Conformity to feminine gender norms in the spanish population

Conformity to feminine gender norms in the spanish population

Maria Pilar Sánchez-lóPez, iSabel cuellar FloreS, Virginia DreSch, anD Marta aParicio-garciá

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

In this study, the aim was to describe the adaptation of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory (CFNI; Mahalik et al., 2005) for the Spanish population. The CFNI is used to assess women’s conformity to feminine norms in the United States of America, from a multidi-mensional perspective. The protocol of the International Test Commission was followed when adapting the inventory. The questionnaire was administered to 780 Spanish women between 18 and 59 years of age. Factor analysis revealed a similar profile to that obtained in the USA and, although it is different in some aspects, it supports the structure proposed by the authors. The reliability data (alpha coefficient of the total scale of .87) also confirm the validity of the CFNI for use in the Spanish population.

Keywords: femininity, gender roles, feminine norms, Spanish women.

Diverse current research (e.g., Mahalik et al., 2005; Mahalik, Burns, & Syzdek, 2007; Woo & Oei, 2006) has revealed the need to introduce gender into studies operationalized by means of an adequate measurement instrument, because

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2009, 37(9), 1171-1186© Society for Personality Research (Inc.)DOI 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.9.1171

1171

Maria Pilar Sánchez-López, PhD, Isabel Cuellar Flores, MSD, Virginia Dresch, PhD, and Marta Aparicio-Garciá, PhD, Facultad de Psicologia, Psychological Styles, Gender, and Health Research Group (EPSY), Campus de Somosaguas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.The authors would like to acknowledge the research funding provided by the Programa de Creación y Consolidación de Grupos de Investigación de la Comunidad, Autónoma de Madrid (CAM) [Program for Creation and Consolidation of Research Groups from the Autonomous Community of Madrid]. The authors also thank Jesús Villanueva, Fátima Sánchez, and Raquel Rivas for their collaboration in the adaptation process.Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Virginia Dresch, Facultad de Psicologia, Psychological Styles, Gender, and Health Research Group (EPSY), Campus de Somosaguas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C.P. 28223, Madrid, Spain. Phone: +34-9139-43120; Fax: +34-9139-43189; Email: [email protected]

Conformity to feminine gender norms1172

gender differences have been found in various behaviors (Brooks & Good, 2001; Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Hyde, 1984; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Mahalik, Lagan, & Morrison, 2006), specifically, health-related behaviors (Evans & Steptoe, 2002).

The authors consider that gender constitutes a concept essentially based on the sexual role, and that, being a social category, it implies the nonexistence of traits or behaviors that belong intrinsically to a certain sex “a priori”. While sex is defined as the biological characteristics (chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, brain, and genital dimorphism, and so on), gender is the result of a developmental process in which expectations and social norms are internalized. It refers to the individual’s psychological sense of being a man or woman, including social and psychological behaviors that society designates as masculine or feminine. Mahalik et al. (2003, 2005) define femininity as the degree of people’s conformity (emotional, cognitive, and/or behavioral) with a series of gender norms that designate what is considered socially appropriate for women, and which are transmitted by each culture and can be identified by the members of each society. The authors apply the definition of Cialdini and Trost (1999, p. 152) of social norm to gender norms – which are a subtype of social norms – so they are “rules and standards that are understood by members of a group that guide and/or constrain social behavior without the force of laws.” Gender norms make up part of a series of gender stereotypes that have not only a descriptive nature, but also a proscriptive one (Fiske & Stevens, 1993). According to Mahalik (2000), the variety of gender injunctions and the influence of diverse individual and social factors cause certain gender traits or a certain configuration of them to be salient in woman. That is, the construct “femininity” is not a homogeneous entity, but a multiple or multidimensional one – in other words there are different “femininities” with which women identify to different degrees.

Therefore, we believe that femininity is a psychological dimension, which can be measured or assessed. Our interest in introducing the gender approach into health (Sánchez-López, 2004) has led us to search for a measurement instrument that can be used to assess people’s incorporation of gender. A review of the classic scientific literature of the measurement relating to gender revealed a series of studies that were mainly developed in the 1970s (Baucom, 1976; Bem, 1974; Berzins, Welling, & Wetter, 1978; Heilbrun, 1976; Spence & Helmreich, 1974; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975). One of the main characteristics of these instruments is that they include global measures of femininity and their theoretical model is based on the instrumentality-expressiveness theory, or its equivalents (Parsons & Bales, 1955), agency-communion (Bakan, 1966), and self-assertive-integrative tendencies (Koestler, 1978). These scales identify masculinity and femininity with each one of the terms of these orthogonal dimensions. However, some data indicate that these instruments assess instrumental and expressive

Conformity to feminine gender norms 1173

personality traits rather than sex roles (Auster & Ohm, 2000; Taylor & Hall, 1982; Woodhill & Samuels, 2003).

Taking into account the criticism received by these kinds of instruments, Mahalik et al. (2005) constructed the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory (CFNI) with the aim of overcoming some of the problems of the scales that were developed in the 1970s. They adopted a multidimensional perspective and a triple response system (behavior, affect, and cognition) and developed a measurement scale based on an agreement-disagreement continuum, aspects not contemplated in the previous scales. The characteristics of the CFNI and of the theoretical model on which it is based matched the updated prerequisites of an operational measurement of gender, so it was chosen by the authors of this work to be adapted to the current Spanish population.

Elaboration of thE original QuEstionnairE in a us PoPulation

In order to construct the original inventory, Mahalik et al. (2005) followed a scrupulous empirical methodology. The predominant feminine norms in the heterosexual and white culture of the USA were identified in two focus groups of men and women (Master’s and Doctorate degree students), the categories were refined, and the items were elaborated and applied to 733 female university students. After applying the pertinent factor analyses, the authors reached an 8-factor solution, using principal axes and oblique rotation, resulting in an 84-item matrix and 8 subscales: Nice in Relationships, Care for Children, Thinness, Sexual Fidelity, Modesty, Involvement in Romantic Relationship, Domestic, and Investment in Appearance. Internal consistency was adequate (values ranged from α = .77 to α = .92). External validity was assessed by means of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) and the Feminist Identity Composite (FIC; Fischer et al., 2000). Positive relationships were found between some of the CFNI subscales and the Femininity Scale of the BSRI and the Passive Acceptance subscale of the FIC, and there was a negative relationship between the CFNI and the Masculinity Scale of the BSRI. Among the CFNI subscales, not all of them correlated significantly with the other instruments, which confirms the authors’ predictions that the CFNI also assesses other characteristics not included in the BSRI and the FIC. The temporal stability (test-retest coefficients were .94 for the Total CFNI) of the instrument was also appropriate.


Table 1DEfinition of thE Eight subscalEs of thE conformity to fEmininE norms invEntory

Factor Subscale Definition of feminine norm

1 Nice in relationships Develop friendly and supportive relationships with others.2 Thinness Pursue a thin body ideal.3 Modesty Refrain from calling attention to one’s talents or abilities.4 Domestic Keep house.5 Care for children Take care and be with children.6 Romantic relationship Invest self in romantic relationship.7 Sexual fidelity Maintain sexual intimacy within one committed relationship.8 Investment in appearance Commit resources to maintaining and improving physical

appearance.

aDaPtation of thE QuEstionnairE to thE sPanish PoPulation

The process of adaptation of the CFNI to the Spanish population was done according to the recommendations of the International Test Commission’s (2000) international guidelines, used previously by our research group in tests published in specialized editorials and with satisfactory results.

goal

The goal in this study was to confirm that the CFNI will reveal similar results in a Spanish population as in the population from the USA. If the factor analyses and the tests of internal consistency and reliability show a similar structure to that found in the North American samples, we can assume that the instrument will be valid for use in the Spanish population.

Following the recommendations of Mahalik et al. (2005), the characteristics of the Spanish sample were extended, so that they did not only include young university students, but also women of diverse characteristics. Mahalik et al. stated that, given that femininity is a cultural construct that varies as a function of people’s characteristics, including age, it is important to examine different groups of women, from a psychometric viewpoint, to determine whether the CFNI has the same 8-factor structure and whether its psychometric characteristics are acceptable. According to Mahalik et al., from a theoretical and clinical perspective it is crucial to examine diverse groups of women with different demographic characteristics. That is what we proposed to do in the present study.

method

ParticiPants

The participants of the study were 780 women aged between 18 and 59 years, who completed the CFNI. Their mean age was 31.39 years (SD = 10.93). Of these


women, 63.9% were working, 26.5% were students, 0.6% were retired, 1.2% were housewives, and 5.0% were unemployed. With regard to their regions of origin, 50.4% lived in the region of Madrid, 10.2% in Castilla León, 10.2% in Murcia, and the rest, from highest to lowest frequency, in the communities of Andalucia, Castilla la Mancha, Cataluña, Aragon, La Rioja, Valencia, and Asturias. Most of them (75.5%) had college degrees or higher, 14.5% had completed secondary school, and 8.1% had completed primary school.

Table 2 shows some of the demographic characteristics of the Spanish and US groups. Differences between both groups with regard to age range, educational level, and job situation were observed, with the Spanish group presenting higher variability in these elements.

Table 2DEmograPhic charactEristics of thE sPanish anD us samPlEs on thE cfni

Spain USA

N 780 733Age Mean 31.39 19.72 SD 10.93 2.69 Age range 18-59 not specified but all were university studentsEducational level Higher 75.5% 100% Secondary 14.5% - Primary 8.1% -Work situation Student 26.5% 100% Worker 63.9% - Other situations 9.6% -

instrumEnts

The CFNI (Mahalik et al., 2005) is an 84-item inventory measured on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (see Figure 1 for item examples). The statements were designed to measure various attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors associated with feminine gender roles, both traditional and untraditional. They are grouped in eight feminine norms; 1. Nice in Relationships, 2. Thinness, 3. Modesty, 4. Domestic, 5. Care for Children, 6. Romantic Relationships, 7. Sexual Fidelity, 8. Investment in Appearance. Information about age, sex, nationality, city of current residence, educational level, and job situation was also requested.


Figure 1: Examples of CFNI items.

ProcEDurE

The instrument was administered in a 1-hour session after the participants gave informed consent. The data analysis techniques are described in Results.

Data analysis

To verify that the adaptation of the CFNI was adequate for the Spanish population and that the results were different from those obtained in the USA, the following steps were taken: 1. We verified the factor structure of the questionnaire using the Spanish participants; 2. We calculated the internal consistency of the CFNI and the correlations among the subscales in the group of Spanish participants; 3. We compared the descriptive indicators for Spain and the USA, using difference of means and the effect size of these differences; 4. We compared the results obtained in a group of young Spanish female university students (similar to the sample used in the USA by the authors of the original instrument) and in the current group, made up of university students, people who were not university students, and of women of different ages.

results

factor analysis

Principal factor extraction techniques and oblique rotation (oblimin), specifying eight factors, were used. This method was used to verify the structure underlying the inventory in the group of Spanish participants because it provides the factors that explain most of the common variance, and, in addition, it assumes that the factors are related.

The prior assumptions were verified: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample adequacy measurement obtained a value of 0.90, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant at p < .000. Therefore, factor analysis was considered adequate.

An eight factor structure accounted for 39.27% of the variance of the items versus 39.51% explained by the same questionnaire in the US group (Mahalik et al., 2005); the eigenvalues of each item are shown in Table 3, in which factor loadings lower than 0.30 were eliminated, a reasonable cutoff point for

Examples of Items

It is important to let people know they are special Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree

I enjoy spending time making my living Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly space look nice Disagree Agree


Tab

le

3m

at

rix

st

ru

ct

ur

Es

of t

hE

cf

ni

itE

ms,

Pr

inc

iPa

l a

xE

s, o

bl

imin

ro

tat

ion

, an

D f

ac

to

r l

oa

Din

gs

fo

r E

igh

t f

ac

to

rs

Fact

ors

Item

s an

d co

rres

pond

ing

fact

or lo

adin

gs (

in p

aren

thes

is)

E

igen

valu

e E

xpla

ined

var

ianc

e

1 ite

m 9

(0

.855

), it

em 7

5

(0.8

49),

item

56

(0.

818)

, ite

m 6

9 (

0.80

7), i

tem

76

(0.

803)

, ite

m 1

9 (

0.79

7),

13.0

1 14

.99

ite

m 6

8 (

0.79

5), i

tem

83

(0

.781

), it

em 1

3 (

0.72

8), i

tem

72

(0.

707)

, ite

m 2

7 (

0.66

9), i

tem

55

(0.

669)

,

item

52

(0.

667)

, ite

m 2

5

(0.6

48),

item

35

(0.

617)

, ite

m 5

1 (

0.60

3), i

tem

73

(0.

592)

, ite

m 3

6 (

0.56

6),

ite

m 4

4 (

0.55

5), i

tem

42

(0

.545

), it

em 7

9 (

0.49

1), i

tem

82

(0.

483)

, ite

m 4

1 (-

0.44

2), i

tem

28

(0.

350)

,

item

74

(0.

324)

, ite

m 8

1 (

-0.3

75),

item

30

(-0.

358)

, ite

m 1

4 (

0.37

5), i

tem

57

(-0.

354)

, ite

m 2

4 (

0.44

6).

2 ite

m 6

7 (

0.56

4), i

tem

53

(0

.553

), it

em 6

3 (

0.53

2), i

tem

6

(0.5

02),

item

26

(0.

480)

, ite

m 3

1 (

0.47

9),

6.82

7.

41

item

33

(0.

463)

, ite

m 1

8

(0.4

41),

item

50

(0.

439)

, ite

m 8

4 (

0.30

8), i

tem

1

(0.3

05),

item

21

(0.

325)

,

item

70

(0.

305)

, ite

m 5

4

(0.3

11),

item

62

(0

.310

).3

item

64

(0.

793)

, ite

m 3

(0

.711

), it

em 3

7 (

0.71

0), i

tem

77

(0.

654)

, ite

m 4

6 (

0.56

2), i

tem

71

(-0.

476)

, 4.

36

4.51

ite

m 2

0 (

0.47

1), i

tem

11

(-0

.438

), it

em 8

1 (-

0.40

7).

4 ite

m 4

1 (-

0.40

0), i

tem

29

(0

.745

), it

em 6

5 (

0.71

9), i

tem

4

(0.6

49),

item

78

(0.

628)

, ite

m 3

9 (-

0.59

1),

4.31

4.

40

item

47

(-0.

577)

, ite

m 2

1

(0.3

84),

item

12

(-0.

357)

.5

item

19

(0.

313)

, ite

m 8

3 (

-0.3

32),

item

27

(-0.

466)

, ite

m 3

6 (-

0.45

5), i

tem

70

(0.

742)

, ite

m 8

0 (

0.72

8),

2.93

2.

81

item

54

(0.

711)

, ite

m 6

2

(0.6

11),

item

10

(0.

524)

, ite

m 4

5 (-

0.51

9), i

tem

2

(0.4

88).

6

item

73

(-0.

389)

, ite

m 3

0 (-

0.54

1), i

tem

66

(0.

520)

, ite

m 4

9 (

0.50

5), i

tem

40

(0.

479)

, ite

m 1

4 (-

0.46

3),

2.02

2.

01

item

57

(-0.

401)

, ite

m 5

(0

.393

).7

item

34

(0.

668)

, ite

m 4

3 (

-0.5

51),

item

8

(0.5

45),

item

17

(-0.

378)

.

1.

90

1.66

8 ite

m 6

8 (

0.40

8), i

tem

51

(0

.603

), it

em 4

2 (

0.48

2), i

tem

16

(-0.

589)

, ite

m 3

2 (-

0.53

0), i

tem

7

(-0.

467)

,

1.46

ite

m 2

4 (

0.45

7), i

tem

60

(-0

.345

).

Not

e: N

= 7

80. T

he u

nder

lined

val

ues

repr

esen

t the

item

s w

hose

load

ing

on th

e fa

ctor

s co

rres

pond

s to

the

fact

or s

truc

ture

fou

nd in

the

orig

inal

US

vers

ion.

The

ital

icis

ed v

alue

s re

pres

ent t

he it

ems

that

load

on

two

fact

ors.


the sample studied (N = 780); the items that load on the original factors of the questionnaire in the US population are shown in boldface and underlined. It can be seen that Factor 1 explains the highest percentage of variance (14.99%) and that the items with the highest loading on this factor belong to the eight factors of the original questionnaire, although it includes 8 of the 17 items that correspond to the original Factor 1. On Factor 2, which explains 7.41% of the variance, the items that load the highest belong to the original Factors 6 (4 out of 9) and 1 (7 out of 17), although three items also load higher than 0.30 on Factors 5 and 1, and one item belongs to the original Factor 7. In Factor 3, the items that belong to the original Factor 2 have the highest eigenvalues (9 out of 11 items that make up this factor compared to in the original questionnaire). In Factor 4, the items from the original Factor 7 (8 out of 10 items), and in Factor 5, the items from the original Factor 5 (11 out of 12) obtain the highest eigenvalues. In Factor 6, the items from the original Factor 3 (8 out of 9), and in Factor 7, some of the items of the original Factor 8 (4 out of 7) load the highest. The items that are a part of the original Factor 4 load mainly on Factor 8 (7 out of 8 items).

corrElations bEtwEEn scalEs anD intErnal consistEncy of thE cfniTo estimate the reliability of the instrument, we used Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient and calculated the correlations among the subscales. In Table 4 the results of the Spanish and US participants are presented. The alpha coefficient for the total scale was .87 and the range of values for the subscales is from .64 to .86. All values are lower in the Spanish group. With regard to the correlations among scales, the results indicate that all the scales correlate positively and significantly with the total score, and some scales also correlate with each other. The effect size of this relationship is low or medium in most of the scales, and high among the subscales and the total score (with values close to r = .50), except for Thinness and Investment in Romantic Relationship, in which medium effect sizes were found.

DiffErEncEs bEtwEEn sPanish anD us ParticiPants

Students’ difference of means t test for independent groups was calculated because the scores of the scales were on a continuous measurement scale. In Table 5 are the means and standard deviations of the subscales of the CFNI in the Spanish and US groups and the results of the t test.

There were statistically significant differences in all the subscales and in the total score except for the Modesty scale. The direction of the differences indicates a lower score in all the subscales for the Spanish women with regard to the original scores, except in the Domestic Scale, where they scored higher. If the effect size and Cohen’s (1988) recommendations are taken into account, it can be seen that the magnitude of these differences is high in the total score


Tab

le

4c

or

rE

la

tio

ns

am

on

g s

ub

sca

lE

s a

nD

al

Ph

a r

El

iab

ilit

y c

oE

ff

iciE

nt

s o

f t

hE

cf

ni

sub

sca

lE

s in

th

E s

Pan

ish

an

D u

sa D

ata

Sp

ain

USA

Scal

es

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

α

α

1. R

elat

ions

hips

1

.7

3 .8

42.

Chi

ldre

n .4

5**

1

.8

6 .9

23.

Thi

nnes

s .0

6 -.

02

1

.80

.90

4. S

exua

l fid

elity

.1

8**

.24*

* .0

8*

1

.8

0 .8

55.

Mod

esty

.0

0 .0

5 -.

01

.28*

* 1

.6

5 .8

26.

Rom

antic

.0

9**

.19*

* .1

8**

.21*

* -.

09**

1

.64

.77

7. D

omes

tic

.45*

* .3

4**

.09*

* .3

4**

.17*

* .0

7*

1

.75

.84

8. A

ppea

ranc

e .3

0**

.11*

* .2

3**

.18*

* -.

04

.17*

* .2

9**

1 .6

8 .8

2T

OTA

L

.67*

* .6

5**

.39*

* .6

0**

.26*

* .3

9**

.64*

* .4

8**

.87

.88

** p

< 0

.01

(2-t

aile

d), *

p <

0.0

5 (2

-tai

led)

Not

e: R

elat

ions

hips

= N

ice

in R

elat

ions

hips

, Rom

antic

= I

nvol

vem

ent i

n R

oman

tic R

elat

ions

hip,

App

eara

nce

= In

vest

in A

ppea

ranc

e, C

hild

ren

= C

are

for

Chi

ldre

n, α

= C

ronb

ach

alph

a


and in Thinness and, although to a lesser extent, in Care for Children and Sexual Fidelity, but it is moderate in Nice in Relationships, Domestic, and Romantic Relationship. The differences in Investment in Appearance are small.

Table 5mEans anD stanDarD DEviations of thE cfni scalEs in thE sPanish anD us Data, anD

DiffErEncE of mEans

Spanish Group US Group t Effect size (N = 780) (N = 733) (d) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

1. Relationships 36.15 (6.30) 39.48 (5.97) 10.53*** -0.54 (medium)2. Care for Children 21.84 (6.57) 26.51 (6.24) 16.19*** -0.72 (medium-high)3. Thinness 15.18 (5.44) 20.87 (6.18) 17.64*** -0.97 (high)4. Sexual fidelity 16.03 (5.45) 20.22 (5.55) 15.55*** -0.76 (medium-high)5. Modesty 13.16 (3.38) 13.02 (3.67) ns 6. Romantic 13.72 (3.48) 15.64 (3.73) 12.96*** -0.53 (medium)7. Domestic 16.05 (4.01) 14.10 (3.10) 12.96*** 0.54 (medium)8. Appearance 11.09 (3.40) 12.01 (3.75) 6.48*** -0.25 (low)Total 143.22 (20.51) 162.73 (18.26) 19.38*** -1.00 (high)

*** p = 0.000Note: Relationships = Nice in Relationships, Romantic = Investment in Romantic Relationships, Appearance = Investment in Appearance, ns = nonsignificant.

DiffErEncEs bEtwEEn collEgE stuDEnts anD gEnEral grouPs of ParticiPants

In Table 6 are the means and standard deviations of the subscales of the CFNI in the group of Spanish female university students and in the general Spanish group, made up of female university students and women who were not university students, and of women of different ages. Table 6 also shows the results of the difference of t test means for independent groups.

There were statistically significant differences in one of the eight subscales and in the total score although, if the effect size is taken into account, the magnitude of these differences is low. The direction of the differences indicates a lower score for the university students on Sexual Fidelity and on the total scale.

Table 6mEans, stanDarD DEviations, anD t valuEs of thE cfni subscalEs comParing sPanish

collEgE stuDEnts anD gEnEral sPanish PoPulation

Spanish general Spanish colleges t Effect size (d) (N = 780) (N = 425) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

1. Relationships 36.15 (6.30) 36.46 (6.59) ns 2. Care for children 21.84 (6.57) 21.62 (6.59) ns


Table 6 continued

Spanish general Spanish colleges t Effect size (d) (N = 780) (N = 425) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

3. Thinness 15.18 (5.44) 14.87 (5.77) ns 4. Sexual fidelity 16.03 (5.45) 14.59 (5.08) 4.48*** 0.27 (low)5. Modesty 13.16 (3.38) 12.64 (3.10) ns 6. Romantic 13.72 (3.48) 13.89 (3.45) ns 7. Domestic 16.05 (4.01) 14.71 (3.65) ns 8. Appearance 11.09 (3.40) 11.34 (3.57) ns Total 143.22 (20.51) 140.13 (19.64) 2.53* 0.15 (low)

Note. ** p < .000, * p < .15

disCussion

The results of the factor analysis in the Spanish group studied presents a general factor structure that is similar to the one obtained in the group of US participants, but it is different in some important aspects. Although Mahalik et al. (2005) selected the items whose factor eigenvalues were equal to or higher than 0.40 on a factor and were not higher than 0.30 on any other factor, in this work, we decided that a factor loading equal to or higher than 0.30 was adequate for a large sample size (García-Jiménez, Gil-Flores, & Rodríguez-Gómez, 2000). The results indicate that the Factors 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 correspond to most of the items of the factors extracted in the original US group, and, therefore, with the prior scales elaborated rationally (which are Thinness, Sexual Fidelity, Care for Children, Modesty, Investment in Appearance, and Domestic, respectively). However, there is an essential difference between the original structure and that obtained in this group: Factors 1 and 2 explain the items from several subscales of the original scale. Thus, items that in the US group correspond to the Involvement in Romantic Relationship and Nice in Relationships Scales load on Factor 2, whereas Factor 1 explains items that correspond to the Nice in Relationships, Sexual Fidelity, Care for Children, Domestic, and Investment in Appearance Scales, as well as an item from Domestic and one from Thinness. In other words, the Nice in Relationships Scale seems to be made up of items that, for Spanish participants, are explained by two different factors: one more closely related to orientation towards relationships – romantic and unromantic (Factor 2) – and one that groups items from several scales (Factor 1). These results coincide with those obtained in a previous study carried out with a group of young female university students; in this work, this factor was interpreted as grouping the norms about what is appropriate and that, therefore, are proscriptive in nature. For example, it incorporates the items “I don’t care if my living space


looks messy” (Item 51) from the Domestic Scale, or “I actively avoid children” (Item 76) from Care for Children.

Likewise, the analyses show that some of the items do not seem to be sufficiently explanatory in the group of Spanish participants, because their eigenvalues are lower than 0.30 and their commonalities are close to 0.

The results of the factor analysis and of the correlations among scales again confirm the model proposed by the author (Mahalik, 2000; Mahalik et al., 2003, 2005): Femininity is a multidimensional construct, made up of a diversity of gender norms that, although related (the eight scales correlate highly with the total score and moderately among some pairs of scales), are independent (some subscales have low or nonsignificant correlations with each other). Further, the analyses of the reliability of the instrument indicate that the internal consistency of each subscale is acceptable (the values of Cronbach’s alpha for each scale, although lower than those of the US sample, are all above 0.60 and have a mean of 0.73). Therefore, we can state that the questionnaire is sufficiently uniform in this group of women.

With regard to the differences between the results obtained in the three groups analyzed (young female university students from the USA, young Spanish female university students, and Spanish women with different educational levels and higher age variability), the data show that, although the data profile is similar, the US university students score higher than the Spanish women from the general population on the scales that assess Nice in Relationships of friendship and romance, they adapt to the canons of Thinness, Care for Children, and Sexual Fidelity (there were also significant differences with regard to Investment in Appearance, although the magnitude of this difference was small), but they are less demanding with regard to Domestic. However, there were no differences in Modesty or acknowledgement of their own capacities. Upon analyzing the differences between the Spanish women, the results indicate that there were only small differences with regard to Sexual Fidelity, where university students displayed less conformity.

These differences can be explained by the cultural differences between the Spanish and USA groups, because the differences between the two groups of the same cultural origin (young Spanish university students and Spanish women with different educational levels and higher age variability) are smaller than the differences between the USA and Spanish groups. Other factors, such as historical, generational, and educational factors, may also affect women’s conformity to gender norms, but in this study, they do not seem to be the most important factors to explain the differences found. Composition of the Spanish groups, keeping in mind the university sample accounts for half of the whole group, may influence these results.


In any case, the data show that the Spanish women conform less to feminine norms than do US student women. The reasons for these results could be investigated in the future, and as part of this it is important to mention the enormous changes produced in Spain in the last decades, partly due to the great influence of historical events and the recent fight for basic women rights. It could be that Spanish women are more aware of the potential costs of the feminine norms and, in fact, conform to them less.

We can therefore confirm via the factor analysis, the correlation matrix, and the reliability analyses that the CFNI can be used with a Spanish population with heterogeneous educational and age characteristics and, as proposed by Mahalik et al. (2005), we also confirm that the characteristics of the women employed in the original construction of the instrument affect the structure and peculiarities of the measurement results, although essentially, a valid organization and an adequate model are maintained.

The heterogeneity of the participants in our study allowed us to contrast the possibilities of the CFNI to be generalized to women with different charac-teristics from those employed in the original construction, and it has been shown to be sufficiently sensitive to detect cultural differences; however, we did not contrast the discrimination capacity of the instrument for other kinds of sociode-mographic factors.

Among our future perspectives are, therefore, to continue to verify the possible differences as a function of other variables, such as socioeconomic level, age, work situation, and educational level. Moreover, among our proposals for the future, we intend to relate this measurement to health indices similar to that carried out by Mahalik et al. (2006) with the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory.

referenCes

Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43(7/8), 499-528.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.Baucom, D. H. (1976). Independent masculinity and femininity scales on the California Psychological

Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 876.Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 42(2), 155-162.Berzins, J. I., Welling, M. A., & Wetter, R. E. (1978). A new measurement of psychological androgyny

based on the Personality Research Form. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 126-138.

Brooks, G. R., & Good, G. E. (Eds.). (2001). The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A comprehensive guide to settings, problems, and treatment approaches (Vol. 1 & 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1999). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. M. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322-331.

Evans, O., & Steptoe, A. (2002). The contribution of gender-role orientation, work factor and home stressors to psychological well-being and sickness absence in male and female dominated occupational groups. Social Science and Medicine, 54(4), 481-492.

Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., Mergl, M. M., Good, G. E., Hill, M. S., & Blum, S. A. (2000). Assessing women’s feminist identity development: Studies of convergent, discriminant, and structural validity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(1), 15-29.

Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M. Constanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society: Applied social psychology annual (pp. 173-196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

García-Jiménez, E., Gil-Flores, J., & Rodríguez-Gómez, G. (2000). Análisis factorial, Cuadernos de estadística [Factorial analysis. Copybook of Statistics 7]. Madrid: La Muralla.

Heilbrun, A. B. (1976). Measurement of masculine and feminine sex roles identities as independent dimensions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 183-190.

Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 722-736.

International Test Commission. (2000). International guidelines for test use. Retrieved from www.intest.org/itc_projects.htm

Koestler, A. (1978). Janus: A summing up. New York: Vintage Books.Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.Mahalik, J. R. (2000). A model of masculine gender role conformity. Paper presented at the 108th

Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: USA.Mahalik, J. R., Burns, S. H., & Syzdek, M. (2007). Masculinity and perceived normative health

behaviors as predictors of men’s health behaviors. Social Science and Medicine, 64(11), 2201-2209.

Mahalik, J. R., Lagan, H. D., & Morrison, J. A. (2006). Health behaviors and masculinity in Kenyan and U.S. male college students. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 191-202.

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4(1), 3-25.

Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory. Sex Roles, 52(7/8), 417-435.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (Eds.). (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. New York: Free Press.

Sánchez-López, M. P. (2004). Women’s health. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 677-682). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex roles stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624-635.


Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & 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), 29-39.

Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 347-366.

Woodhill, B. M., & Samuels, C. A. (2003). Positive and negative androgyny and their relationship with psychological health and well-being. Sex Roles, 48(11/12), 555-565.

Woo, M., & Oei, T. (2006). The MMPI2 Gender-Masculine and Gender-Feminine scales: Gender roles as predictors of psychological health in clinical patients. International Journal of Psychology, 41(5), 413-422.

Conformity to feminine gender norms in the spanish population

Documents

Transcript of Conformity to feminine gender norms in the spanish population