Comparison of Feminine Gender Norms among Spanish and American College Women

María Del Pilar Sánchez-López,Isabel Cuéllar-Flores

doi:10.4236/psych.2011.24047

Abstract

This article describes the psychometric characteristics of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory (CFNI; Mahalik et al., 2005) in a group of Spanish college women (n = 383), and explores cross-cultural differences in feminine role norms. Factor analysis reveals a profile similar to the one obtained in the USA and, albeit differing in some aspects, in general it supports the authors’ proposed structure. Reliability and corelations between sub- scales were adequate. Participants endorsed less traditional views toward 4 of the 8 feminine norms of the CFNI and reported significantly less conformity than comparable American students. Only the Domestic norm re- ceived greater endorsement by Spanish women in this group. The findings support the suitability of the CFNI for use in the Spanish group and establish an empirical base for future studies of Spanish femininity. Cross-country differences are discussed.

Highlights

The empirical study on the meaning of masculinity and femininity gained in importance in the 70s
The scree plot showed that 8 can be a proper number of factors. This factor analysis method was used to verify the structure underlying the inventory in the group of Spanish participants because it provides the factors that explain most of the common variance, and, in addition, it assumes that the factors are related, as in the original Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory (CFNI)
We used an exploratory factor analysis to check what factor structure emerges from the data, and because there has been a small alteration of actual item content for the CFNI via translation

Summary

Introduction

The empirical study on the meaning of masculinity and femininity gained in importance in the 70s. This marking of the boundary for femininity and masculinity in terms of social desirability is the starting point for the criticisms which appear nowadays against these new scales, since if masculinity and femininity are concepts conditioned by historical evolution and social construction, it does not seem very convenient to fix them in such a rigid background as that of instrumentality-expressiveness (Auster & Ohm, 2000; Marsh & Myers, 1986; Woodhill & Samuels, 2003) Another of the limitations highlighted is that these measures examine femininity and masculinity via global indices, without taking into account the multidimensionality reflected by these concepts, both by their own theoretical definition and by the results that some researches show at the present time (Coan, 1989; Fernández, Quiroga, Olmo, & Rodríguez, 2007; Mahalik et al.; 2003). The variety of gender mandates and different individual and social factors mean that each women or man identifies with some norms more than others, and is even opposed to some of them

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion