Sex Roles

, Volume 69, Issue 7–8, pp 455–468 | Cite as

Gender Role Attitudes of Female Students in Single-Sex and Coeducational High Schools in Istanbul

  • Ayse Burcin Erarslan
  • Bruce Rankin
Original Article


This study examines the relationship between school type and gender role attitudes among 295 female high school seniors attending four high schools, two single-sex and two coeducational. The schools are located in Istanbul, Turkey, where a recent proposal to establish a system of girls’ schools has sparked a lively public debate about the advantages of single-sex schooling as a means of addressing the problem of lower female educational attainment. The main research question is whether the gender composition of schools has an impact on gender role attitudes, which we operationalize as attitudes toward gender roles in three domains: Family life, work life, and social life. Statistical analysis based on multiple regression show that, net of family background characteristics, students attending single-sex schools have more egalitarian attitudes toward family life roles than coeducational students, but school type does not matter for work and social life role attitudes. The socioeconomic composition of schools is also important, with students attending schools in the high socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhood having more egalitarian views on gender roles in family and social life.


Gender role attitudes High school Single-sex schools Coeducation Socioeconomic background Neighborhoods Turkey 


  1. Acar, F., & Ayata, A. (2002). Discipline, success and stability: The reproduction of gender and class in Turkish secondary education. In D. Kandiyoti & A. Sektanber (Eds.), Fragments of culture: The everyday of modern Turkey (pp. 90–111). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Acar, F., Ayata A., & Varoglu D. (1999). Cinsiyete dayalı ayrımcılık: Türkiye'de eğitim sektörü örneği: Cinsiyete dayalı ayrımcılık ve kadın çalışanlara karşı tutumlar: Türkiye'de eğitim sektörü örneği. [Gender-based discrimination: An education sector example from Turkey: Gender-based discrimination and attitudes toward working women: Education sector example from Turkey]. Ankara: TC Başbakanlık Kadının Statüsü ve Sorunları Genel Müdürlüğü.Google Scholar
  3. Altunisik, M. B., & Tur, O. (2005). Turkey: Challenges of continuity and change. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
  4. Alwin, D., & Otto, L. B. (1977). High school context effects on aspirations. Sociology of Education, 50, 259–273. doi: 10.2307/2112499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amato, P. R. (1988). Parental divorce and attitudes toward marriage and family life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 453–461. doi: 10.2307/352010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antill, J. K., Cunningham, J. D., & Cotton, S. (2003). Gender-role attitudes in middle childhood: In what ways do parents influence their children? Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 148–153. doi: 10.1080/0004953042000298602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arditti, J., Godwin, D., & Scanzoni, J. (1991). Perceptions of parenting behavior and young women’s gender role traits and preferences. Sex Roles, 25, 195–211. doi: 10.1007/BF00289854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baber, K. M., & Tucker, C. J. (2006). The social roles questionnaire: A new approach to measuring attitudes toward gender. Sex Roles, 54, 459–467. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9018-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bigler, R. S., & Signorella, M. L. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65, 659–669. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0046-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjarnason, T., & Hjalmsdottir, A. (2008). Egalitarian attitudes towards the division of household labor among adolescents in Iceland. Sex Roles, 59, 49–60. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9428-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., Klebanov, P., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? American Journal of Sociology, 99, 353–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brutsaert, H. (1999). Coeducation and gender identity formation: A comparative analysis of secondary schools in Belgium. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 343–355. doi: 10.1080/01425699995308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brutsaert, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2002). Girls’ and boys’ sense of belonging in single-sex versus co-educational schools. Research in Education, 68, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health Education and Welfare Office of Education.Google Scholar
  15. Connell, R. W. (1994). Gender regimes and the general order. In Polity (Ed.), The polity reader in gender studies (pp. 29–40). Oxford: Polity Press & Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Corder, J., & Stephan, C. (1984). Females’ combination of work and family roles: Adolescent aspiration. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 391–402. doi: 10.2307/352471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crosby, F., Allen, B., Culbertson, T., Wally, C., Morith, J., Hall, R., et al. (1994). Taking selectivity into account, how much does gender composition matter? A reanalysis of M.E. Tidball’s research. NWSA Journal, 6, 107–118.Google Scholar
  18. Dale, R. R. (1971). Mixed or single-sex school? Some social aspects. Vol II. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Delamont, S. (1990). Sex roles and the school. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Dokmen, Z. Y. (2004). Toplumsal cinsiyet: Sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar. [Gender: Social psychological explanations]. Istanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Eccles, J., Jacobs, J., & Harold, R. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183–201. doi: 10.2307/352471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elwood, J., & Gipps, C. (1999). Review of research on the achievement of girls in single-sex schools. London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  24. Ermis, A. (2009). The incompatibility of Turkish women’s educational attainment and occupational participation. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1–25.Google Scholar
  25. Esmer, Y. (2011). Summary findings of the World Values Survey: Turkey. Retrieved from
  26. Francis, B., Hutchings, M., Aarcher, L., & Melling, L. (2003). Subject choice and occupational aspirations among pupils at girls’ schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(3), 425–442. doi: 10.1080/14681360300200182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Government Planning Institute & World Bank Report. (2009). Female labor force participation in Turkey: Trends, determinants and policy framework. (Report No. 48508). Retrieved from
  28. Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J., et al. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333, 1706–1707. doi: 10.1126/science.1205031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartman, K. (2010). The advantages of single-sex vs. coeducational environments for high school girls. Social Work Student Papers, 63, 1–38. Retrieved from Scholar
  30. Hayes, A. R., Pahlke, E. E., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). The efficacy of single-sex education: Testing for selection and peer quality effects. Sex Roles, 65, 693–703. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9903-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herzog, A. R., & Bachman, J. G. (1981). Sex-role attitudes among high school seniors: Views about work and family roles. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  32. Hughes, T. A. (2006). The advantages of single-sex education. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 23(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
  33. Hurriyet. (2004, March 12). Eğitim-Bir-Sen: Kız erkek ayrı okutulmalı [Educators Association Union: Girls and boys should be educated separately]. Retrieved from
  34. Hurriyet. (2010, August 6). Milli Eğitim’den bir tuhaf öneri [A weird suggestion from the Ministry of Education]. Retrieved from
  35. Jackson, D. W., & Tein, J. (1998). Adolescents’ conceptualization of adult roles: Relationships with age, gender, work goal, and maternal employment. Sex Roles, 38, 987–1008. doi: 10.1023/A:1018826626335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jan, C. T. G. M. E., & Janssens, M. A. M. (1998). Maternal influences on daughters’ gender role attitudes. Sex Roles, 38, 171–186. doi: 10.1023/A:1018776931419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jung, D., & Piccoli, W. (2001). Turkey at the crossroads. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  38. Kagitcibasi, C. (1998). Türkiye’de kadının statüsü: Kültürlerarası perspektifler [Women’s status in Turkey: Cross-cultural perspectives]. In A. Berktay (Ed.), 75 Yılda Kadınlar ve Erkekler (pp. 143–154). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.Google Scholar
  39. Karpiak, C. P., Buchanan, J. P., Hosey, M., & Smith, A. (2007). University students from single-sex and coeducational schools: Differences in majors and attitudes at a Catholic university. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 282–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00371.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Katsurada, E., & Sugihara, Y. (2002). Gender-role identity, attitudes toward marriage, and gender-segregated school backgrounds. Sex Roles, 47, 249–258. doi: 10.1023/A:1021334710431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kiecolt, J. K., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The long-term effects of family structure on gender-role attitudes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 709–717. doi: 10.2307/352640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kirrane, M., & Monks, K. (2008). Attitudes towards managing the work-family interface: The role of gender and social background. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 8(1), 70–89.Google Scholar
  43. Kiziltas, E. (2012, March 23). Kız ve erkek liseleri; neden olmasın? [Girls’ and boys’ schools; why not?] Retrieved from
  44. Koca, C., Asci, F. H., & Demirhan, G. (2005). Attitudes toward physical education and class preferences of Turkish adolescents in terms of school gender composition. Adolescence, 40, 365–375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Krivickas, K. M., & Sanches, L. A. (2008). Taking a covenant to pick up his socks: Gender-traditional marriage and depression among newlywed wives and husbands. The Center for Family and Demographic Research Working Paper Series. Retrieved from
  46. Kulik, L. (2002). The impact of social background on gender-role ideology: Parents’ versus children’s attitudes. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 53–73. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/BF00292459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–385. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.5.381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, V. E., & Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 578–592. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee, V., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary school classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67, 92–120. doi: 10.2307/2112699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lindsey, L. L. (1994). Gender roles: A sociological perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  52. Lorber, J. (2007). The social construction of gender. In D. Grusky & S. Szelenyi (Eds.), The inequality reader (pp. 276–283). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  53. Mael, F. A. (1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. Review of Educational Research, 68, 101–129. doi: 10.3102/00346543068002101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Montt, G. (2012). Socioeconomic school composition effects on student outcomes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Notre Dame, Indiana.Google Scholar
  55. Ntvmsnbc. (2009, May 7). Kız okulu cinsiyetçi düzeni pekiştirir. [Girls’ schools reinforce gender order]. Retrieved from
  56. Phinney, J. S., & Flores, J. (2002). “Unpackaging” acculturation: Aspects of acculturation as predictors of traditional sex role attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 320–331. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033003007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Riordan, C. (2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 10–30). New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  58. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls? New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  59. Sara-Lafosse, V. (1992). Coeducational settings and educational and social outcomes in Peru. In N. P. Stromquist (Ed.), Women and education in Latin America: Knowledge, power, and change (pp. 87–105). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  60. Sax, L., Arms, E., Woodruff, M., Riggers, T., & Eagan K. (2009). Women graduates of single-sex and coeducational high schools: Differences in their characteristics and the transition to college. UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, 1–99. Retrieved from
  61. Signorella, M. L., Frieze, I. H., & Hershey, S. W. (1996). Single-sex versus mixed-sex classes and gender schemata in children and adolescents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 599–607. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00325.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smithers, A., & Robinson, P. (2006). The paradox of single-sex and co-educational schooling. Retrieved from
  63. Smyth, E. (2010). Single-sex education: What does research tell us? Revue française de pédagogie, 171, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. (1997). The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 17–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00098.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sterrett, J. E., & Bollman, S. R. (1970). Factors related to adolescents’ expectations of marital roles. The Family Coordinator, 19, 353–356. doi: 10.2307/582320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suzuki, A. (1991). Egalitarian sex role attitudes: Scale development and comparison of American and Japanese women. Sex Roles, 24, 245–259. doi: 10.1007/BF00288300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tan, M. G. (2007). Women, education and development in Turkey. In M. Carlson, A. Rabo, & F. Gok (Eds.), Education in ‘multicultural’ societies—Turkish and Swedish perspectives (Vol. 18, pp. 107–122). Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul.Google Scholar
  68. The Corporate Gender Gap Report. (2010). Retrieved from
  69. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2011). Labor force participation statistics April 2011. Retrieved from
  70. UNDP Human Development Report (2011). Sustainability and equity: A better future for all. Retrieved from
  71. Vail, K. (2002). Same-sex schools may still get a chance. American School Board Journal, 189, 32–35.Google Scholar
  72. Vatan. (2011, January 10). Lisede 45 cm yasağı! [45 cm ban in high school]. Retrieved from
  73. Vefikulucay, D., Zeyneloglu, S., Eroglu, K., & Taskin, L. (2007). Kafkas Üniversitesi son sınıf öğrencilerinin toplumsal cinsiyet rollerine ilişkin bakış açıları [Perceptions of and views on gender roles of senior students enrolled at Kafkas University]. Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 26–38.Google Scholar
  74. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Yilmaz, D. V., Zeyneloglu, S., Kocaoz, S., Kisa, S., Taskin, L., & Eroglu, K. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin toplumsal cinsiyet rollerine ilişkin görüşleri [Views on gender roles of university students]. Uluslararasi Insan Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 775–792.Google Scholar
  76. Zuckerman, D. (1981). Family background‚ sex role attitudes‚ and life goals of technical college and university students. Sex Roles, 7, 1109–1126. doi: 10.1007/BF00287588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKoç UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of SociologyKoç UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations