Gender‐schematic processing: An extended replication of the Larsen and Seidman study

Abstract

This study is an extended replication of the Larsen and Seidman study (1986) on the Bem Sex‐Role Inventory (BSRI) as a measurement instrument for gender‐schematic processing. Using a Dutch sample and the GRAS (Groninger Androgyny Scale)—a Dutch sex‐role inventory—responses to this inventory were factor‐analysed separately for sex‐typed and non‐sex‐typed groups. The extremity of response style on GRAS items and the degree of self‐indicated cross‐situational variability on GRAS items were used as additional indices for gender‐schematic processing. Similar to Larsen and Seidman's (1986) study, bipolar factors were found for the sex‐typed groups and unipolar factors for the non‐sex‐typed groups. Similar to a study conducted by Bem (1981) into differences among the sex‐types in their response latencies to the attributes of the BSRI, sex‐typed subjects showed more extremity of response style on attributes of the GRAS when making schema‐consistent judgements about themselves, and showed less extremity of response style when making schema‐inconsistent judgements about themselves. The data on cross‐situational variability were less equivocal. It is concluded that the degree of gender‐schematic processing in individuals can be well measured by means of a sex‐role inventory.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bem

D. J.

Allen

(1974) ‘On predicting some of the people some of the time: the search for cross‐situational consistencies in behavior’, Psychological Review, 81:506–520.

Bem

S. L.

(1974). ‘The measurement of psychological androgyny’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42:155–162.

Bem

S. L.

(1979). ‘The theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur‐Tetenbaum and Locksley–Colton critiques’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37:1047–1054.

Bem

S. L.

(1981). ‘Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing’, Psychological Review, 88:354–364.

Bem

S. L.

(1985). ‘ Androgyny and gender schema theory: a conceptual and empirical integration’. In: Sondregger, T. B. (Ed), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Psychology and Gender, pp.179–226, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.

Bem

S. L.

Lenney

(1976). ‘Sex typing and the avoidance of cross‐sex behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33:48–54.

Block

J. H.

(1976). ‘Debatable conclusions about sex differences’, Contemporary Psychology, 21:517–522.

Bonarius

J. C. J.

(1970). 'Personal construct psychology and extreme response style', Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Cantor

Mischel

(1977).Traits as prototypes: effects of recognition memory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35:38–48.

10.

Chodorow

(1978). The Reproduction of Mothering. Psychoanalysis and the Society of Gender, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

11.

Deaux

Farris

(1977). ‘Attributing causes for sex, norms and outcome’, Journal of Research in Personality, 11:59–72.

12.

De Graaf

(1984). 'Konstructie van een verbeterde versie van de Groninger Androgynie Scal (GRAS)' [Construction of a revised version of the Groningen Androgyny Scale (GRAS)].Heymans Bulletins Psychologische Instituten Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, HB‐84‐710‐EX.

13.

Feather

N. T.

(1984). ‘Masculinity, femininity, psychological androgyny, and the structure of values’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47:604–620.

14.

Frodi

Macauley

Thome

P. R.

(1977). ‘Are women always less aggressive than men? A review of the experimental literature’, Psychological Bulletin, 84:634–660.

15.

Gillican

(1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

16.

Hollingworth

(1914). Functional Periodicity: An Experimental Study of the Mental and Motor Abilities of Women During Menstruation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.

17.

Hollingworth

(1922). ‘Differential action upon the sexes of forces which tend to segregate the feebleminded’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 17:35–57.

18.

Hyde, J. S. (Ed) (1986). The Psychology of Gender: Advances Through the Meta‐analysis, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD.

19.

Keller

E. F.

(1985). Reflections on Gender and Science, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

20.

Kelly

G. A.

(1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs, 2Vols, Norton & Co, NewYork.

21.

Kelly

J. A.

Worrell

(1977). ‘New information of sex roles and androgyny: a critical review’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45:1101–1115.

22.

Larsen

R. J.

Seidman

(1986 Gender schema theory and sex role inventories: some conceptual and psychometric considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50:205–211.

23.

Maccoby

E. E.

Jacklin

C. M.

(1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

24.

Markus

(1977),Self‐schemata and processing information about the self, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35:63–78.

25.

Miller

J. B.

(1976). Toward a New Psychology of Women, Bearon Press, Boston, MA.

26.

O'Donovan

(1965). ‘Rating extremity: pathology or meaningfulness?’, Psychological Review, 72:358–372.

27.

Thompson Wooley

(1903). The Mental Traits of Sex, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

28.

Van Strien

(1989). ‘Dieting, dissatisfaction with figure, and sex role orientation in women’, International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8:455–462.

29.

Van Strien

Bergers

G. P. A.

(1988). ‘Overeating and sex‐role orientation in women’, International Journal of Eating Disorders, 7:89–99.

30.

Winnubst

J. A. M.

Marcelissen

F. H. G.

Kleber

R. J.

(1982). ‘Effects of social support in the stress or strain relationship in a Dutch sample’, Social Science and Medicine, 16:475–482.