Abstract
This study aims to verify the psychometric properties of the Spanish versions of the Social Roles Questionnaire (SRQ; Baber and Tucker, 2006), Modern Sexism Scale (MS), and Old-Fashioned Sexism Scale (OFS; Swim et al., 1995; Swim and Cohen, 1997). Enough support was found to maintain the original factor structure of all instruments in their Spanish version. Differences between men and women in the scores are commented on, mainly because certain sexist attitudes have been overcome with greater success in the current Spanish society, while other issues, such as distribution of power in organizational hierarchies or distribution of tasks in the household, where traditional unequal positions are still maintained. In all cases, it was found that men showed greater support for sexist attitudes. The correlations between the three instruments were as expected in assessing sexist attitudes that tend to relate to each other. Eventually, we found no empirical evidence for the postulated link between sexist attitudes and traditional gender stereotypes. Our results call for the validity and effectiveness of the classic theories of gender psychology, such as gender schema theories (Bem, 1981; Markus et al., 1982) and the notion of a gender belief system (Deaux and Kite, 1987; Kite, 2001).
Highlights
The American Psychological Association (2011, 2015) recommends examining gender differences; it does not include any guide about how to interpret these differences in empirical studies
We have chosen this theoretical framework as they are the main proposals in Gender Psychology that have established some type of relationship between the social changes in women’s position in society, the adoption of traditional gender roles and stereotypes and maintaining sexist attitudes about men and women
In respect to the mean scores obtained by men and women in the global scores of the subscales, significant differences were found with a moderate effect size in Gender Linked” (GL) and small in Gender Transcendent” (GT), in both cases men having higher scores
Summary
The American Psychological Association (2011, 2015) recommends examining gender differences; it does not include any guide about how to interpret these differences in empirical studies This situation results in the confusion of the terms “sex” and “gender” in academic and scientific texts (Pryzgoda and Chrisler, 2000; Cowan, 2005; Wickes and Emmison, 2007; Hammarstrom and Annandale, 2012). Westbrook and Saperstein (2015) have shown the lack of sensitivity in the recognition of sexual and gender diversity in Social Sciences investigations, which results in a lack of recognition of persons not adjusting to the binarism of the sex/gender/sexuality system (Butler, 1990, 2004), and in a serious bias in the production of scientific knowledge (Balarajan et al, 2011) To counteract these deficiencies Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) described some methodological approaches that can be very helpful when performing the Sexism and Gender Stereotype design of a research from a feminist epistemological perspective. We intended to contribute to the study of gender in Spain, responsibly using the most appropriate procedures for the analysis of differences between men and women on the basis of the results of instruments of assessment of sexist attitudes and gender stereotypes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
