Sex Roles

, Volume 54, Issue 7–8, pp 459–467 | Cite as

The Social Roles Questionnaire: A New Approach to Measuring Attitudes Toward Gender

  • Kristine M. BaberEmail author
  • Corinna Jenkins Tucker
Original Paper


Innovative research is constrained by instruments that assume gender to be captured by dichotomous categories. This article presents the results of two studies that document the psychometric properties of the Social Roles Questionnaire (SRQ), a new measure of gender role attitudes. A social constructivist perspective guided the development of the instrument that was designed not only to capture the diversity in people’s thinking about social roles for men and women, but also to identify attitudes that transcend binary categories. The article details the process of assessing reliability and validity based on data from 414 undergraduates. Findings revealed the SRQ is reliable and valid and that women were more likely than men to endorse egalitarian and gender transcendent beliefs. Additional possible uses of the SRQ are discussed.


Gender Gender transcendent Social roles 



This research was funded in part by a Graduate School Summer Faculty Fellowship and by the Vice President of Research’s Discretionary Fund at the University of New Hampshire to the second author. We thank Elisa Hankenson, Rod Kovach, Karolynn Mandalone, Stacey Pieczarka, Danielle Pupa, and Elizabeth Ryan for their help in conducting this investigation. Partial results of these studies were presented at the meetings of the National Council on Family Relations, Rochester, NY, November 2001, and Houston, TX, November 2002. Both authors contributed equally to the study.


  1. Antill, J. K., Cotton, S., Goodnow, J. J., & Russell, G. (1996). Measures of children’s sex typing in middle childhood II. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 35–44.Google Scholar
  2. Baber, K. M., & Monahan, P. (1988). College women’s career and motherhood expectations: New options, old dilemmas. Sex Roles, 19, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockting, W. O. (1999). From construction to context: Gender through the eyes of the transgendered. SIECUS Report, 28, 3–7.Google Scholar
  4. Bohan, J. S. (2002). Sex differences and/in the self: Classic themes, feminist variations, postmodern challenges. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Connell, R. W. (2000). Masculinities and globalization. In M. Baca Zinn, P. Hondagneu-Sotelo, & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Gender through the prism of difference (pp. 49–62). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Gordon, L. E., & Abbott, S. A. (2003). The social constructionist’s “essential” guide to sex. In R. Heasley & B. Crane (Eds.), Sexual lives (pp. 28–39). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Harding, J. (1998). Sex acts: Practices of femininity and masculinity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Hoffman, L. W., & Kloska, D. D. (1995). Parents’ gender-based attitudes toward marital roles and child rearing: Development and validation of new measures. Sex Roles, 32, 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In E. M. Hetherington & P. H. Mussen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 387–467). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Hy, L. X., & Loevinger, J. (1996). Measuring ego development (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Kessler, S., & McKenna, W. (2003). Who put the “trans” in transgender?: Gender theory and everyday life. In S. LaFont (Ed.), Constructing sexualities:Readings in sexuality, gender, and culture (pp. 223–236). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Kimmel, M. S. (2000). The gendered society. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1997). Sex-role Egalitarianism Scale: Development, psychometric properties, and recommendations for future research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirsch, M. H. (2000). Queer theory and social change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Lorber, J. (2001). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics. Los Angeles: Roxbury.Google Scholar
  19. Maurer, L. (1999). Transgressing sex and gender: Deconstruction zone ahead? SIECUS Report, 28, 14–21.Google Scholar
  20. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Patten, M. L. (1997). Understanding research methods. Los Angeles: Pyrczak.Google Scholar
  22. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality (5th ed., pp. 933–1016). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. I. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  26. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219–220.Google Scholar
  27. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the Attitudes toward Women and Modern Sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson, E. H., Pleck, J. H., & Ferrera, D. L. (1992). Men and masculinities: Scales for masculinity ideology and masculinity-related constructs. Sex Roles, 27, 573–607.Google Scholar
  30. Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women 1970–1995: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Family StudiesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations