Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore how gender roles research has been conducted among African Americans in the psychological literature. Accordingly, we completed a content analysis of empirical studies on this topic. We utilized the Table of Contents of several psychology journals, psychological databases, and search engines to identify relevant literature. Articles included for review met the following criteria: (a) published between 1981 and 2017, (b) empirically based, (c) psychologically focused on gender- or sex-role constructs, and (d) included samples that were solely African American or consisted of a substantial number of African American participants (range: 17-3,000). Qualifying articles (N = 56) were categorized into one of five content areas (i.e., Self-Concept and Social Identity, Scale Development and Validation, Personality, Family and Gender Role Socialization, and Education/Vocation). We also analyzed sample characteristics, research methods, and publication trends across studies. A majority of the reviewed studies included samples of adults, utilized quantitative methods, and were published within the past 18 years. Using the results of the analysis, we highlight the strengths and limitations of the current scholarship focused on gender roles among African Americans and offer suggestions regarding future research and its significance within the field of Black psychology.
The trajectory of scholarship concentrated on gender-related phenomena among African Americans within the psychological literature is directly representative of the historic difficulty of creating spaces that both affirm and recognize the intersection of race and gender within African American communities. This long-standing struggle dates back to the late 19th century (Giddings, 1985), and was initially brought to light by the Combahee River Collective (1977/1995). In a public declaration, this group of African American women articulated the difficulties of disentangling their race and gender and the necessity of attending to both identities. From that point, terms such as womanist (Walker, 1983) and Black feminist (Cleage, 1993) were popularized, thereby acknowledging the dual salience of race and gender specifically for African American women. However, these advancements occurred more than 10 years after the end of the Civil Rights Movement. In a similar pattern, one of the first psychology-based empirical studies examining gender among African Americans was published in the Journal of Black Psychology in 1981 (i.e., Millham & Smith, 1981), more than 10 years after the birth of Black psychology in the late 1960s (Williams, 2008). The minimization of gender has persisted to this day, so much so that it has been argued that “the emphasis on race and ethnicity has eclipsed the discourse on the role of gender” (McAdoo & Younge, 2009, p. 109). Accordingly, the current content analysis was developed to highlight the limited, yet extant, psychological literature on gender roles among African Americans in efforts to examine an often overlooked, but equally important, social identity that has evidenced implications in terms of the well-being of African Americans.
Gender and Gender-Related Constructs
The traditional definition of gender has been limited to binary categories, and thus is defined as a collection of characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors associated with the male or female sex (Buque, Rayfield, & Miville, 2017). Across studies examining gender differences, gender is typically explored as a binary demographic variable denoting individuals’ biological sex (i.e., male or female). Constructs such as gender identity, gender roles, gender role attitudes, and sexism or gendered racism are commonly used to assess the meaning one assigns to gender or power dynamics informed by gender. Gender identity is defined as the extent to which one identifies as masculine or feminine (Stets & Burke, 2000). Gender roles are defined as the behaviors enacted that align with socially constructed ideas about gender (Mahalik, Cournoyer, DeFranc, Cherry, & Napolitano, 1998) and have been frequently assessed using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973; see also Miville & Ferguson, 2014). Akin are gender role attitudes, which are “people’s beliefs about the appropriate role-related behaviors for women and men and girls and boys” (Frieze & Ciccociopp, 2009, p. 752). Last, a modern gender-related construct gaining attention within the psychological literature is gendered racism (Essed, 1991), which is a distinct form of oppression experienced as a result of the cumulative marginalization of one’s race and gender. Although a majority of the aforementioned constructs have been thoroughly examined with European Americans, they appear to be disproportionally understudied among African Americans. Moreover, even among the existing psychological studies focused on African Americans, it is plausible that Eurocentric norms, meaning theories, and assessments primarily based on the experiences of European Americans, were applied with little to no attention to the cultural and sociopolitical forces that influence gender roles across African Americans. A case in point is the overreliance on the BSRI and the PAQ in much of the literature in this area. Studies using such measures tend to narrowly focus on traits and attributes traditionally deemed masculine and feminine by Eurocentric standards, thereby overlooking African Americans’ beliefs on how men and women should be defined as gendered beings, pressures and conflicts they feel in attempts to meet gender role expectations, and gender role behaviors in which they actually engage.
Gender and Gender Roles Among African Americans
We recognize that a discussion of gender roles among African Americans would be remiss without mention of the African vestiges that persist and inform how African Americans conceptualize gender. Nobles (1974) described this outlook as “Africanity,” a perspective that honors African Americans’ alignment and connection with an African worldview. In the context of the African American family, this worldview is signified by an emphasis on the “survival of the tribe (family)” (Nobles, 1974, p. 14). In this way, gender roles are understood to be fluid and flexible. Moreover, there is a tradition of egalitarianism, characterized by the equal distribution of family tasks that are presumed to promote the livelihood of the family. These tenets are counter to ideals of individuation, independence, and personal survival that inform Eurocentric gender relations (Bell, Bouie, & Baldwin, 1990).
Researchers assert that African Americans are challenged with negotiating their ideas about gender within a society heavily informed by Eurocentric values (e.g., power, competition, and individualism; Hunn, 2004) and in turn may adopt such values for survival (Bell et al., 1990). It also may be the case that after centuries of being in the United States, African Americans have also begun to adapt and adopt such values as their own. Either way, it becomes a quagmire to understand as some African Americans may attempt to enact Eurocentric-like gender roles (Bell et al., 1990), but are constantly faced with systems of oppression that diminish their ability to act out such roles. A prime example of this conundrum is the expectation that, as males, African American men are expected to serve as the breadwinners for their family, yet systematic oppression (e.g., reduced employment opportunities and mass incarceration) drastically affect their ability to act in this capacity (e.g., Collins, 1998).
Psychological research paradigms emphasizing the “normative” nature of Eurocentric values and the “deviance” of African Americans (rather than emphasizing their Africanity or acknowledging forces of oppression shaping their experience) have contributed to a burgeoning amount of literature focused on African Americans’ identification with “traditional” gender roles, alongside a few articles highlighting characterizations of African American gender roles captured through gendered-racial stereotypes. Gendered-racial stereotypes are generalizations made about African American men and women that are derived from their historical and gender-specific experiences of oppression. For women, stereotypes include Mammy, Sapphire, Jezebel, and the Strong Black Woman (Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 2009; West, 1995). Each stereotype portrays African American women as selfless and nurturing, loud and aggressive, sexually uninhibited, or emotionally strong and self-sufficient, respectively. Of the stereotypes associated with African American women, the Strong Black Woman may be considered an alternative, albeit positive, stereotype or cultural ideal for some women (Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 2009; Nelson, Cardemil, & Adeoye, 2016). However, research suggests that African American women’s characterization as “strong” has negative implications in terms of African American women’s help-seeking behaviors and mental wellness (Abrams, Maxwell, Pope, & Belgrave, 2014; Watson & Hunter, 2015; Watson-Singleton, 2017). The endorsement of the Strong Black Woman, as well as other gendered-racial stereotypes, has also been linked to lowered self-esteem across African American women (Thomas, Witherspoon, & Speight, 2004). For African American men, stereotypes range from the historical images of the Brute Savage (untamed, highly sexed, and bestial) and Sambo (subservient, childlike, happy, and entertaining; Hawkins, 1998) to modern day characterizations, including the super athlete, entertainer, or criminal (Hewitt, 2013; Marbley, 2011; Sue, 2010). For African American men, stereotype endorsement has been shown to be associated with internalized racism (Hewitt, 2013). Although some African Americans may identify with gendered-racial stereotypes, we argue that Africans Americans develop and internalize adaptive conceptualizations of their gendered-self distinct from stereotypical caricatures. These ideals also are distinguished from Eurocentric gender roles. Unfortunately, much less is known about African Americans’ culturally distinct and adaptive understanding of their gendered experiences.
To that end, we present the current content analysis as a means of clarifying existing scholarship and directing future research concentrated on gender roles among African Americans. Through a review of psychological literature concentrated on this topic spanning across the past 36 years, we investigated several aspects of this area of scholarship: (a) the common topics guiding research in this domain, (b) the demographic characteristics of individuals included in this research, (c) the common research methods used, and (d) publication trends. Through this review, we aspired to set the foundation for future research that adopts a phenomenological and culturally grounded approach to the exploration of gender roles among African Americans.
Method
Raters
This project was led by an African American female counseling psychologist. She, alongside a Latina professor of counseling psychology and one Afro-Latina counseling psychology doctoral candidate participated in the analysis of this project. All three raters were affiliated with a private university in the Northeastern region of United States known for its emphasis on cultural competence and social justice in counseling training.
Procedure
Articles were selected for review based on the following criteria: (a) published between 1981 (beginning when scholarship on this topic was first published in the Journal of Black Psychology, [i.e., Millham & Smith, 1981]) and 2017, (b) empirically based, involving the collection of data, (c) psychologically focused on gender- or sex-role constructs, including measurement intended to assess these concepts, and (d) composed of a substantial number of African American participants, meaning the sample was entirely African American or there was a subsample of African Americans along with an analysis of their responses. Our criteria were informed by the methods of earlier studies (e.g., Foley-Nicpon & Lee, 2012; Worthington, Soth-McNett, & Moreno, 2007) and were selected because they aligned with our intentions to specifically examine empirical and psychological studies focused on gender roles in African Americans.
To locate articles, three sources were used: the Table of Contents of journals, psychological databases, and general search engines. First, the researchers reviewed the Table of Contents from psychology journals historically including African American and/or ethnically diverse samples. These journals included, but were not limited to Journal of Black Psychology, Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, Sex Roles, and Psychology of Women Quarterly. To expand the search, the researchers then inserted key terms into the search engines for top psychological databases (i.e., PsycINFO, PsychARTICLES), The Columbia University Libraries Online Database, ProQuest Dissertation Database, and Google Scholar. Key terms were gender roles, sex roles, gender role identity, sex role identity, masculinity/femininity, womanhood/manhood, gendered racism, BEM Sex Role Inventory (BEM Sex Roles, BSRI), Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), as well as words indicative of the population of interest, Blacks and African Americans. For the articles uncovered, we also conducted ancestral and citation searches.
The search resulted in the selection of 60 peer-reviewed journal articles and 1 dissertation. Five articles were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria, thereby resulting in a final sample of 55 peer-reviewed journal articles and 1 dissertation. For each scholarly work, information regarding the sample, research methods, and findings were collected. Study information was organized into an Excel file prior to analysis.
Data Analytic Strategy
Using methods similar to those employed by previous scholars (i.e., Cokley, Awosogba, & Taylor, 2014; Cokley, Caldwell, Miller, & Muhammad, 2001), we established the content areas as follows. First, we developed an initial set of content areas based on previous studies examining trends in research concentrated on African Americans (e.g., Cokley et al., 2001; Cokley et al., 2014), which resulted in eight tentative content areas (i.e., Identity and Self-Concept, Scale Development and Validation, Personality, Family and Gender Role Socialization, Racism, Prejudice, and Discrimination, Gender/Sex-Role Stereotypes, Vocation/Education, and Clinical Application). Each rater then independently labeled the selected articles based on these content areas. The first author next compiled all the raters’ coding and checked for disagreement among the ratings. While checking the initial ratings, the first author observed that some content areas either were not represented or seemed redundant. Accordingly, the raters met and discussed the discrepancies among the ratings, as well as concerns regarding the representativeness and redundancies of the content areas. Thereafter, the content areas were revised to a total of five (i.e., Self-Concept and Social Identity, Scale Development and Validation, Personality, Family and Gender Role Socialization, and Vocation/Education). The raters then reviewed the studies again per the new set of content areas, and met once more to assess interrater reliability. Overall, the raters agreed by consensus or a 2-1 split for 85% of the reviewed studies. For the remaining 15% of studies with discrepant coding, the three raters met and reached consensus regarding the articles’ final assignment to a content area. Each content area is detailed below (listed in order of representation in the literature, high to low):
Self-Concept and Social Identity: Articles in this category focused on how African Americans conceptualized their gender roles, particularly in consideration of other social identities (e.g., race and ethnicity). These articles examined gender role variations as a function of race and ethnicity, as well as the intersection of these two identities.
Scale Development and Validation: Articles in this category examined the reliability and validity of preexisting measures of gender roles or focused on the development of culturally specific assessments of gender roles and related constructs.
Personality: Articles exploring the impact of gender roles on psychological outcomes, such as mental health and performance, were included in this category.
Family and Gender Role Socialization: Articles that examined how youth are socialized about gender and how gender influences the functioning of African American families and relationships were placed in this category.
Vocation/Education: Articles that assessed the association between gender roles and educational and vocational outcomes were included in this category.
Results
We divided the results of the current analysis into four broad sections, including content areas, sample characteristics, research methodology, and publication trends, which are presented below.
Content Areas
Table 1 displays a list of the reviewed articles and their assigned content area. The content area with the highest frequency was Self-Concept and Social Identity (n = 22) followed by Scale Development and Validation (n = 13), Personality (n = 11), Family and Gender Role Socialization (n = 8), and Vocation/Education (n = 2). Each content area is detailed in the following paragraphs.
Content Areas Across Studies.
Self-concept and social identity
We included studies examining how African Americans conceptualize gender roles for themselves, as well as how gender roles may vary as a function of race and ethnicity within this content area. Five studies reflected a concentration on both African American men and women (De Leon, 1993; Harris, 1996; Hunter & Sellers, 1998; Levant et al., 1998; Millham & Smith, 1981), 11 on women (Abrams et al., 2016; Binion, 1990; Cole & Zucker, 2007; Jackson, 1982; M. K. Jones & Day, 2017; Settles, 2006; Settles et al., 2008; Smith & Craig-Henderson, 2010; Thomas et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2013; Zeff, 1982), and 6 on men (Abreu et al., 2000; Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992; McDermott & Schwartz, 2013; Wade, 1996).
Among the studies that included both men and women, the primary aim was to highlight how gender roles differed across racial and ethnic groups, including those of African, European, and Latina/o descent. Millham and Smith (1981) found African Americans to be less differentiated in their gender roles. Of the 218 traits assessed in the BSRI (Bem, 1974), only 4 traits were sex-typed (i.e., masculine, feminine, bold, and rugged) among African Americans compared with 44 traits among European Americans. Within group differences in gender role attitudes by race and ethnicity were highlighted in three other studies. De Leon (1993) and Harris (1996) found that African American men and women identified with masculine traits; African American men endorsed masculine traits similarly or more than European American men, and African American women identified with these characteristics more than women of European and Latina/o descent. Additionally, Levant et al. (1998) found that African American women tended to endorse more traditional masculine ideologies compared with European American women. Although both genders endorsed feminine characteristics (De Leon, 1993; Harris, 1996), the tendency to endorse feminine traits was higher in European American women compared with African American women. There were no significant differences between African American and European American men’s scores of femininity. Hunter and Sellers (1998) did not include a racial comparison, but rather focused on gender; the results of their study indicated that feminist ideology (i.e., recognition of gender equality, endorsement of egalitarian gender roles, and engagement in social activism) was commonly endorsed by both African American men and women.
Across studies concentrated on women, the results of two studies suggested that African American women were more androgynous when compared with other racial and ethnic groups of women (Binion, 1990; Zeff, 1982), yet similar to others in terms of how they conceptualized femininity (Cole & Zucker, 2007). When gender and race were considered simultaneously, studies indicated that African American women identified with their gendered-racial identity (the intersection of race and gender) more than race or gender alone (Settles, 2006; Thomas et al., 2011). This finding set the foundation for recent research focused on African American women’s conceptualization of themselves as gendered and racial beings. M. K. Jones and Day (2017) described this unique identity intersection as “gendered racial identity,” which they further defined as the significance and qualitative meaning women attribute to their membership within Black and woman social identity groups. Thomas et al. (2013) identified two positive (i.e., parents and peers) and one negative (i.e., stereotypes) informants of girls’ gendered racial identity. Though peers provided support around issues of culture, parents specifically encouraged girls to be self-determined and successful. Therefore, it was not surprising that the results of studies also demonstrated that African American women described womanhood as being self-determined and prideful (Settles, 2006; Thomas et al., 2011). Additional key themes associated with womanhood included strength, self-sacrifice and care for others, as well as experiences of oppression (Abrams et al., 2016; Settles et al., 2008).
Two other studies examined how gender role attitudes among African American women may change as a result of experimental manipulation. Smith and Craig-Henderson (2010) examined whether African American women demonstrating low sexist and stereotypical gender beliefs would retain these beliefs when cognitively distracted. Findings suggested that distracted women endorsed stereotypical beliefs more than those who were not distracted, indicating that women may have had stereotypes that under some conditions (being distracted) could not be easily suppressed. Although gender roles were not specifically tested in Jackson (1982), women exhibiting high militancy (i.e., concern for Black liberation) endorsed more masculine gender role beliefs.
In six of the studies, the researchers explored the intersection of gender and race and/or ethnicity among African American men. Abreu et al. (2000) examined the association between ethnic identity belonging and masculine gender racial ideologies; ethnic identity belonging was positively associated with traditional masculine ideology across samples of African American, European American, and Latino men. The distinct ways in which African American men came to understand their gender roles were indicated in two studies (McDermott & Schwartz, 2013; Wade, 1996). The works of McDermott and Schwartz (2013) and Wade (1996) indicated that conflict, confusion, and/or ambivalence toward one’s gender role was common among African American men and was exacerbated among those with a less developed racial identity (meaning an identity that is externally, rather than internally defined). The conclusions drawn from the works of Griffith and Cornish (2018), Hammond and Mattis (2005), as well as Hunter and Davis (1992) gave voice to the ways African American men characterize their masculinity. Within these three studies, researchers found that African American masculinity was defined by the following themes: self-determination, responsibility for one’s family, integrity, respect and honor, pride in oneself and racial community, and being focused and aware of oneself as a spiritual being.
Scale development and validation
Of the 13 articles in this content area, 7 focused on the development of culturally based gender related scales (Belgrave et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2017; Doss & Hopkins, 1998; Hewitt, 2013; Lewis & Neville, 2015; Schwing et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2004) and 6 others concentrated on the psychometric validation of commonly used instruments, such as the BSRI (Berkel, 2004; Harris, 1994; Konrad & Harris, 2002; McGhee et al., 2001; Norwalk et al., 2011; Thomson & Zand, 2005).
Culturally specific scale development studies aimed to capture a variety of gender-related phenomena among African Americans including gendered-racial oppression (Lewis & Neville, 2015; Schwing et al., 2013), stereotypes (Hewitt, 2013; Thomas et al., 2004), gendered-racial ideology (Belgrave et al., 2015; Doss & Hopkins, 1998), and gendered-racial socialization (Brown et al., 2017). Six of these scales were developed to assess these occurrences specific to African Americans, whereas the Multicultural Masculinity Ideology Scale (Doss & Hopkins, 1998) was intended for use with various cultural groups.
Regarding commonly used instruments, the BSRI (Bem, 1974) and Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES) KK and BB forms (Short forms; Beere, King, Beere, & King, 1984; King & King, 1990) were evidenced to be valid for use with African Americans (Berkel, 2004; Harris, 1994; Konrad & Harris, 2002; McGhee et al., 2001). Harris (1994) contended that the BSRI was an accurate assessment of “American” gender roles and valid as indicated by a similar scale factor structure between the norming group and a racially diverse sample. However, he asserted that differences in desirability ratings between the norming sample and African Americans may have suggested that the scale was less valid because African Americans seemed to conceptualize gender roles differently. Moreover, the appropriateness of the Children’s Personal Attributes Questionnaire (CPAQ; Hall & Halberstadt, 1980) and the Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS; O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986) for use with African Americans was questionable. For example, although Thomson and Zand (2005) found that the factor structure of the CPAQ (Short form) among African American adolescents mirrored that of the norming sample, reliabilities were considerably low, yet identified as “acceptable” for two of three subscales (i.e., masculine α = .38 and feminine α = .58). Although these alphas were low, based on general scale construction standards (Nunnally, 1978), Thomson and Zand found these levels to be acceptable, considering reliabilities on the short form subscales did not fall too far below the those of the full CPAQ subscales (average α = .60; Absi-Semaan, Crombie, & Freeman, 1993; Hall & Halberstadt, 1980). On the other hand, Norwalk et al. (2011) found that the GRCS functioned similarly between African American and European American men, but indices of reliability and factor fit were lower among African Americans.
Personality
Across 11 studies, the authors highlighted the significance of gender role attitudes in predicting mental health and performance outcomes. In all but three of these studies (Buckley, 2017; Palapattu et al., 2006; Wester et al., 2006), researchers focused on African American women and girls. The most commonly explored mental health correlates of gender role attitudes were depression (including suicidality), anxiety, stress, and self-esteem. The results of these studies overwhelmingly suggested that gender role attitudes were directly correlated with mental health, such that African American women and girls who were more androgynous, equally endorsed masculine and feminine traits, and/or were less sex-typed had more positive mental health outcomes (Buckley & Carter, 2005; Littlefield, 2004; Napholz, 1994; Palapattu et al., 2006). A feminine or androgynous orientation also was found to buffer the impact of daily stressors on the mental health of African American girls (Cooper et al., 2011). In a sample of African American adolescent boys and girls, there was significant association between gender role orientation (above and beyond one’s biological gender) and anxiety (Palapattu et al., 2006). Masculinity was negatively correlated with anxiety, whereas femininity was positively associated with anxiety. Among African American men, gender role conflict was directly associated with mental distress (Wester et al., 2006). For African American adolescent boys, equal endorsement of masculine and feminine traits, alongside positive regard for one’s race, were associated with enhanced self-concept (Buckley, 2017). There was only one study with results that suggested there was no relationship between gender role attitudes and mental health outcomes (Pyant & Yanico, 1991).
Three studies highlighted the mental health consequences that are associated with gendered and gendered-racial forms of oppression on African American women (Perry et al., 2012; Rederstorff et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2008). Findings of these studies demonstrated that gendered racism and sexual harassment were directly correlated with mental health consequences. The work of Rederstorff et al. (2007) is exemplary as they not only explored the mental health implications of gendered oppression but also explored gender role attitudes as a moderator. Among African American women who experienced sexual harassment, those adopting more traditional gender role attitudes (as measured by The Macho Scale; Touhey, 1979; Villemez & Touhey, 1977) endorsed the most distress.
Family and gender role socialization
There were eight identified studies focused on how gender roles manifest in the context of African American families and relationships. Within two studies, the researchers highlighted how gender roles may emerge in families (Riina & McHale, 2010; Stanik & Bryant, 2012), whereas in six others, scholars focused on the gender socialization of African American youth (Hill, 2002; Johnson, 2013; Mandara et al., 2005; Roberts-Douglass & Curtis-Boles, 2013; Thomas & King, 2007; Ward et al., 2005).
Among African American couples, gender roles influenced the ways in which partners interact with one another and others within the family. Stanik and Bryant (2012) found that less traditional gender role attitudes and egalitarian delegation of home tasks, particularly among husbands, contributed to increased marital quality. Along the same lines, Riina and McHale (2010) found that less instrumental fathers, meaning those who did not identify strongly with traditionally masculine traits experienced the most positive family relationships when faced with discrimination.
In four other studies, scholars underscored how parental presence, parental attitudes, and socialized messages about gender informed youth’s gender role attitudes (Hill, 2002; Johnson, 2013; Mandara et al., 2005; Thomas & King, 2007). Mandara et al. (2005) found that father-present youth endorsed the most traditional gender roles. Hill (2002) unpacked the specific messages conveyed by African American parents to youth about gender, and found that parents delivered gendered-racial socialization messages to girls (e.g., African American girls are to be successful and assertive). Thomas and King (2007) identified similar socialization messages between mothers and daughters. When focusing on fathers and daughters, Johnson (2013) found that in the context of good quality father-daughter relationships, girls were encouraged to pursue less traditional career paths, yet maintain traditional gender role expectations within their relationships and families. In the reviewed studies, no such messages were articulated for boys; instead parents, specifically fathers, expressed “concern that the failure to teach masculinity might result in homosexuality” (Hill, 2002, p. 500). Although past research suggested that messages about masculinity may not be directly communicated, Roberts-Douglass and Curtis-Boles (2013) found that African American boys viewed their fathers as role models and garnered much about masculinity from connections with their fathers, culturally similar peers, and teachers. Media have also been identified as a significant socializing agent. For instance, among African American adolescents, frequent music video viewing was associated with more traditional gender role attitudes (Ward et al., 2005).
Vocation/education
In two studies, scholars focused on education and career through an exploration of the relationship between aspects of gender with vocational and educational outcomes. Gushue and Whitson (2006) examined gender role attitudes and ethnic identity as predictors of career-self efficacy, as well as gender-traditional career goals among African American and Latina American ninth-grade girls. Researchers found that higher levels of ethnic identity and more egalitarian gender role attitudes were directly correlated with girls’ career self-efficacy and openness to nontraditional career paths. In a similar vein, Eisele et al. (2009) identified gender identity as a mediator in the relationship between one’s biological sex and perceptions of peer acceptance, a psychosocial outcome which subsequently contributed to enhanced feelings of school connectedness and academic achievement among African American middle school students.
Sample Characteristics
Across the reviewed studies, the samples varied in terms of size, age, gender, ethnicity, and type (see Table 2). Sample sizes ranged from 17 to 3,000 participants (Median = 162). The mean age of participants was 26.17 years (range = 9-91 years), thus reflecting the wide diversity of samples, including youth and adults, couples, and families. Samples were recruited from grade schools (18%), colleges (30%), community (39%), and mixed (13%) settings.
Sample Characteristics Across Studies.
Racial and ethnic group labels (e.g., Black or African American) used in the table are based on the language used to denote racial and ethnic groups in each respective article.
In terms of race, a majority (70%) of the reviewed studies focused solely on African American populations, whereas others included ethnically diverse samples. Among studies on African Americans (n = 39), only six detailed variations in ethnicity (e.g., Afro-Latino, Caribbean, and African). Approximately 46% of the articles reviewed included samples of only African American women, 23% focused on African American men, and 31% had samples of both women and men. There were no identified studies with an explicit reference to samples of African Americans self-identifying as gender nonconforming or transgender.
Types of Research Methods
A variety of methods were used to explore gender roles among African Americans. Quantitative methods were by far the most common (n = 43), followed by qualitative (n = 8), and then mixed methods (n = 5). Each methodological approach is described below.
Quantitative
Two broad types of studies were considered quantitative: traditional quantitative (correlational and experimental) and psychometric (scale development or validation). There were 30 traditional and 13 psychometric studies.
Among the correlational studies, scholars explored gender roles and attitudes in relation to mental health or other social identities. Gender role attitudes were also tested as a moderator influencing the relationship between forms of stress and mental wellness (e.g., Cooper et al., 2011; Rederstorff et al., 2007; Riina & McHale, 2010). In one study, researchers explored how factors, such as media usage, informed gender roles (Ward et al., 2005). There were two experimental studies (Jackson, 1982; Smith & Craig-Henderson, 2010) in which gender role attitudes were examined after manipulation.
The first set of psychometric studies, consisting of seven studies, focused on the development of culturally based gender role attitudes and gendered racism measures (Belgrave et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2017; Doss & Hopkins, 1998; Hewitt, 2013; Lewis & Neville, 2015; Schwing et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2004). Among the studies aimed at creating culturally relevant instruments of gender role attitudes among African American men and women, the works of Hewitt (2013) and Belgrave et al. (2015) are notable because of their attention to cultural validity. The authors created scales using an inductive methodological approach (i.e., using focus group data from African Americans) to generate items. Studies using deductive methods (i.e., creating items based on the existing literature) also led to the development of culturally relevant scales (Doss & Hopkins, 1998; Thomas et al., 2004). Although all studies articulated a clear methodological approach, adherence to best practices in scale development was at best varied. The only study in which the steps of scale development were clearly stated was conducted by Belgrave et al. (2015). In this study, the researchers described how they created the survey items, analyzed the survey structure (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis), and planned to pursue convergent and discriminant testing.
Two studies presented scales assessing gendered racial oppression among African Americans (Lewis & Neville, 2015; Schwing et al., 2013)—one specific to women and another specific to men, respectively. Of these studies, the work of Lewis and Neville (2015) was notable as they employed an inductive approach to item development, ensuring their cultural relevance, then tested items using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Moreover, items were tested on a large community sample, thereby enhancing their generalizability. Each culturally specific scale demonstrated good reliability and validity with African Americans.
Within the second set of psychometric studies, researchers explored the properties of widely used instruments in the literature, including the SRES (Beere et al., 1984; King & King, 1990), GRCS (O’Neil et al., 1986), BSRI (Bem, 1974), and CPAQ (Hall & Halberstadt, 1980), among samples of African American adults and youth. McGhee et al. confirmed the validity of the SRES (BB and KK forms) by comparing scores derived from a sample of African Americans to the norming sample. A similar methodological approach was employed in Thomson and Zand’s (2005) assessment of the CPAQ and Norwalk et al.’s (2011) review of the GRCS. Distinctly, Berkel (2004) demonstrated the validity of the SRES-KK by comparing the scale’s psychometric properties between samples of African Americans and European Americans. A similar method was also used by Harris (1994) in the confirmation of the validity and reliability of the BSRI. Finally, Konrad and Harris (2002) explored the desirability of BSRI items across ethnic groups.
Qualitative
In this set of eight studies, researchers collected data using interviews, focus groups, and written responses (Abrams et al., 2016; Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hill, 2002; Johnson, 2013; Settles et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2013). A variety of approaches were used to analyze these data, including grounded theory, ethnography, and thematic analysis. Although five studies included samples of less than 40 participants, as is typical of qualitative research, samples from two other studies ranged from 60 to 90 individuals (Abrams et al., 2016; Griffith & Cornish, 2018), and one study had a sample of over 150 (Hammond & Mattis, 2005). In the study with the largest sample, African American men were simply asked, “What does manhood mean to you?” The researchers completed a content analysis of men’s responses using an open-coding method; this analysis resulted in the identification of 15 categories of manhood meaning.
Mixed
Within mixed-method studies, scholars collected and analyzed both quantitative and qualitative data (Hunter & Davis 1992; M. K. Jones & Day, 2017; Roberts-Douglass & Curtis-Boles, 2013; Settles, 2006; Thomas & King, 2007). In four studies, researchers generated conclusions based on responses to Likert-type items and open-ended questions (e.g., “What do you think it means to be a man?” Hunter & Davis, 1992), and in one study, scholars included an interview and Likert-type items (Roberts-Douglass & Curtis-Boles, 2013). In only one of the aforesaid studies (M. K. Jones & Day, 2017) did the researchers articulate a specific mixed-method research design (Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska, & Creswell, 2005), which was a notable limitation of this set of studies. Despite this limitation, mixed-method studies highlighted how African Americans qualitatively described gender roles for themselves and elucidated these findings with statistical results. Scholars who utilized mixed methodology uniquely extended gender roles research by applying a phenomenological approach to the exploration of this construct, while maintaining empirical rigor.
Publication Trends
Our 36-year analysis revealed several publication trends. After the initial publication of three studies on gender roles among African Americans in 1981 (i.e., Millham & Smith, 1981) and 1982 (i.e., Jackson, 1982; Zeff, 1982), there were no articles published on African American gender roles until 1990. Since that time, less than one article per year (M = 0.64) has been published on the topic. Relevant articles were most frequently published in the years 2005 (n = 4), 2006 (n = 4), and 2013 (n = 5). Of note is the drastic difference in the average publication rate when scholarly contributions from the first half of our review (1981-1998; M = 0.77) are compared with the latter half (1999 and 2017; M = 2.33).
Publications focused on gender roles among African Americans were strongly represented in Sex Roles (n = 17), Psychology of Men and Masculinity (n = 7), and Journal of Black Psychology (n = 6). Scholars commonly contributing to this body of discourse were Allen C. Harris, Andrea G. Hunter, Tamara R. Buckley, Isis Settles, and Anita Thomas. Harris independently authored two articles, whereas Hunter coauthored two scholarly pieces. Buckley published both an independent and collaborative article, and Settles served as sole author on one article and coauthored two articles. Thomas is most frequently cited with four coauthored articles related to this topic, all of which she was first author.
Discussion
We conducted a content analysis of psychological research concentrated on gender roles among African Americans. Study findings in terms of content, samples, types of research methods, and publication trends were summarized in the aforementioned sections. Accordingly, we next present our interpretations of these findings, note study limitations, and identify areas for future research. Moreover, our conclusions will be extended in terms of their implications, particularly for the field of Black psychology.
The 56 studies included in the current review were categorized into one of five content areas: Self-Concept and Social Identity, Scale Development and Validation, Personality, Family and Gender Role Socialization, and Education/Vocation. Across Self-Concept and Social Identity studies, African Americans were found to be less sex-typed than other racial or ethnic groups (De Leon, 1993; Harris, 1996; Millham & Smith, 1981). Taken together, these studies suggest that the balancing of gender roles may be heavily weighted on African American women’s tendency to endorse masculine traits (De Leon, 1993; Harris, 1996), traditional masculine ideologies (Levant et al., 1998), and androgyny (Binion, 1990; Zeff, 1982), more so than men’s endorsement of femininity. However, and as importantly, support for feminist ideology tends to be endorsed by both genders (Cole & Zucker, 2007; Hunter & Sellers, 1998).
Studies within the Self-Concept and Social Identity content area also highlighted how the ways African Americans perceive gender roles may be influenced by their race. The quantitative studies on this topic primarily focused on African American men. Researchers asserted that as men learned about their race they also learned about their gender, thus explaining the evidenced positive association between ethnic identity and traditional masculine ideology (Abreu et al., 2000). Additionally, scholars noted that African American men were challenged with reconciling their manhood with Eurocentric ideals, thereby contributing to the potential for gender role conflict or ambivalence (McDermott & Schwartz, 2013; Wade, 1996).
Relatedly, the propagation of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Shields, 2008) throughout psychology has contributed to a growing body of qualitative research focused on what it means to be an African American man or woman, and in so doing honoring the interplay of race and gender. Previous research studies indicated that African American womanhood is characterized by pride, self-determination, self-sacrifice, and achievement (Abrams et al., 2016; Settles, 2006; Settles et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2011); African American manhood is associated with similar characteristics, as well as responsibility and spirituality (Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992). Although African American men’s adoption of these characteristics may be related to modeling a present father figure (Mandara et al., 2005; Roberts-Douglass & Curtis-Boles, 2013), studies indicated much more effort is placed on teaching African American girls how to uphold the aforesaid intersectional gendered-racial ideals (Hill, 2002; Johnson, 2013; Thomas & King, 2007). Beyond parents, the media also affect the gender ideals for both girls and boys (Ward et al., 2005).
The ways African American men and women understand their gender undeniably informs how they interpret and engage with the world. This finding was evidenced throughout the analysis, specifically in Personality, Family and Gender Role Socialization, and Education/Vocation content areas. Overall, less traditional gender role attitudes and/or androgyny were associated with mental wellness (Buckley, 2017; Buckley & Carter, 2005; Littlefield, 2004; Napholz, 1994; Palapattu et al., 2006; Rederstorff et al., 2007), enhanced relationship quality (Riina & McHale, 2010; Stanik & Bryant, 2012), as well as positive vocational and educational outcomes (Eisele et al., 2009; Gushue & Whitson, 2006). We attest this pattern may persist because nontraditional gender roles closely align with African Americans’ self-ascribed gender conceptualizations (Abrams et al., 2016; Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Hammond & Mattis, 2005; Hunter & Davis, 1992; M. K. Jones & Day, 2017; Settles, 2006; Settles et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2011), thereby contributing to identity fidelity and subsequently psychological wellness. Moreover, adopting a more flexible gender role orientation may facilitate African Americans’ survival and well-being in a society in which they are marginalized. A marked example of this is African American women’s essential roles in both the home and the workplace (J. Jones, 2009).
Based on the current review, gendered phenomena have a significant impact on indices of wellness for African American men and women. Despite this fact, we did not locate any literature detailing how gender roles affect clinical practice, nor how to support individuals in the adoption of adaptive gender role attitudes. Thus, clinical practice was a necessary, but missing content area within our analysis. We encourage researchers to examine the effectiveness of interventions such as, parent workshops, couples counseling, and/or gender-specific therapy groups, in shifting maladaptive gender role beliefs, and detail these interventions in clinical case studies or practice-oriented manuscripts.
In reviewing studies within the Scale Development and Validation area, we acknowledge the importance of cross-validating existing gender-related instruments. However, our analysis suggested that the utility of these scales may be limited due to the fact that African Americans tend to disidentify with the “traditional” gender role binary and have their own distinct understanding of gender. To that end, we encourage the use of culturally relevant gender-focused instruments (e.g., Belgrave et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2017; Lewis & Neville, 2015; Schwing et al., 2013).
In terms of the sample characteristics across the studies reviewed, African American adults were more heavily represented than youth in the extant literature, thereby indicating the potential need for future research concentrated on African American youth. On the other hand, we found the breakdown of studies by gender to be satisfactory. We acknowledge the necessity of studies comparing gender roles among African Americans with members of other races and ethnicities, but were impressed by the percentage of studies (70%) that solely focused on African Americans. These studies challenge Eurocentric standards as the “status quo” and highlight the distinctiveness of gender roles among African Americans. At the same time, research on African Americans can be further enhanced with increased attention to within group differences in ethnicity and other sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., social class).
Methodologically, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods were used. Quantitative studies exploring gender and associated correlates used common measures such as the BSRI (Bem, 1974), SRES (Beere et al., 1984; King & King, 1990), GRCS (O’Neil et al., 1986), and CPAQ (Hall & Halberstadt, 1980). While the BSRI and SRES were found to be generally appropriate for use with African Americans (Berkel, 2004; Harris, 1994; Konrad & Harris, 2002; McGhee et al., 2001), the utility of the GRCS and CPAQ appeared questionable as each was found to have demonstrated concerns with validity and reliability (Norwalk et al., 2011; Thomson & Zand, 2005). Therefore, there is a need for culturally relevant and reliable measures of gender roles among African Americans. The current analysis shows that scholars have just begun to address this gap. Despite the limited availability of culturally relevant gender roles measures, quantitative studies were primarily represented in the current review. The abundance of quantitative studies is demonstrative of the field’s historical tendency to question the rigor and contributions of qualitative research (Kidd, 2002). Paradoxically, efforts to attain scientific rigor have contributed to the use of measures that are statistically valid (e.g., BSRI), but not necessarily culturally valid for African Americans.
Across qualitative studies, researchers explored gendered racial socialization and gendered racial identity. Qualitative data were more frequently derived from written responses to open-ended questions, in comparison with interviews. No matter the data type, we recognize the power of qualitative research in terms of giving voice to the experiences of African Americans. Although qualitative findings were profound in terms of advancing the understanding of intersectional identity and identity politics, there were no follow up studies. Subsequent work, particularly interviews further expounding on written responses or psychometric studies aimed at capturing previously explored phenomena, would increase researchers’ understanding and ability to examine concepts more broadly.
Mixed-method research provided an avenue to unearth underexplored concepts, while also retaining empirical rigor. Despite the promise of this methodological approach, we only identified five mixed-method studies. Only one of these studies articulated a mixed-method research design, which represents a crucial area for improvement in future research. We recommend that transformative designs (Hanson et al., 2005) be considered as they incorporate a social advocacy lens in the study purpose, questions, and implications.
With regard to the publication of African American gender roles research, we observed that, on average, less than one article per year has been published in the past 36 years. Given that these studies were aligned with its mission to advance scholarship related to “how gender organizes people’s lives,” these articles were most frequently published in Sex Roles. Although publications were limited and disproportionately represented across journals emphasizing race and gender, we suspect that the growing popularity of intersectionality may contribute to a broadening of this topic across psychology domains, in particular Black psychology.
Implications of Findings
Based on the findings derived from the current content analysis, we have determined several clinical and research implications. The results of the current analysis provide evidence suggesting that culturally informed clinical work should consider the variant and flexible gender roles adopted by African Americans. That is, in psychotherapy, clinicians ought to have a more nuanced understanding of the multiple ways African Americans can embody gender and how this can either contribute to or help ameliorate mental health concerns. Moreover, in the context of therapy, mental health practitioners may consider supporting clients in exploring specific aspects of their gender role identity, gender role saliency, and gender role conflict, because these gendered constructs relate to psychological functioning (e.g., self-concept and social identity, personality, family, and education).
Our findings also point researchers toward developing more comprehensive, accurate, and inclusive scholarship about African Americans that incorporates the experiences at the intersection of gender and race. The identification of only 56 studies across 36 years suggests there is much to be explored in relation to this topic. Researchers should continue work in this area with an increasing focus on the experiences of gender nonconforming and transgender African Americans as such groups were not indicated in the current review. Qualitative or mixed-method studies that allow for a flexible interpretation of the data alongside minimal or no a priori hypotheses will be essential in establishing the foundation for research centered on these groups. Moreover, researchers may consider placing greater emphasis on understanding the gendered experiences of African American youth, particularly in the realms of family, education, and vocation. Along these lines, researchers may conduct longitudinal studies exploring whether gender role attitudes change over time, and if such changes have implications in terms youth’s family life, education achievement, and vocational aspirations.
Limitations
Although our study contributes to the advancement of gender roles research among African Americans, our findings must be understood in consideration of several limitations. We attempted to capture all the empirical psychological studies concentrated on this topic, yet understand that it is possible that we may not have identified all the relevant research. Analyzing only peer-reviewed articles, and excluding books and other publications, is a second limitation that may have restricted the robustness of this analysis. Extending our analysis to include scholarship from other disciplines, such as Black and African American studies, and additional forms of scholarship may have also expanded our scope of findings. Finally, we were unable to locate published articles concentrated on transgender or gender nonconforming/diverse individuals. This difficulty may be representative of the cisgender bias that continues to permeate gendered-related theories and research.
Conclusion
The current study contributes rich information about the status of gender roles research among African Americans and illuminates avenues for future research, which were outlined in the aforesaid sections. Therefore, we would like to conclude with a few overarching reactions to our analysis, specifically as it relates to the field of Black psychology. First, we observed the need to incorporate an intersectional paradigm (Shields, 2008) in gender roles research. Although intersectionality emerged within legal and feminist studies (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), thus explaining the strong representation of articles from Sex Roles in the current analysis, we encourage an increasing intersectional emphasis within Black psychology. This would not only include an investigation of Blackness but also create space for the advancement of scholarship on the interplay between Blackness and other social identities. Second, it would be negligent to ignore the ways in which one’s African heritage and race profoundly influence how gender is conceptualized and expressed among African Americans. Accordingly, researchers must not only consider the interplay between gender and race but also discontinue the use of Eurocentric thought in favor of an African-centered epistemology—a “paradigm that privileges the life experiences, history, and traditions of people of African ancestry as the center of analyses” (Nobles, 2015, p. 404). This may mean scholars continually explore how African Americans conceptualize gender for themselves and limit studies investigating externally informed and stereotypical characterizations of their experience. Finally, scholars should continue to privilege the voice and perspectives of African Americans through the use of noncomparative research designs, which in turn highlight within group variations across this demographic. To conclude, we encourage researchers, particularly Black psychology scholars, to continue their culturally informed work on gender roles among African Americans, which will increase the breadth, cultural accuracy, and relevance of this body of scholarship.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author(s) would like to thank Ms. Caitlin Byrne for her support in the initial development of this project.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.