Development and validation of a behavioral sex

Transcription

Sex Roles, VoL 13, Nos. 11/12, 1985
Development and Validation of a Behavioral
Sex-Role Inventory
Elizabeth A. Robinson and Diane R. Foilingstad
University o f South Carolina
To develop and validate a sex-role inventory o f traditional versus
nontraditional behaviors f o r women, 574 single and 265 married females as
well as 407 males completed the Robinson Behavioral Inventory (RBI).
Thirty-four-item final versions o f the two f o r m s were established through
criteria requiring items to be both reliable and reported at differential rates
by male versus female or by traditional versus nontraditional women. High
reliability o f the total scale was evident by a measure o f internal consistency
as well as by a measure o f equivalence. The validity o f the total scale was
established by demonstrating the RB1 as positively correlated with an
attitudinal measure o f women "s roles but as showing discriminant validity
with a social desirability scale, a political orientation scale, and an
assertiveness scale. Age, income, and educational level were used as
covariates to partial out possible confounding effects. Future use o f the RB1
would suggest extending the sample to less well-educated and a greater
variety o f SES populations and to women who are not members o f
organizations. The value o f the measure lies in the collection o f specific
behavioral data as distinct f r o m broad attitudinal constructs allowing f o r
determining the attitude-behavior relationship in the area o f sex roles. A s a
tool f o r evaluating outcome studies measuring changes in sex roles, this
inventory is unique.
Changes in sex roles for women in recent years have been shown to have
occurred through reflections in the culture and research documentation. As
a result, a variety of attitudinal measures and scales have been developed
for assessing the degree to which individuals espouse and accept feminist
(nontraditional) versus traditional beliefs (Dempewolff, 1972, 1974; Kalin
& Tilby, 1978; Parelius, 1975; Singleton & Christiansen, 1977; Smith,
Ferree, & Miller, 1975; Spence & Helmreich, 1972). The proliferation of
691
o36o-oo25/85/12oo-o6915o4.5o/o © 1985 Plenum PubIishing Corporation
692
Robinson and FoUingstad
attitudinal scales has allowed researchers to focus on the degree to which
individual's feminist beliefs relate to factors such as personality characteristics (e.g., Cherniss, 1972; Halas, 1974; Joesting, 1971; Mahoney, 1975;
Rychman, Martins, Rodda, & Sheriman, 1972), demographic characteristics (Baker, 1972; O'Keefe, 1972; Stoloff, 1973; Tavris, 1972a, 1972b), and other
attitudes hypothesized to be associated with attitudes toward women's
roles. However, there has been little empirical evidence to demonstrate that
attitudinal differences extend beyond endorsed beliefs to the behavior of
the women holding the respective beliefs (Kirsch, 1974; Steinman, 1974).
Typically, feminist versus traditional attitudes are used to predict other
attitudes or related personality traits. The long-established controversy o f
whether or not attitudes predict behavior in the real world has obvious
implications for this area of research as well.
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have suggested that the interaction between
internal and external events will be best understood if attitudes, beliefs,
behavioral intentions, and behaviors were considered separately. Therefore,
a behavioral measure which delineates sex-role behaviors and one's
intentions to engage in such behaviors would be useful for several reasons.
First, the measure would allow for understanding and assessing individuals
in terms of concrete behaviors and actions rather than merely collecting
their opinions about such behaviors. Second, a behavioral sex-role scale
would enable researchers to determine whether attitudes and behaviors have
a close correspondence or whether in the area of sex-role behaviors there is a
discrepancy. Third, a behavioral tool is needed for evaluating outcome
studies where the goal is to change sex-role stereotyping, since past studies
have relied on such informal techniques as unstructured interviews
(Cherniss, 1972) and participant observation (Whitely, 1973). Although
these methods have generated numerous hypotheses (Kirsch, 1974), they
have not been able to provide the quantifiable data necessary for assessment
of the actual efficacy of outcome studies as perpetrators of behavior
change.
Even distinct from the issue of whether feminist versus traditional
attitudes will predict feminist versus traditional behaviors is the question of
whether or not traditional and nontraditional sex-role behaviors can
actually be identified and specified. Mischel (1970) suggested that sex-typed
behaviors are "those that are less expected and sanctioned when performed
by one sex, and in contrast, are considered to be more appropriate when
manifested by the other sex" (p. 4). If certain behaviors are " e x p e c t e d " and
"sanctioned" for one sex and not the other, then one would predict, on the
basis of social learning theory, that these events would also occur at
differential rates. Thus, one way to conceptualize sex-role behavior would
be empirically--by identifying the behavior that is reported more frequently
Behavioral Sex-Role Inventory Development and Validation
693
by one sex than the other. Such empirical definition would produce
sex-typed behaviors with the implication that women engaging in sex-typed
behaviors typically engaged in by men would be performing nontraditional
sex-role behavior. When women engage in sex-typed behaviors reported at a
high rate by women, this would be considered behaving in a traditional
manner. In contrast to this approach, most studies have looked at the
distinction between traditional and nontraditional attitudes as those that
discriminate between women from different theoretical orientations, such
as feminist groups versus antifeminist groups. A more accurate assessment
of sex-linked behavior m a y be to determine the presence of behaviors as
primarily engaged in by men or women to determine which behaviors would
be nontraditional should a w o m a n p e r f o r m the behavior.
As mentioned above, a primary obstacle to an investigation of
sex-role related behavior has been the lack of delineation of the specific
components of such behaviors. The literature has emphasized broad traits
rather than concrete events. For example, Bern (1974), in developing a
measure of androgyny, found that the adjectives "assertive, "competitive," " d o m i n a n t , " and " i n d e p e n d e n t " were seen by people of both sexes
as more appropriate for men, whereas "being sensitive to the needs o f
o t h e r s , " " y i e l d i n g , " and " l o y a l " were attributes more appropriate for
women. She did not, however, provide a description of the behaviors that
reflected those traits. The present study focused on quantifiable, concrete,
and readily identified behaviors hypothesized to be engaged in at
differential rates by men and women and by nontraditional versus
traditional women.
D E V E L O P M E N T A N D S T A N D A R D I Z A T I O N ISSUES
The initial task in the development of this inventory of sex-role related
behaviors was the identification of activities that represented traditional
versus nontraditional orientations. In light of the paucity o f specific
delineations of such behaviors in the psychological, as well as the feminist,
literature, items were drawn from a variety of sources. Some were taken
from the previously developed sex-role belief scales and restated in
behavioral terms. For example, " A w o m a n should gracefully accept
well-mannered attentions f r o m m e n " (Dempewolff, 1974) was rephrased to
ask the respondent if she waited for car doors to be opened for her. Or, the
idea that men and women ought to share housework (Spence & Helmreich,
1972) was shifted to several direct queries concerning what percentage of
specific household chores, such as washing the dishes, were usually done by
694
Robinson and Follingstad
the wife. An attempt was also made to include items that tapped traits often
considered sex typed, like independence or assertiveness (Bern, 1974), by
asking if the respondent took part in decision making or expressed her
opinions freely. Across the belief scale and sex-typing scales six categories
appeared to emerge consistently. These categories made up of the derived
behaviors reflective of the attitudinal category became the basis for the
behavioral scale. The six categories are as follows:
Feminist activity: Attendence at lectures on feminism or at meetings
of women's organizations; reading feminist-oriented literature.
Independence: Traveling alone; attending social events without a
spouse or date; taking part in decision making.
Assertiveness: (a) Sexual assertiveness (i.e., initiating or declining sex
on the basis of individual interest); (b) interpersonal assertiveness
(i.e., expressing anger, needs, or strong opinions)
Positive attitude toward other women: Treating plans made with
female friends as importantly as those made with males; seeking
the company of other women
Declining chivalrous attention from males: Opening one's own doors;
paying for one or both on a date; sharing the driving.
Redistributing the traditional division of household labor: Taking
some responsibility for financial matters; sharing both daily chores
(e.g., cooking and dishwashing) and major cleaning tasks (e.g., defrosting the refrigerator)
Because these were subjective interpretations of how feminists' beliefs
may be expressed in terms of behavior, early analyses sought to establish
that (a) these activities did reflect behaviors that have been considered more
appropriate for one sex than the other and (b) they reflected dimensions
upon which traditional and nontraditional female behaviors might be
assessed.
Already established attitudinal scales were consulted for reliability
and validity indicators that needed to be established. In general, most
measures have been found to yield high coefficients of reliability (.87 to .96)
obtained through standard procedures, such as parallel forms or measures of
internal consistency. This investigation therefore utilized established
means of assessing reliability and included estimates of stability,
equivalence, and homogeneity.
Validity has not been rigorously established in most of the attitudinal
measures. Several studies assessed validity by demonstrating that avowed
feminists and nonfeminists obtained significantly different scores on the
measure (Dempewolff, 1974; Kilpatrick & Smith, 1974). This would be a
reasonable way to suggest validity only if it could also be demonstrated that
there were no other systematic differences between the groups that might
explain the variability among the scores. Because investigators have found
695
that active feminists differ from their more traditional counterparts in
income level (O'Keefe, 1972; Rowe & Rowe, 1973), occupation of spouse
(Baker, 1972), and political liberalism and educational level. To establish
validity, both convergent and discriminant measures were used (Campbell &
Fiske, 1959). More specifically, the behavioral sex-role instrument was
expected to demonstrate convergent validity through positive correlations
with other methods of measuring the construct "feminism," such as scores
on the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973)
or participation in a feminist group. Discriminant validity was to be established
through demonstrating relatively lower correlations with traits that have
been considered related to sex-role behaviors such as assertiveness, a
need to appear socially desirable, and political liberalism.
METHOD
Subjects
The sample comprised 1,246 volunteers (839 female and 407 male)
recruited from university classes and community organizations representing
a variety of religious and political orientations and personal interests.
Subjects completed the questionnaires in group settings although
anonymity was maintained. Ninety-five women completed the behavioral
questionnaire a second time approximately 4 weeks later to assess
test-retest reliability, and 98 women completed two parallel forms of the
behavioral inventory.
Single Women Sample. The Single form of the behavioral inventory
was completed by 574 women. Most had never been married (91 070), and the
remainder (9070) were divorced, separated, or widowed. Their modal age
was 18 to 21, 86070 were Caucasian, and they were primarily from middleclass backgrounds with median family incomes of $13,000 to 15,000.
Married Women Sample. The Married form was completed by 265
women; 94070 were living with a spouse, 6070 were single and cohabiting.
Their modal age was 28 to 30, they had an average of 1.7 children, had been
married from 6 to 9 years and had median incomes of $16,000 to $18,000.
Most of the married women were Caucasian (94070), over half were full-time
homemakers (52070), and one-quarter held college degrees (26070).
Measures
Robinson Behavioral Inventory (RB1). The original 40-item
questionnaire, designed by the first author, asked respondents to indicate
696
(a) how frequently they had engaged in specific sex-typed behaviors in the
past year and (b) how likely they were to engage in the behaviors in the
coming year. The frequency options ranged from O t o 9, yielding potential
scores from 0, the most traditional, to 360, the most nontraditional. The 20
items that referred to future behavior offered options from "Will definitely
not do s o " through "Will definitely do s o , " with 8 points in between. Past
behaviors were to be reported either on a frequency scale that ranged f r o m 0
to 9 occurrences or on a percentage scale that varied from 0 to 90% of the
time. The percentage scale was selected for use with high frequency
behaviors.
Each item referring to past behavior has a paired item that refers to
future behavior. To prevent biasing, half of the " f u t u r e " items preceded
reports of past behavior and half followed. General recommendations for
test question wording were followed (Edwards, 1957) and half of the items
were reverse-worded to control for response set. H a l f of the items were
designed to reflect traditional sex-role behavior and half to reflect nontraditional behavior.
The specificity of the questions required that two forms be developed.
While 30 items were c o m m o n to both forms, the Single f o r m contained 10
questions on dating and the Married form included 10 items on the division
of household responsibilities.
Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS) (Spence, Helmreich, &
Stapp, 1973). This is a 25-item instrument designed to measure attitudes
toward the rights and roles of women. Items are scored on a Likert scale
from 0 (most traditional) to 3 (most profeminist) and total scores range
from 0 to 75. This instrument was included to assess convergent validity. It
was predicted that there would be high correlations between this measure
and the RBI.
Political Radicalism-Conservatism Scale (PRCS) (Comrey &
Newmeyer, 1965). This measure of political beliefs was included to assess
discriminant validity. It was expected that political liberalism would be
associated to a mild degree with nontraditional behavior. The PRCS
contains 30 items scored f r o m 1 to 9 with a total range of 30 to 270. High
scores indicate a conservative orientation.
Assertiveness Scale (AS) (Rathus, 1973). Assertiveness, the tendency
of individuals to express or stand up for themselves in a socially
appropriate manner, was expected to be associated weakly with nontraditional feminine behavior. The scale contains 30 items scored from + 3
to - 3 for a total range f r o m - 9 0 to + 90. The positive range of the scale
corresponds to more assertive responses.
Social Desirabi#ty Scale (SDS) (Crowne & Marlow, 1964). A high
need for social desirability was expected to be positively correlated with
traditional feminine behavior. The SDS contains 33 t r u e - f a l s e items for a
697
total range of 0 to 33, with the upper range of the scale indicating a high
need for social desirability.
Statistical A n alyses
Items that failed to meet one or more of the following criteria for
reliability and validity were eliminated: (a) a significant test-retest
correlation; (b) a significant correlation between the item and the total scale
score; and (c) a significant difference in the frequency reported either by
male versus female or by traditional versus nontraditional women. The
remaining items constituted the final version of the RBI which was then
evaluated for reliability and validity as a total scale. In these and all
subsequent analyses only female subjects were used.
Reliability o f the Total Scale. Two methods were used to assess the
stability of the measure: (a) test-retest correlations; and (b) correlations
between two parallel forms given at different times. Scores on each o f the
parallel forms given at the same time were used as a measure of equivalence.
The parallel forms used in these analyses were constructed by dividing
the pairs of items that referred to past frequency and future expected
frequency of the same behavior and then randomly assigning each to one of
the two forms. As these scales were only half as long as the total scale, the
resulting correlation coefficients were corrected with the Spearman-Brown
formula (Cronbach, 1949).
Internal consistency was measured in two ways. First, split-half
reliability was calculated by creating five random divisions of the total scale
into halves. The mean correlation between the five divisions was then
corrected with the Spearman-Brown formula and used as an estimate of
reliability for the total scale. A second measure o f internal consistency was
calculated using the mean correlation between items and the total score in
the Spearman-Brown formula to calculate the reliability of a test 40 times as
long (Nunnally, 1967).
Validity o f the Total Scale. Convergent validity was assessed in two
ways: (a) The subjects' RBI and AWS scores were correlated with an
expectation of a strong positive relationship; and (b) an analysis of
covariance was conducted to partial out the effects of demographic
variables that might influence the significance of the results. Age, income,
and education were correlated with RBI scores and any variable that
demonstrated a significant correlation (p < .05) in the analysis was used as a
covariate.
Discriminant validity was evaluated by correlating individual scores
on the RBI with the following scales: (a) the SDS, (b) the PRCS, and (c) the
AS. Lower correlations were predicted between the RBI and these measures
than the RBI and the attitudinal measure assessing attitudes toward women.
698
RESULTS
Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) for all analyses involving correlations, t-tests,
and descriptive statistics, while analysis of variance and covariance
programs utilized the Statistical Analysis System (SAS).
Normative Data
Total Scores. The mean scores for the present population on the AWS
and the SDS were similar to the previously published norms of the
standardization samples (see Table I).
Individual RBIItems. The mean response to items on the Single f o r m
ranged from 0.8 to 7.4, with standard deviations between 1.6 and 3.4.
Measures of kurtosis and skewness indicated that the responses of 33 items
were normally distributed, while the remaining 7 were low-frequency
behaviors with distributions skewed toward an extreme mean.
Questions on the Married f o r m had means that ranged f r o m 1.1 to 7.6
with standard deviations between 1.9 and 3.8. Response distribution was
normal for 36 items and skewed for 4.
The subjects' responses to items that reported the frequency o f a
behavior during the past year were positively correlated with their responses
to the corresponding behavioral intentions that asked how likely the
subjects were to engage in that behavior during the next year. All
correlations were significant to the .001 level or better and ranged between
r(574) = .39, p < .001, and r(574) -- .73, p < .001 for items on the Single
form, while those on the Married form fell between r(265) = . 17, p < .001
and r(265) = .58, p < .001.
Item Analyses
Item Reliability. Thirty-eight items on the Single f o r m and 39 of those
on the Married f o r m demonstrated significant (p < .05) t e s t - r e t e s t correlations, which indicate that the subjects' answers were stable over time. In
addition, significant (p < .05) item-to-total correlations for all items on
both forms of the RBI established the scales as homogeneous.
Item Validity. Thirty-four items on the Single f o r m and 32 behaviors
on the Married form were reported at significantly (p < .05) different rates
by men and women. The frequency of 21 behaviors on the Single form were
reported at significantly different rates (p < .05) in the predicted direction
~=~
~
=~=
~
699
=
0
cy
oo
~']
r~
0
0
~¢xl
O
=
."
~
0
~J
°~ .~-~
~ . ~0
_~.~ ~.~
zz;~
~ . ~ ~,
_~o~ ~o~
"3
. 0
o
OOo
. . . . . . . . .
N'"
NNNN~
.'
700
by women affiliated with a traditional organization versus those associated
with a nontraditional group. On the Married form, 29 items discriminated
the traditional and nontraditional women.
Deletion of Items Not Meeting Criteria. There were six items on both
the Single and Married forms of the RBI that failed to meet the criteria
previously set for reliability and validity. Thus, these questions were
eliminated, leaving two final versions of 34 items each. (See Appendix A for
the final Single form and Appendix B for the final Married form.)
Scale Analyses
Group Means and Standard Deviations. Means and standard
deviations for the scale were assessed for nontraditional single (NTS)
females, nontraditional married (NTM) females, traditional single (TS)
females, and traditional married (TM) females. These scores were as follows:
NTS, X = 67.55, SD = 9.25; NTM, X = 68.73, SD = 4.2; TS,.,Y =
52.25; SD = 12.65; and TM, .~ = 45.9; SD = 10.8. The variability o f
scores was greater for traditional subjects than for nontraditional subjects.
Reliability o f the Total Scale. All estimates of reliability for the
34-item final versions were high; however, some variation among
coefficients was observed when different methods of calculating reliability
were employed. Measures of internal consistency were r(474) = .95, p <
.001 and r(265) = .96, p < .001, respectively, for the Single and Married
forms; while split-half assessments were r(574) = .83, p < .001 and r(265)
= .92, p < .001; and t e s t - retest correlations were r(61) = .86, p < .001 and
r(34) = .82, p < .001.
The parallel forms reliability coefficient for the two 17-item scales was
r(574) = .91,p < .001, for the Single form; and r(265) = .93, p < .001 for
the Married form when the tests were administered at the same time. The
correlations declined slightly, r(55) = . 8 1 , p < .001, Single form, and r(43)
= .88, p < .001, Married form, when the parallel forms were completed a
month apart.
Validity o f the Total Scale. Among the single subjects, age, r(574) =
.07, p < .05; income, r(574) = - . 18, p < .001; and education, r(574) = .21,
p < .001, were significantly correlated with RBI scores. Only education was
significantly correlated with the RBI scores of the married women, r(265) =
.36, p < .001. As a result, the subsequent analyses of covariance used age,
income, and education as covariates for the Single f o r m and education as a
covariate for the Married form.
Convergently validity analyses revealed moderately high correlations
between RBI and AWS scores for both the Single and Married forms of the
Behavioral Sex-Role Inventory Develo0ment and Validation
701
Table II. Convergent and Discriminant Validity as Assessed by Correlation Coefficients of RBI Scores with Other Questionnaires
Questionnaire
Attitudes Toward Women~
Political radicalismconservatism b
Social desirabilityc
Rathus Assertiveness a
RBI form
Single
Married
34-item
34-item
n
final form
n final form
267
.56¢
149
.55y
272
173
177
- .4C
-.15 e
.34f
150
62
63
- .58y
-.17
.41s
~High scores indicate nontraditional attitudes.
bHigh scores indicate conservative attitudes
thigh scores indicate high need for social desirability.
dHigh scores indicate high frequency of assertive behavior.
ep < .05.
~p < .001.
b e h a v i o r a l i n v e n t o r y (see T a b l e II). A l s o , utilizing analysis o f c o v a r i a n c e , a
significant effect was still revealed on b o t h the M a r r i e d , F(2, 30) = 34.5, p
< .001, a n d the Single f o r m , F ( 2 , 23) = 9.9, p < .002, o f the R B I for
subjects b e l o n g i n g to t r a d i t i o n a l versus n o n t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t y
organizations.
The g r o u p m e a n s were in the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n with the C a t h o l i c
w o m e n receiving the lowest, or m o s t t r a d i t i o n a l , scores (Single f o r m , X(11)
= 132.9; M a r r i e d f o r m , X(31) = 112.0); a n d N . O . W . a n d consciousness-raising g r o u p m e m b e r s o b t a i n i n g the highest scores (Single f o r m , ,~(10)
= 232.4; M a r r i e d f o r m , X(12) = 216.0); a n d the scores o f d o r m i t o r y
g o v e r n m e n t a n d A A U W w o m e n falling b e t w e e n the two e x t r e m e s (Single
f o r m , X(10) = 168.7; M a r r i e d f o r m , X(10) = 135.8).
W h e n the subjects were a s k e d to i n d i c a t e , in general, h o w s t r o n g l y
they a g r e e d or d i s a g r e e d with the ideas o f the w o m e n ' s m o v e m e n t , their
answers c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with their R B I scores for b o t h the single,
r(574) = .38, p < .001, a n d the m a r r i e d w o m e n , r(265) = .33, p < .001.
D i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y was assessed b y c o r r e l a t i n g the t o t a l scores o n
the R B I with the P R C S , the SDS, a n d the A S . T h e Single f o r m evidenced
lower c o r r e l a t i o n s with these scales t h a n with t h e A W S , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the
sex-role c o n s t r u c t t h a t i n c l u d e d b o t h a b e h a v i o r a l (RBI) a n d an a t t i t u d i n a l
c o m p o n e n t ( A W S ) can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m political r a d i c a l i s m ,
assertiveness, a n d social d e s i r a b i l i t y (see T a b l e II).
O n the M a r r i e d f o r m , sex-role b e h a v i o r s were d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m
social d e s i r a b i l i t y a n d assertiveness as c o r r e l a t i o n s were n o t as high as t h o s e
b e t w e e n the R B I a n d A W S (see T a b l e II). H o w e v e r , c o n t r a r y to p r e d i c t i o n s ,
political views were c o r r e l a t e d with the R B I M a r r i e d f o r m to the s a m e
degree as the R B I ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the A W S (see T a b l e II).
702
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to develop and standardize an
inventory of traditional and nontraditional female behaviors. In order to do
so, 40 items were subjected to a series of analyses and 6 of the items not
meeting reliability and validity criteria on each scale were dropped. The
remaining 34 items on the final version of both the Married and the Single
forms met criteria that established them as reliable, both in regard to
stability and homogeneity, and valid as either sex-typed or traditional
versus nontraditional behaviors.
The sex-role inventory also demonstrated strong coefficients of
reliability similar to those reported for scales of beliefs about women (e.g.,
Dempewolff, 1974; Kirkpatrick, 1936; Smith et al., 1975). In addition, the
upper limit of reliability for the RBI, as delineated by the measure of
internal consistency, and its lower boundary represented by the measure of
equivalence, were both very high and thus justify considerable confidence in
the reliability of the instrument.
In assessing validity, several approaches that were used with scales
developed previously were combined and employed simultaneously to
establish convergent validity. Evidence for this type of validity was
apparent in the strength of the relationship observed between the behavioral
measures and a general measure of opinions about women and between the
behavioral measure and participation in a feminist organization. Validity
was demonstrable even when the potentially confounding effects of age,
income, and education were partialled out. Thus, the convergent validity of
the sex-role inventory with other measures of feminism suggests that
attitudes toward womens' roles appear to be a unitary construct expressed
with some consistency in an individual's behavior as well as her beliefs.
This study also established discriminant validity by demonstrating
weaker relationships between the developed inventory and tests measuring
different, though potentially related, constructs. When the behavioral
inventory was correlated with social desirability, assertiveness, and general
political orientation, it was clearly distinguishable from social desirability.
Assertiveness, as predicted, was an important component of a woman's
willingness to engage in nontraditional behaviors; however, it was not the
primary determinant of that behavior. Even though the two measures were
significantly related, assertiveness explained only a small percentage of the
variance in sex-role behavior scores.
The results were somewhat inconsistent for married versus single
women in establishing the behavioral inventory as a construct different
from political opinions. For the single women, political liberalism was
associated with the report of feminist behaviors but, as hypothesized, the
703
correlation between feminist beliefs and sex-role inventory scores was a
stronger one. This was not the case with the married women whose
behavioral scores were similarly related to political opinions as with
feminist attitudes. Although this finding might suggest that the dimension
of traditional versus nontraditional is not a useful one when applied to the
role behavior of married women, it is also quite possible that the
relationship between political orientation and sex-role behavior scores was
inflated spuriously for this group as a result o f sample selection. Many of
these individuals were members of organizations directly involved in
political action and it is likely that they held more extreme political opinions
than would a r a n d o m sample. Thus, the groups chosen for this study
because they were expected to vary in their feminist beliefs also appeared to
have differed systematically from one another in their political attitudes
which m a y have produced an exaggerated relationship between RBI scores
and the measure of political opinions. In order to establish the discriminant
validity of the Married f o r m of the RBI as measuring a construct
distinguishable from political orientation, further comparison should
involve an administration of the measure to a more r a n d o m population that
includes both politically active and inactive women.
In general, however, the data indicated that the sex-role inventory is
both reliable and valid as a measure for the standardization samples. The
women taking the Single f o r m were representative of the female student
population at a Southern university and those active in organizations in the
community, while the married sample formed a reasonable cross-section o f
urban Southern women active in university or community affairs. However,
if the behavioral inventory is to be used with a less educated or more widely
varying SES population, it will be necessary to establish the validity and
reliability o f the instrument on additional samples.
The ability of the sex-role inventory to distinguish between feminists
and nonfeminists establishes the fact that they not only hold divergent
opinions concerning roles for women in society but also report differing
rates of specific behaviors in their personal lives. More than half of the
items on the behavioral scale were reported at differential rates by women
who advocated versus opposed feminism. The nontraditional women
reported a higher frequency of assertive behavior, indicated more
independent activity, declined chivalrous attention f r o m men more often,
and were less likely to do all the housework than the traditional women.
Although the nontraditional women in this population were also m o r e likely
to take part in feminist-oriented meetings and read literature on the new
roles for women, some caution must be exercised before generalizing that
behavior to less well-educated yet nontraditional women. As volunteers for
the validation of the RBI were all attending meetings of special interest
704
groups and, therefore, were demonstrating a proclivity toward acting on
their beliefs through formal organizations, this m a y have influenced
responses that may be oriented toward feminist activities and different from
nontraditional women who are not members of an organized group.
Even though differences were observed between the responses of
feminist and nonfeminist group members, the overwhelming majority of
the items reflected sex differences in the frequency of engaging in those
behaviors. The reported differences suggest that, for most people, gender is
still an important determinant of behavior. Men reported assertive and
independent behavior more frequently than women, just as women
indicated that they were more likely to be yielding, to be considerate of
others' needs, and to assume primary responsibility for the housework. Of
course, the RBI is a self-report measure and it is possible that
sex-differences observed in this study do not represent differences in actual
behavior so much as they measure a tendency to report a high frequency of
behaviors considered congruent with one's sex. The transparent nature of
the instrument further enhances the likelihood that the respondents'
answers m a y reflect a concept of appropriate sex role rather than the
frequency with which they engage in the activities. However, the specificity
of the behavior as opposed to a vague attitude or ideal increases the
likelihood o f accuracy in reported data. Direct observation o f behaviors in
the RBI m a y be difficult to accomplish in the natural environment.
However, further research could utilize self-monitoring techniques or
contrived, experimental situations. (Note: Where researchers wish to assign
women to traditional vs. nontraditional categories for experimental
interventions it is recommended that the mean scores for nontraditional and
traditional women listed in the Results section be consulted. Rather than
using median splits it is recommended, due to the variability of scores, that
single subjects with RBI scores of 192 and above be classified as
nontraditional and those with RBI scores of 163 and below be classified as
traditional. Married subjects with scores of 183 and above should be
classified as nontraditional and scores of 128 and below as traditional.)
Information on the observed rates of behavior would also permit a
closer examination of reported past behavior and behavioral intentions as
predictors of future behavior. In this study, the reported frequency of a
particular behavior over the past year was significantly related to the
individual's intentions regarding that behavior during the next year, but
only a small amount of the variance in intentions was explained by past
behavior. Although this information suggests that reported behaviors and
behavioral intentions are not identical, the question is still open as to which
will indicate future behavior most accurately.
In addition to predicting behavior, it would also be interesting to
identify the variables that might affect changes in intended behavior. For
705
e x a m p l e , the R B I c o u l d be used to e v a l u a t e the i m p a c t o f g r o u p s designed
to alter f e m a l e - r o l e b e h a v i o r . A s the effectiveness o f g r o u p discussion o r
b e h a v i o r a l r e h e a r s a l t e c h n i q u e s in c h a n g i n g s e x - t y p e d b e h a v i o r has n o t yet
been established, the p r e s e n t i n v e n t o r y o f specific b e h a v i o r s will m a k e it
p o s s i b l e to d e t e r m i n e w h a t aspects o f b e h a v i o r , if any, are m o s t likely to
reflect changes f o l l o w i n g an i n t e r v e n t i o n . C h a n g e s in overall scores as well
as changes in i n d i v i d u a l item scores could be d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s for such
o u t c o m e studies. In a d d i t i o n , this i n v e n t o r y c o u l d be i n s t r u m e n t a l f o r use in
i n t e r v e n t i o n studies c o n t r i b u t i n g to the b o d y o f l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n e d with
d e t e r m i n i n g i f a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s a n d o p i n i o n s p r e c e d e s or follows
changes in i n t e n t i o n or b e h a v i o r . This process is a p a r t i c u l a r l y interesting
one w h e n a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d w o m e n are c o n s i d e r e d , for in this case, when a
w o m e n expresses an a t t i t u d e , she is also a m e m b e r o f the class o f i n d i v i d u a l s
a b o u t w h o m the a t t i t u d e is held.
T h e R B I a p p e a r s to be a reliable and valid i n s t r u m e n t w h o s e p o t e n t i a l
value rests in its a b i l i t y to assess b e h a v i o r s a s s o c i a t e d with c h a n g i n g roles
for w o m e n . T h e p r e s e n t s t u d y e s t a b l i s h e d the R B I as able to i d e n t i f y
s e x - t y p e d a n d t r a d i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r s ; h o w e v e r , it is quite p o s s i b l e t h a t the
b e h a v i o r s m o s t sensitive to role changes t o d a y will n o t reflect such changes
in 5 to 10 years. C o n s e q u e n t l y , if the utility o f the R B I as a research
i n s t r u m e n t is to be i n s u r e d , it will b e necessary to f r e q u e n t l y r e e v a l u a t e b o t h
its reliability a n d v a l i d i t y .
REFERENCES
Baker, B. Acceptance versus rejection of the traditional feminine role: Considerations of women's
liberation (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1972, 33, 2157A-2158A.
Bern, S. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162.
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105.
Cherniss, C. Personality and ideology: A personalogical study of women's liberation. Psychiatry,
1972, 35, 109-125.
Comrey, A., & Newmeyer, J. Measurement of radicalism-conservatism. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1965, 67, 357-369.
Cronbach, L. Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1949.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Dempewolff, J. Feminism and its correlates (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati,
1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 3913B-3914B.
Dempewolff, J. Development and validation of a feminism scale. Psychological Reports, 1974,
34, 651-657.
Edwards, A. Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1957.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley,
1975.
706
Halas, C. Sex-role stereotypes: Perceived childhood socialization experiences and the attitudes
and behavior of adult women. Journal of Psychology, 1974, 88, 261-275.
Joesting, J. Comparison of women's liberation members with their nonmember peers.
Psychological Reports, 1971, 29, 1291-1294.
Kalin, R., & Tilby, P. J. Development and validation of a sex-role ideology scale. Psychological
Reports, 1978, 42, 731-738.
Kilpatrick, D., & Smith, A. Validation of the Spence-Helmreich attitudes towards women scale.
Psychological Reports, 1974, 35, 461-462.
Kirkpatrick, C. The construction of a belief pattern scale for measuring attitudes toward feminism.
Journal of Social Psychology, 1936, 7, 421-437.
Kirsch, B. Consciousness-raising groups as therapy for women. In V. Franks & V. Burtle (Eds.),
Women in therapy: New psychotherapies for a changing society. New York: Bruner/Mazel,
1974.
Mahoney, J. An analysis of the axiological structures of traditional and proliberation men
and women. Journal of Psychology, 1975, 90, 31-39.
Mischel, W. Sex-typing and socialization. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child
psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley, 1970.
Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
O'Keefe, B. Attitudes toward women's liberation: Relationship between cooperation, competition, personality and demographic variables (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Louis,
1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 33, 1293B.
Parelius, A. Emerging sex-role attitudes, expectations and strains among college women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 37, 146-153.
Rathus, S. A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 398-406.
Rowe, S., & Rowe, A. Complementary role relationships and level of income: A case for the
American housewife. Psychology, 1973, 10, 1-3.
Rychman, R., Martins, J., Rodda, W., & Sheriman, M. Locus of control and attitudes towards
women's liberation in a college population. Journal of Social Psychology, 1972, 87, 157-158.
Singleton, R., & Christiansen, J. B. The construct validation of a short form attitudes toward
feminism scale. Sociology and Social Research, 1977, 61, 294-303.
Smith, E., Ferree, M., & Miller, F. A short scale of attitudes toward feminism. Representative
Research in Social Psychology, 1975, 6, 51-56.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. The attitudes toward women scale: An objective instrument to
measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS
Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2, 66. (Ms. No. 153).
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. A short version of the attitudes toward women scale
(AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 219-220.
Steinman, A. Cultural values, female role expectations and therapeutic goals: Research and interpretation. In V. Frank & V. Burtle (Eds.), Women in therapy: Newpsychotherapies
for a changing society. New York: Bruner/Mazel, 1974.
Stoloff, C. Who joins women's liberation? Psychiatry, 1973, 36, 325-340.
Tavris, C. Woman and man. Psychology Today, 1972, 5, 57-64, 82-85. (a)
Tavris, C. The unlikely liberals: Attitudes toward the issues of women's liberation (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 32,
6542A. (b)
Whitely, R. Women in groups. The Counseling Psychologist, 1973, 4, 27-43.
707
APPENDIX A
Robinson Behavioral Inventory Form A - S i n g l e
For
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
the first ten (10) questions use the f o l l o w i n g scale:
= will definitely n o t do so
= extremely unlikely
= very u n l i k e l y
= moderately unlikely
= s o m e w h a t unlikely
= s o m e w h a t likely
= m o d e r a t e l y likely
= very likely
= e x t r e m e l y likely
= will d e f i n i t e l y d o so
*1.
I f trying to get y o u r o w n way, h o w likely are y o u to use tears with
a p e r s o n o f the o p p o s i t e sex within the next y e a r at least once?
2. H o w likely are you to p a y 50% o r m o r e o f the expenses the first time
you go o u t with a p e r s o n o f the o p p o s i t e sex d u r i n g the next year?
*3. H o w likely are y o u to stay h o m e f r o m an activity (e.g., p a r t y or concert) t h a t y o u w a n t to go to if y o u d o n ' t have a date during the next year?
4. H o w likely are y o u , within the next year, to ask s o m e o n e to refer to
y o u as a w o m a n / m a n if t h e y refer to y o u as a g i r l / b o y ?
5. H o w likely are y o u to r e a d a b o o k o n the new roles for w o m e n (e.g.,
Free and Female, The Feminine Mystique) d u r i n g the next year?
*6. W h e n going out with a p e r s o n o f the o p p o s i t e sex d u r i n g the next year,
how likely is it t h a t the o t h e r p e r s o n will always drive?
7. H o w likely are y o u to be the first to engage in genital t o u c h i n g with
a d a t e d u r i n g the next year?
*8. W h e n with a p e r s o n o f the o p p o s i t e sex d u r i n g the next year, h o w likely is it t h a t h e / s h e will r e g u l a r l y m a k e the m i n o r decisions (e.g., where
to go o n an evening out)?
9. H o w likely are y o u to eat lunch or d i n n e r a l o n e in a r e s t a u r a n t d u r i n g
the next year?
*10. H o w likely are y o u to accept a d a t e with a p e r s o n o f the o p p o s i t e sex
a n d cancel plans y o u h a d a l r e a d y m a d e with friends o f the s a m e sex
d u r i n g the next year?
For
0
1
2
the next nine (9) questions, use the f o l l o w i n g scale:
= never
= once
= twice
"/08
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
=
=
=
=
-=
=
=
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
times
times
times
times
times
times
times or more
* 11. How frequently have you gone out with a person of the opposite sex
that you didn't like very much because you didn't know how to say no
when asked during the past year?
12. H o w frequently have you read Ms. or New Woman magazine in the
past year?
"13. How frequently during the past year have you stayed home from an
activity that you wanted to attend (e.g., party, concert) because you
didn't have a date?
14. How many books have you read on the new roles for women (e.g., Free
and Female, The Feminine Mystique) during the past year?
"15. How frequently have you waited in the car for a person of the opposite
sex to open the door for you in the past year?
"16. H o w frequently have you pretended to know less than you really knew
to protect the ego of a person of the opposite sex during the past year?
17. H o w frequently during the past year have you gone out in the evening
with friends of the same sex?
18. H o w many meetings have you attended of a feminist-oriented group
(e.g., church group on the status of women, formal discussions of sex
roles, N . O . W . , consciousness raising) during the past year?
"19. In the past year how frequently have you decided to keep a strong opinion to yourself because you were talking to a person of the opposite sex?
For the next six (6) questions use the following scale:
0 = 0°70
1 =
10%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20%
30o7o
400/o
50°7o
60O7o
700/0
80%
90°70 or more
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
709
20. What percent of time have you, rather than your partner, been the first
to engage in genital touching during the past year?
21. What percent of the time have you paid 50070 or more of the expenses
the first time you went out with a person of the opposite sex during
the past year?
*22. In trying to get your way, what percent of the time have you used tears
with a person of the opposite sex during the past year?
23. What percent of the meals you have eaten in restaurants during the past
year have you eaten alone.
*24. When with a person of the opposite sex during the past year, what percent of the time has he/she made the minor decisions (e.g., where to
go on an evening out)?
25. When you have felt angry at a person of the opposite sex during the
past year, what percent of the time have you expressed it?
For
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
the next nine (9) questions use the following scale:
= will definitely not do so
= very unlikely
= somewhat unlikely
= somewhat likely
= moderately likely
= very likely
= extremely likely
= will definitely do so
26. How likely are you to ask one or more people of the opposite sex to
go out with you in the evening or on a weekend within the next year.
*27. How likely are you to wait in the car for a person of the opposite sex
to open the door for you during the next year?
*28. How likely are you to pretend to know less than you really know to
protect the ego of a person of the opposite sex within the next year?
*29. How likely are you to agree to sexual intercourse that you don't want
to engage in if pressured by a person of the opposite sex?
*30. How likely are you to keep a strong opinion to yourself if you are talking to a person of the opposite sex within the next year?
31. How likely are you to express it if you feel angry at a person of the
opposite sex within the next year?
32. How likely are you to read Ms. or N e w Woman magazine in the next
year?
710
*33. H o w likely are y o u to go out with a person o f the opposite sex that
y o u d o n ' t like very m u c h because y o u d o n ' t know h o w to say no when
asked during the next year?
34. H o w likely are you to attend a meeting o f a feminist-oriented group
(e.g., church sponsored p r o g r a m on the status o f women, formal discussion on sex roles, N . O . W . , consciousness raising) within the next year?
APPENDIX B
Robinson Behavioral Inventory, Form B - M a r r i e d or Living with S o m e o n e
For
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
the first ten (10) questions use the following scale:
= very unlikely
= somewhat unlikely
= somewhat likely
= moderately likely
= very likely
= extremely likely
* 1.
If trying to get y o u r own way, how likely are you to use tears with your
spouse during the next year?
H o w likely are you to ask your spouse's permission to buy clothing (e.g.,
shoes, slacks) for yourself within the next year?
H o w likely are y o u to stay h o m e f r o m an activity (e.g., party, evening
with friends) that y o u really want to go to within the next year if your
spouse can't go with you?
H o w likely are y o u to ask s o m e o n e to refer to you as a w o m a n / m a n
if they refer to you as a g i r l / b o y during the next year?
H o w likely are you to read a b o o k on the new roles for w o m e n (e.g.,
Free and Female, The Feminine Mystique) during the year?
W h e n in the car together with your spouse during the next year how
likely is it that y o u r spouse will always drive?
*2
*3.
4.
5.
*6.
*Indicates reverse-worded items.
Note: Items 1-10 and 26-34 refer to behavioral intentions, while items 11-25
are reported frequencies o f behavior during the past year.
711
How likely are you to initiate sexual activities with your spouse during
the next year?
*8. During the next year, how likely is your spouse to regularly make the
minor decisions that affect you both (e.g., where to go on an evening
out)?
9. How likely are you, rather than your spouse, to take the car to the garage
if it needs repairing during the next year?
*10. How likely are you to use your spouse's last name as your own during
the next year?
7.
For
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
the next eight (8) questions use the following scale:
-- never
= once
= twice
= 3 times
= 4 times
= 5 times
= 6 times
= 7 times
= 8 times
= 9 times or more
* 11. How frequently have you agreed to sexual intercourse that you didn't want
to engage in in response to pressure from your spouse during the past
year?
12. How frequently have you asked someone to refer to you as a
w o m a n / m a n rather than a girl/boy during the past year?
"13. How frequently have you stayed home from an activity (e.g., party,
evening with friends) that you wanted to go to during the past year
because your spouse couldn't go with you?
14. How many books have you read on the new roles for women (e.g., Free
and Female, The Feminine Mystique) during the past year?
15. During the past year, how many nights have you been away from home
without your spouse and children?
16. During the past year how frequently have you gone out in the evening
with friends but without your spouse?
17. How many meetings have you attended of a feminist-oriented group.
(e.g., church program on the status of women, couples' group on sex
roles, N.O.W., consciousness raising) during the past year?
"18. In the past year, how frequently have you decided to keep a strong opinion to yourself because you were talking to a person of the opposite sex?
712
For
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
the next seven (7) questions use the following scale:
= 0%
= 10%
= 20%
= 30%
= 40%
= 50%
= 60%
= 70%
= 80%
= 90°70 or more
19. Within the last year, what percent o f the time have you, rather than
y o u r spouse, initiated sexual intercourse?
20. W h a t percent o f the time have you, rather than your spouse, taken the
car to the garage to have it repaired during the past year?
"21. W h a t percent o f the daily h o u s e w o r k (e.g., dishes, cooking, cleaning)
have you done during the past year?
*22. In trying to get y o u r own way, what percent o f the time have you used
tears with your spouse during the past year?
*23. W h e n in the car together during the past year, what percent of the time
has y o u r spouse driven?
*24. W h a t percent o f the time have you, as compared with your spouse, done
the m a j o r cleaning jobs around the house (e.g., defrost the refrigerator,
clean oven, wax floors) during the past year?
*25. W h a t percent o f the time have you used your spouse's last name as your
o w n during the past year?
For
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
the next nine (9) questions use the following scale:
= very unlikely
= somewhat unlikely
= somewhat likely
= moderately likely
= very likely
= extremely likely
26. Within the next year how likely is your spouse to help with the daily
housework on a regular basis (e.g., dishes, cooking, cleaning)?
713
27. H o w likely are you to go out with friends on a regular basis without
your spouse in the evening during the next year?
28. H o w likely are you to be away from home overnight without your spouse
and children during the next year?
*29. H o w likely are you to pretend to know less than you really know to
protect the ego of a person of the opposite sex during the next year?
*30. H o w likely are you to agree to sex intercourse that you don't want to
engage in if pressured by your spouse during the next year?
"31. Within the next year, how likely are you to keep strong opinions to
yourself if you are talking to a person of the opposite sex?
*32. During the next year, how likely are you, as compared with your spouse,
to do the m a j o r cleaning jobs around the house (e.g., defrost the
refrigerator, clean oven, wax floor)?
33. H o w likely are you to read Ms. or N e w Woman magaziiae during the
next year?
34. H o w likely are you to attend a meeting of a feminist-oriented group
(e.g., church program on the status of women, couples' group on sex
roles, N.O.W., consciousness raising)?
*Indicates reverse-worded items.
Note: Items 1-10 and 26-34 refer to behavioral intentions while items 11-25
are reported frequencies during the past year.

Development and validation of a behavioral sex

Transcription

Similar documents

Jennifer (Falknor) Hinders

02 - Descriptive Statistics

Your Behavioral Health Benefit How Much Will This Benefit Cost? Is

David Freedman, Lina Castellanos, Thomas Jardon, Cynthia

Parish Registration Form - Saint Luke the Evangelist

TAKE FOUR! - Foothills Alliance

Form 1040EZ

Ad, 8.625x11.125, Laverson, RanchandCoast

A Message from our Board Chairman and President

Asperger`s Syndrome, and NVLD - Dartmouth