Development of Gender Role Self-Concept Scales: Femininity and Masculinity in the Context of Gender Role Traits and Behaviors

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1, 248 - 277, 25.03.2025

Betül Altuğ , Timuçin Aktan

https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.1590342

Öz

The aim of the study was to develop contemporary scales to measure the gender role self-concept containing personality traits and behavioral tendencies. In the first study (n=280), gender stereotypes of personality traits and behaviors were examined for item selection. In the second study (n=402), the selected items were used to assess gender self-concept. For criterion validity, sexism, gender identification, and core gender identity were measured. The findings indicated that stereotypes and self-concept regarding gender role traits and behaviors exhibit a similar construct. Women were found to adopt feminine traits and behaviors more strongly, whereas men were more likely to embrace masculine traits and behaviors. Sexism was found to be associated with the adoption of positive gender role traits. Core gender identity showed a stronger relationship with gender role self-concept in women, while gender identification was more strongly related in men. The results demonstrated that the developed gender role self-concept scales are valid and reliable.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gender Role Self-Concept, Femininity, Masculinity

Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rolü Benlik Kavramı Ölçekleri Geliştirme Çalışması: Cinsiyet Rolü Özellikleri ve Davranışlarında Kadınsılık ve Erkeksilik

Öz

Bu çalışmada toplumsal cinsiyet rolü benlik kavramını kişilik özellikleri ve davranış yönelimleri açısından ölçen güncel ölçekler geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Birinci çalışmada (n=280) kişilik özellikleri ve davranışlara ilgili cinsiyet kalıpyargıları incelenerek madde seçimi yapılmıştır. İkinci çalışmada (n=402) seçilen maddelerle benlik kavramı ölçülmüştür. Kriter geçerliliği için cinsiyetçilik, cinsiyetle kimliklenme ve çekirdek cinsiyet kimliği ölçülmüştür. Bulgular, cinsiyet rolü özellikleri ve davranışlarına yönelik kalıpyargıların ve benlik kavramının benzer bir yapı sergilediğini göstermiştir. Kadınların kadınsı, erkeklerin ise erkeksi özellik ve davranışları daha fazla benimsediği bulunmuştur. Cinsiyetçiliğin olumlu cinsiyet rolü özelliklerini benimsemeyle ilişkili olduğu görülmüştür. Kadınlarda çekirdek cinsiyet kimliğinin, erkeklerde ise cinsiyetle kimliklenmenin cinsiyet rolü benlik kavramıyla daha güçlü ilişkisi olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar, geliştirilen toplumsal cinsiyet rolü benlik kavramı ölçeklerinin geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rolü Benlik Kavramı, Kadınsılık, Erkeksilik

Kaynakça

• Aktan, T. ve Yalçındağ, B. (2022). Çelişik Duygulu Cinsiyetçilik Ölçeğinin (ÇDCÖ) yeniden gözden geçirilmesi: Korumacı cinsiyetçiliğin yapı geçerliliği ve ÇDCÖ'nün ölçüm değişmezliği. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 42(1), 199-230. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-820401
• Aktan, T., & Yalçındağ, B. (2024). Experiences of ambivalent sexism in Turkey: Validation of the Experiences with Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Experiences With Benevolent Sexism. Scale. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 90(12), 1937–1957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01535-5
• Athenstaedt, U. (1999). Geschlechtsrollenidentität als mehrfaktorielles Konzept. Alfermann, D. ve Bock U. (Ed.) In Querelles (s. 183-199). JB Metzler.
• Athenstaedt, U. (2003). On the content and structure of the gender role self-concept: Including gender-stereotypical behaviors in addition to traits. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(4), 309-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00111
• Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Rand Mcnally.
• Bassoff, E. S. ve Glass, G. V. (1982). The relationship between sex roles and mental health: A recta-analysis of twenty-six studies. Counseling Psychologist, 10(4), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000082104019
• Bell, A. C. ve Burkley, M. (2014). “Women like me are bad at math”: The Psychological functions of negative self‐stereotyping. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12), 708-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12145
• Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
• Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(2), 196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196
• Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory: Professional manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Bem, S. L. ve Lewis, S. A. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 634. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077098
• Berger, A. ve Krahé, B. (2013). Negative attributes are gendered too: Conceptualizing and measuring positive and negative facets of sex‐role identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(6), 516-531. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1970
• Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. ve Mair, P. (2018). Applied multidimensional scaling and unfolding (2. Baskı). Springer
• Bugay, A., Delevi, R., & Mullet, E. (2021). Attitude toward women in Turkey: Combined effect of sex, place, and culture. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3284–3292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00273-2
• Choi, N. ve Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 872-887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258235
• Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80(5), 389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035334
• Costa Jr, P. T., Terracciano, A. ve McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322
• Cuddy, A. J., Wolf, E. B., Glick, P., Crotty, S., Chong, J. ve Norton, M. I. (2015). Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4), 622. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000027
• de Lemus, S., Moya, M. ve Glick, P. (2010). When contact correlates with prejudice: Adolescents’ romantic relationship experience predicts greater benevolent sexism in boys and hostile sexism in girls. Sex Roles, 3(63), 214-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9786-2
• Demirtaş-Madran, H. A. (2016). Genişletilmiş Kişisel Yüklemeler Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 17(1), 60-68. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.197511
• Ding, C. S. (2018). Fundamentals of Applied Multidimensional Scaling for Educational and Psychological Research. Springer.
• Diamond, M. (2002). Sex and gender are different: Sexual identity and gender identity are different. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7(3), 320-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104502007003002
• Donnelly, K. ve Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 9(76), 556-565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y
• Dökmen, Z. (1991). Bem Cinsiyet Rolü Envanterinin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 81-87. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2152936
• Dökmen, Z. Y. (1999). Bem Cinsiyet Rolü Envanteri kadınsılık ve erkeksilik ölçekleri Türkçe formunun psikometrik özellikleri. Kriz Dergisi, 7(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1501/Kriz_0000000139
• Dziuban, C. D. ve Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316
• Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M. ve Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494
• Egan, S. K. ve Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: a multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451
• Fischer, F. B., Becker, J. C., Kito, M., & Zamantılı Nayır, D. (2017). Collective action against sexism in Germany, Turkey, and Japan: The influence of self-construal and face concerns. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216683533
• Glick, P. ve Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
• Glick, P. ve Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justification. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
• Grimmell, D. ve Stern, G. S. (1992). The relationship between gender role ideals and psychological well-being. Sex Roles, 27(9), 487-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290005
• Haines, E. L., Deaux, K. ve Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing… or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316634081
• Hoffman, R. M. ve Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2001.12069021
• Hopkins‐Doyle, A., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M. ve Calogero, R. M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135
• İmamoğlu, E. O. (2003). Individuation and relatedness: Not opposing but distinct and complementary. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 129(4), 367-402.
• İmamoğlu, E. O., & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (1999). Value preferences from 1970s to 1990s: Cohort, generation and gender differences at a Turkish university. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14(44), 1–22.
• Joel, D., Tarrasch, R., Berman, Z., Mukamel, M. ve Ziv, E. (2014). Queering gender: Studying gender identity in ‘normative’ individuals. Psychology & Sexuality, 5(4), 291-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2013.830640
• Kachel, S., Steffens, M. C. ve Niedlich, C. (2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: Validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(2), 956. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956
• Kağıtçıbaşı, C., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology, 54(3), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00213.x
• Kandiyoti, D. (1978). Kadınlarda psiko-sosyal değişim boyutları cinsiyetler ve kuşaklar arasında bir karşılaştırma [Yayımlanmamış Doçentlik Tezi]. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
• Kavuncu N (1987) Bem Cinsiyet Rolü Envanterinin Türk toplumuna uyarlama çalışması [Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
• Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 1000-1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1000
• Lippa, R. ve Connelly, S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 1051-1065. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1051
• Orlofsky, J. L. (1981). Relationship between sex-role attitudes and personality traits and the Sex-Role Behavior Scale-I: A new measure of masculine and feminine role behaviors and interests. Journal qf Personality, and Social Psychology, 40(5), 927-940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.5.927
• Orlofsky, J. L. ve O'Heron, C. A. (1987). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations: Implications for personal adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 1034-1042. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.1034
• Orlofsky, J. L., Ramsden, M. W. ve Cohen, R. S. (1982). Development of the Revised Sex-Role Behavior Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(6), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4606_13
• Özkan, T. ve Lajunen, T. (2005). Masculinity, femininity, and the Bem Sex Role Inventory in Turkey. Sex Roles, 52(1), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1197-4
• Pedhazur, E. J. ve Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bern Sex Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 996-1016. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.996 Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. MIT Press.
• Rudman, L. A., Feinberg, J. ve Fairchild, K. (2002). Minority members’ implicit attitudes: Automatic ingroup bias as a function of group status. Social Cognition, 20(4), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.20.4.294.19908
• Sakallı, N. ve Demir, Ş. (2023). Geleneksel erkeksilik - kadınsılık ölçeği. Yayına hazırlanıyor.
• Sakallı, N. ve Türkoğlu, B. (2019). “Erkek” olmak ya da olmamak: Sosyal psikolojik açıdan erkeksilik/erkeklik çalışmaları. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 22(44), 52-76. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpy1301996120190516m000014
• Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2002). Çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17(49), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpd13004433
• Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysisand critique of current research. Progress In Experimental Personality Research, 13, 1–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-541413-5.50006-1
• Spence, J. T. ve Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes what do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(1), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x
• Spence, J. T. ve Helmreich, R. L. (1981). Androgyny versus gender schema: A comment on Bem's gender schema theory. Psychological Review, 88(4), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.365
• Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L. ve Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1673-1682. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.37.10.1631
• Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. ve Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076857
• Taylor, M. C. ve Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 347-366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.347
• Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36(5), 305-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766650
• Van De Vijver, F. J. (2007). Cultural and gender differences in gender-role beliefs, sharing household task and child-care responsibilities, and well-being among immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands. Sex Roles, 57(11-12), 813-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9316-z
• Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M. ve Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
• Ventura, K. (2012). Sanal marka topluluklarında topluluk üyelerinin marka ile özdeşleşme düzeylerinin öncülleri ve sonuçları: Yapısal bir model önerisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 19(2), 197-217.
• Wood, W. ve Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73(11), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2
• Wood, W. ve Eagly, A.H. (2010). Gender. S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert ve G. Lindzey (Ed), Handbook of social psychology (Cilt 1, 5. Baskı, s. 629–667). Wiley.