Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 76, Issue 9–10, pp 556–565 | Cite as

Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

  • Kristin DonnellyEmail author
  • Jean M. Twenge
Original Article

Abstract

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.

Keywords

Change over time Sex roles Femininity Masculinity Androgyny 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11199_2016_625_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (24 kb)
Appendix A (PDF 24 kb)
11199_2016_625_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (44 kb)
Appendix B (PDF 43 kb)

References

  1. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Ammot, T., & Matthaei, J. (1991). Race, gender, and work: A multicultural economic history of women in the U.S (1st ed.). Portland: Black Rose Books.Google Scholar
  3. Basow, S. (1992). Gender: Stereotypes and roles (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  4. Beere, C. A. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. (1974). The psychological measurement of androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. doi: 10.1037/0033295X.88.4.354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. Signs, 8(4), 598–616. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bem, S. L. (1996). Transforming the debate on sexual inequality: From biological difference to institutionalized androcentrism. In J. C. Chrisler, C. Golden, & P. D. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (pp. 9–21). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1016–1023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1254–1270. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach (No. 16). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1988). Class identification of men and women in the 1970s and 1980s. American Sociological Review, 53(1), 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donnelly, K., Twenge, J. M., Clark, M. A., Shaikh, S., Beiler-May, A., & Carter, N. T. (2015). Attitudes toward women’s work and family roles in the United States, 1976–2013. Psychology of Women Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0361684315590774. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  16. Douglas, S. (2010). Enlightened sexism: The seductive message that feminism’s work is done (1st ed.). New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  17. Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). The American freshman: National norms fall 2014. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 52, 1380–1383. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1380.b. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Oxford, UK: Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Flaherty, J., & Dusek, J. (1980). An investigation of the relationship between psychological androgyny and component of self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 984–992. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fluck, W. (2004). The Americanization of German culture? The strange, paradoxical ways of modernity. In A. C. Mueller (Ed.), German pop culture: How ‘American’ is it? (pp. 19–39). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  25. Foels, R., & Pappas, C. J. (2004). Learning and unlearning the myths we are taught: Gender and social dominance orientation. Sex Roles, 50(11-12), 743–757. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000029094.25107.d6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garai, J. E., & Scheinfeld, A. (1968). Sex differences in mental and behavioral traits. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 77(2), 169–299.Google Scholar
  27. Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gill, R. (2007). Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10, 147–166. doi: 10.1177/1367549407075898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green, B. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (1994). The attractiveness of gender-typed traits at different relationship levels: Androgynous characteristics may be desirable after all. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 244–253. doi: 10.1177/0146167294203002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heilbrun, A. B., Jr., & Schwartz, H. L. (1982). Sex-gender differences in level of androgyny. Sex Roles, 8(2), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Helgeson, V. S. (2015). Gender and personality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, L. M. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Personality processes and individual differences, Vol. 4, pp. 515–534). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14343-000.Google Scholar
  32. Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39(11-12), 929–941. doi: 10.1023/A:1018836923919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones, S., Johnson‐Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Pérez, F. S. (2009). US college students’ Internet use: Race, gender and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 244–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01439.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 180–198. doi: 10.1177/1088868310377395.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Levy, A. (2006). Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture (1st ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Livingston, G. (2014, June 5). Growing number of dads home with the kids: Biggest increase among those caring for family. Retrieved from Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewresearch.org.
  37. Lopez, M., & Gonzalez-Barrara, A. (2014, March 6). Women’s college enrollment gains leave men behind. Retrieved from Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewresearch.org.
  38. McDowell, L. (2012). Post-crisis, post-Ford and post-gender? Youth identities in an era of austerity. Journal of Youth Studies, 15, 573–590. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2012.671933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(1), 13–29. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00049-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Heron, C. A., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1990). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations, gender identity, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 134–143. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Parker, J. D., Taylor, R. N., Eastabrook, J. M., Schell, S. L., & Wood, L. M. (2008). Problem gambling in adolescence: Relationships with internet misuse, gaming abuse and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(2), 174–180. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pierce, J. R., & Schott, P. K. (2012). The surprisingly swift decline of US manufacturing employment (No. w18655). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/89626/1/cesifo_wp4563.pdf.
  43. Prather, J. (1971). Why can’t women be more like men: A summary of the sociopsychological factors hindering women’s advancement in the professions. The American Behavioral Scientist (pre-1986), 15(2), 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schein, V. E. (1976). Think manager—think male. Atlanta Economic Review, 26, 21–24.Google Scholar
  45. Sifferlin, A. (2014, May 12). Women keep having kids later and later. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://time.com/95315/women-keep-having-kids-later-and-later/.
  46. Smolak, L., Murnen, S. K., & Myers, T. A. (2014). Sexualizing the self what college women and men think about and do to be “sexy”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 379–397. doi: 10.1177/0361684314524168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strough, J., Leszczynski, J., Neely, T., Flinn, J., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles, 57(5-6), 385–396. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9282-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Twenge, J. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36(5-6), 305–325. doi: 10.1007/BF02766650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2010). Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college students, 1982–2009. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 99–106. doi: 10.1177/1948550609355719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Twenge, J. M., & Im, C. (2007). Changes in the need for social approval, 1958–2001. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 171–189. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross‐temporal meta‐analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76, 875–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2012). Generational increases in agentic self-evaluations among American college students, 1966–2009. Self and Identity, 11, 409–427. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2011.576820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. U.S. Census. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed.html.
  55. Wainer, H. (1976). Robust statistics: A survey and some prescriptions. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 285–312. doi: 10.3102/10769986001004285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Watson, P. J., Grisham, S. O., Trotter, M. V., & Biderman, M. D. (1984). Narcissism and empathy: Validity evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 301–305. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations