIE works closely with teams of researchers based at Yale and other universities.

Depending on need and interest, the RA will provide support to one or more of the studies across the portfolio, which—among others—could include:

  • Studying how gender norms are rationalized and operationalized by those in power to create economic advantages;
  • Understanding how closing information asymmetries among bureaucrats and politicians affects service delivery;
  • Researching the barriers to women’s access to, and productive use of, smartphones on credit; and more.

Requisite Skills and Qualifications The Scarf RA will help with literature reviews, support ongoing surveys and, depending on skill set, write code to clean survey data, scrape data and conduct initial analysis. Skill and experience with econometrics software such as R or STATA to run econometric analysis, as well as Python skills, is valuable. Successful fellows will be detail oriented and able to work independently.

IMAGES

  1. Research paper Gender Roles M

    research paper on gender roles

  2. 💣 Gender equality research paper topics. Example researech paper on

    research paper on gender roles

  3. gender inequality thesis.docx

    research paper on gender roles

  4. Gender Roles Essay

    research paper on gender roles

  5. 4Research on gender roles• Gender

    research paper on gender roles

  6. Gender Roles Essay Example for Free

    research paper on gender roles

VIDEO

  1. Evolutionary Insights: Shifting Perspectives on Gender Roles! #GenderPerspectives #Perspectives

  2. Gender Equality || Part 3

  3. GENDER STUDIES (PART-I)

  4. Discussion forum: Linking gendered knowledge with gender-responsive action

  5. Previous Year Question Paper // Gender, School and Society

  6. CSS Gender Studies Paper Solved MCQs Year 2023 || Objective Part

COMMENTS

  1. A Global Perspective on Gender Roles and Identity

    A Global Perspective on Gender Roles and Identity - Journal of Adolescent Health Editorial | Volume 61, ISSUE 4, SUPPLEMENT , S1-S2, October 2017 Download Full Issue A Global Perspective on Gender Roles and Identity Elizabeth Saewyc, Ph.D., R.N. Open Access DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.07.010

  2. Gendered stereotypes and norms: A systematic review of interventions

    Introduction Gender is a widely accepted social determinant of health [ 1, 2 ], as evidenced by the inclusion of Gender Equality as a standalone goal in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [ 3 ].

  3. (PDF) Gender Roles and Society

    Gender Roles and Society August 2003 Authors: Amy Blackstone University of Maine Abstract Gender roles are based on the different expectations that individuals, groups, and societies have of...

  4. Gender Stereotypes and Their Impact on Women's Career Progressions from

    The World Economic Forum ( 2017) suggested that an average gender gap of 32.0 per cent existed in four areas, namely, 'Economic Participation and Opportunity', 'Educational Attainment', 'Health and Survival' and 'Political Empowerment'. This shows an increase from an average gender gap of 31.7 per cent since previous years.

  5. Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a

    Besides introducing a novel methodology to review broad literature streams, our paper offers a map of the main gender-research trends and presents the most popular and the emerging themes, as well as their intersections, outlining important avenues for future research. Figures

  6. Evolved but Not Fixed: A Life History Account of Gender Roles and

    Scholars from various theoretical perspectives have debated the distal origins and proximate causes of such gender roles and gender inequality, ranging from innate dispositions to historical construction and from sexual selection ( Buss, 1995) to patriarchal social structures ( Lerner, 1986; Hrdy, 1997 ).

  7. (PDF) The Social Construct of Gender

    The conclusion of this paper reviews the findings of researchers concerning how gender constructs and social roles have evolved, as well as how these have been defined, understood, shaped,...

  8. (PDF) Gender Roles and Gender Differences Dilemma: An Overview of

    Abstract The union between a male and a female does produce not only new offspring but also a whole journey of gender experience. Scholars have posed countless questions, hypotheses, and articles...

  9. Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms: framing the challenges

    Gender is not accurately captured by the traditional male and female dichotomy of sex. Instead, it is a complex social system that structures the life experience of all human beings. This paper, the first in a Series of five papers, investigates the relationships between gender inequality, restrictive gender norms, and health and wellbeing. Building upon past work, we offer a consolidated ...

  10. The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research ...

    In this paper, we explore the nature of gendered associations towards non-academic impact (Impact) generation and evaluation.

  11. The Development of Gender Role Attitudes During Adolescence ...

    How gender role attitudes develop during adolescence, and how biological, social, and cognitive factors predict this development, remains a matter of debate. This study examines the development of gender role attitudes from early adolescence to emerging adulthood and investigates how the developmental trajectory is affected by sex, socioeconomic status, and cognitive abilities (intelligence ...

  12. Frontiers

    Gender role beliefs (i.e., beliefs about gender-specific responsibilities) predict one's educational and occupational aspirations and choices ( Eccles et al., 1983; Schoon and Parsons, 2002 ). Focusing on STEM careers, we aim to examine the extent to which traditional work/family related gender role beliefs (TGRB) in adolescence predict ...

  13. Gender Development Research in Sex Roles: Historical Trends and Future

    Introduction Even before a child is born, processes of gender socialization begin as parents prepare for their child's arrival: do the parents allow the ultrasound technologist to tell them the sex of their baby? Does knowing this information make a difference in how parents think about their unborn child?

  14. PDF Gender Roles and the Gender Expectations Gap

    well-being (Di Tella et al.,2001). Yet, existing research provides little explanation for the root of the stark gender di erences in beliefs. In this paper, we assess the role of traditional gender roles as a determinant of the gender expectations gap. Gender roles induce women and men to engage in di erent

  15. Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research

    There is extensive evidence of gender inequality in research leading to insufficient representation of women in leadership positions. Numbers revealing a gender gap in research are periodically reported by national and international institutions but data on perceptions of gender equality within the research community are scarce. In the present study, a questionnaire based on the British Athena ...

  16. Understanding gender roles in the workplace: a qualitative research study

    Understanding gender roles in the workplace: a qualitative research study Andrea Michel [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd Part of the Business Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons, and the Leadership Studies Commons Recommended Citation

  17. Women's Assessments of Gender Equality

    Women's assessments of gender equality do not consistently match global indices of gender inequality. In surveys covering 150 countries, women in societies rated gender-unequal according to global metrics such as education, health, labor-force participation, and political representation did not consistently assess their lives as less in their control or less satisfying than men did.

  18. (PDF) Perceptions of gender roles: A case study

    Gender Roles Perceptions of gender roles: A case study Authors: Maria Kambouri University of Reading Ashley Evans University of Reading Abstract and Figures Extreme, or repeated patterns of...

  19. Gender and Media Representations: A Review of the Literature on Gender

    1. Introduction. As a social category, gender is one of the earliest and most prominent ways people may learn to identify themselves and their peers, the use of gender-based labels becoming apparent in infants as early as 17 months into their life [].Similarly, the development of gender-based heuristics, inferences and rudimentary stereotypes becomes apparent as early as age three [2,3].

  20. Gender Roles and Society

    Gender Roles and Society Amy M. Blackstone University of Maine - Main, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: htps://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/soc_facpub Part of the Gender and Sexuality Commons Repository Citation Blackstone, Amy. 2003. "Gender Roles and Society."

  21. Gender Roles

    Displaying 1 - 10 of 75 results report | Jan 25, 2024 Parents, Young Adult Children and the Transition to Adulthood Most U.S. young adults are at least mostly financially independent and happy with their parents' involvement in their lives. Parent-child relationships are mostly strong. short reads | Sep 7, 2023

  22. Changing gender roles and attitudes and their implications for well

    Given evidence that gender role attitudes (GRAs) and actual gender roles impact on well-being, we examine associations between GRAs, three roles (marital status, household chore division, couple employment) and psychological distress in working-age men and women.

  23. Inclusion Economics Research RA: Gender, Governance, or the Environment

    Our core research focuses on gender, labor economics and women's economic opportunities; political economy and governance; and environmental economics. Throughout the research life cycle, we engage closely with policy counterparts to ensure we address questions of immediate relevance, and we regularly communicate data-driven insights with ...

  24. (PDF) Gender and Leadership

    Gender is one such variable that must be examined with regard to optimizing leadership effectiveness. The topic of gender and leadership deserves serious and thoughtful consideration and...