Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences: Shannon N. Davis and Theodore N. Greenstein

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
Gender Ideology:
Components, Predictors,
and Consequences
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009.35:87-105. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Shannon N. Davis1 and Theodore N. Greenstein2

1
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, George Mason University, Fairfax,
by Universidad de Murcia on 10/24/11. For personal use only.
Virginia 22030; email: [email protected]

2
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27695; email: Ted [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009. 35:87–105 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on gender role attitudes, separate spheres ideology, sex role attitudes
April 2, 2009
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract

soc.annualreviews.org
The purpose of this article is to review research on the construction of
This article’s doi: gender ideology and its consequences. The article begins with a sum-
10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920
mary of research focused on measuring gender ideology—individuals’
Copyright c 2009 by Annual Reviews. levels of support for a division of paid work and family responsibilities
All rights reserved
that is based on the belief in gendered separate spheres. We describe
0360-0572/09/0811-0087$20.00 the ways this concept has been operationalized in widely available data
sources and provide a categorization schema for the items used to mea-
sure gender ideology. We also review the research predicting gender
ideology, focusing on social and demographic characteristics while con-
currently examining studies using cross-sectional, trend, and panel data.
Finally, this article summarizes research focused on the consequences
of gender ideology, both in families and family-related behaviors and in
other areas of social life where beliefs about gender are relevant, such
as the workplace. We conclude with implications for future research for
measurement tools, predictors of gender ideology, and consequences of
ideology in individuals’ lives.
87
ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
The U.S. labor force changed markedly from beyond focusing solely on predictors of gen-
the 1960s to the mid-1970s. In 1965, 44.7% of der ideology or on one specific consequence.
mothers with children under age 18 reported Rather, it presents an examination of the con-
being employed in the previous year. However, sequences of gender ideology in a variety of ar-
by 1975, 56.1% of mothers with children in the eas where beliefs about gender matter (e.g., the
home reported being employed (e.g., Bianchi family and the workplace). In addition, we re-
et al. 2006). Public opinion polls captured view research on factors that have led to changes
national worries about the changing division in individual-level gender ideologies over time.
of paid work and family responsibilities, We begin with a discussion of issues regard-
especially among mothers of young children. ing measurement of gender ideology. Next we
The first national surveys measuring worries review the research in which gender ideology
about families moving away from a traditional is predicted, incorporating a historical compo-
division of paid and unpaid work, with men nent by focusing concurrently on research with
as breadwinners and women as homemakers, trend and panel data. Finally, we summarize re-
were conducted in the mid-1960s (Cherlin & search on the consequences of gender ideology.
Walters 1981, Mason et al. 1976). The atti- We conclude by discussing fruitful avenues for
tudes captured by these surveys, what we term future research on the measurement and con-
gender ideology, represent individuals’ levels of sequences of gender ideology.
support for a division of paid work and family Whereas numerous researchers examine
responsibilities that is based on this notion the influence of gender ideology on family-
of separate spheres. Not surprisingly, these and work-related behaviors in other countries
early surveys show some hesitation regarding (Batalova & Cohen 2002, Fuwa 2004, Kulik
women’s paid employment and engagement 2002), this review focuses primarily on research
with the public sphere, especially when they on the United States. Given the significant po-
had young children at home. A slim majority litical and economic changes around the globe
of women in 1964 felt that women who worked since the 1960s, we could not adequately ad-
could have a warm relationship with their chil- dress the construction and influence of gender
dren, whereas almost 70% of women held this ideologies because of the breadth of histori-
attitude in the early 1970s (Mason et al. 1976). cal and contextual factors that would need to
By the mid-1990s, the U.S. labor force re- be considered. Therefore, although we refer to
flected mothers’ continued full- and part-time some work conducted in other countries, the
employment. For example, in 1995, 75.1% of majority of research reviewed here is based on
mothers with children under age 18 reported U.S. samples.
being employed the previous year (Bianchi et al.
2006). On average, Americans had become
more comfortable with the idea of women, par- MEASUREMENT OF
ticularly mothers, working at least part time GENDER IDEOLOGY
when their children are young and were much Researchers use a variety of phrases to describe
more comfortable with men sharing household individuals’ levels of support for a division of
responsibilities (Bolzendahl & Myers 2004). paid work and family responsibilities that is
The purpose of this article is to place the based on the notion of separate spheres, includ-
above findings into context. By reviewing re- ing gender ideology, gender role attitudes, at-
search on the contemporary construction of titudes about gender, gender-related attitudes,
gender ideology and its consequences on indi- gender egalitarianism, and others. The use of a
viduals’ decision making and lived experiences, particular phrase may be partly due to the au-
this article provides insight into the ways gender thors’ beliefs about conceptual distinctions or
ideology has influenced and will continue to in- due to a journal’s preferences ( Journal of Mar-
fluence American behavior. This review moves riage and Family discourages authors from using
88 Davis · Greenstein
ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
the language of gender roles, for example). In These items can be generally organized into
large part, the research literature reflects the six categories: primacy of the breadwinner role,
influence that that language of roles has had belief in gendered separate spheres, working
on the discipline, even though there has been a women and relationship quality, motherhood
substantial critique of this language with regard and the feminine self, household utility, and ac-
to gender (see, for example, Stacey & Thorne ceptance of male privilege. That the research
1985). A quick examination of articles published on this concept still relies on the language of
from 2000 to 2008 (as abstracted in Sociologi- roles can be seen from the items used to mea-
cal Abstracts) yields 168 articles that discuss in sure these beliefs: Three of the six categories
some manner individuals’ levels of support for are clearly connected to the roles that women
a division of paid work and family responsi- and men are expected to inhabit in married and
bilities that is based on the notion of separate procreative heterosexual relationships (primacy
spheres: 75 of those use the language of gen- of the breadwinner role, working women and
der role attitudes, 53 use the language of gen- relationship quality, and motherhood and the
der ideology, 24 use gender attitudes or gender- feminine self ).

related attitudes, and the remainder are almost Although these attitudes or beliefs are so-
equally split among beliefs about gender, atti- cial psychological concepts, there is little over-
tudes about gender, and gender egalitarianism. lap with the measures of beliefs about gender
We use the term gender ideology to repre- roles typically published in social psychologi-
sent the underlying concept of an individual’s cal outlets (Spence & Helmreich 1978, Swim
level of support for a division of paid work et al. 1995). This could be because the socio-
and family responsibilities that is based on the logical literature is trying to tap beliefs about
notion of separate spheres. Many nationally relationships between women and men rather
representative surveys, both cross-sectional than prescribed roles that individuals inhabit.
and longitudinal, include items measuring As such, the measures, while fitting largely un-
gender ideology. In particular, the National der the domains wrought with the connotation
Longitudinal Survey of Youth—1979 Cohort of roles, are attempts at measuring beliefs about
(Center for Human Resource Research 2006b) relationships.
and its Child/Young Adult Supplement (Center Many population-based survey designs in-
for Human Resource Research 2006a), the terested in gender ideology use measures, like
General Social Survey ( JA Davis et al. 2007) those in Table 1, that have been shown to be
and its international counterpart, the Interna- valid and reliable. However, some researchers
tional Social Survey Program (Zentralarchiv are working to improve measurement strate-
fur Empirische Sozialforschung 2004), the gies and are constructing new methods of mea-
National Study of Families and Households suring gender ideology. For example, Baber &
(Sweet et al. 1988), the Marital Instability over Tucker (2006) and Valentine (2001) constructed
the Life Course study (Booth et al. 2003), the questionnaires tapping different components of
Intergenerational Panel Study of Parents and gender ideology. Baber & Tucker examined the
Children (Thornton et al. 2002), the National multiple and diverse social roles women and
Study of the Changing Workforce (Bond et al. men inhabit with an attempt to divorce those
1998), the World Values Survey (European roles from gendered labels. Valentine devel-
Values Study Foundation and World Values oped a set of items measuring the aversion to
Survey Association 2006), and the High women who work. Both questionnaires yield
School and Beyond study (U.S. Department of acceptable reliability and validity among under-
Education 2001) all include at least two items graduates, suggesting further testing is needed
specifically to measure gender ideology. before those measures are used more broadly.
Table 1 lists these surveys and items, noting The majority of research on gender ideology
items that are used in multiple questionnaires. has asked respondents to report whether they
www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 89

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
Table 1 Items used to measure gender ideology

Item Instrument(s)a
Primacy of breadwinner role
Both the man and woman should contribute to the household income. ISSP
A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family. ISSP
The husband should earn higher pay than the wife. MIOLC
If jobs are scarce, the wife shouldn’t work. MIOLC
Even if the wife works, the husband should be the main breadwinner. MIOLC
When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women. WVS
If a woman earns more money than her husband, it’s almost certain to cause problems. WVS
Belief in gendered separate spheres
It is much better for everyone concerned if the man is the achiever outside the home and the GSS, HS&B, IPSPC,
woman takes care of the home and family. NLSY79&C-YA, NSFH, NSCW
There is some work that is men’s and some that is women’s, and they should not be doing IPSPC
each other’s.
A woman’s place is in the home, not in the office or shop. NLSY79&C-YA
A wife who carries out her full family responsibilities doesn’t have time for outside NLSY79&C-YA
employment.
Working women and relationship quality
A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a GSS, ISSP, MIOLC, NSCW
mother who does not work.
A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works. GSS, ISSP, NSFH
All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job. ISSP
A husband shouldn’t worry if his wife is gone overnight in connection with her job. MIOLC
The employment of wives leads to more juvenile delinquency. NLSY79&C-YA
Wife/motherhood and the feminine self
Women are much happier if they stay at home and take care of their children. HS&B, IPSPC, NLSY79&C-YA
A job is all right, but what most women really want is a home and children. ISSP
Being a housewife is just as fulfilling as working for pay. ISSP
Having a job is the best way for a woman to be an independent person. ISSP
A wife’s most important task is caring for her children. MIOLC
A working wife feels more useful than one who doesn’t hold a job. NLSY79&C-YA
In a successful marriage, the partners must have the freedom to do what they want NSFH
individually.
Do you think that a woman has to have children in order to be fulfilled? WVS
Household utility
A wife should not expect her husband to help around the house after he comes home from a IPSPC
hard day’s work.
If a wife works full-time, the husband should help with homework. MIOLC
Men should share the work around the house with women, such as doing dishes, cleaning, NLSY79&C-YA
and so forth.
Employment of both parents is necessary to keep up with the high cost of living. NLSY79&C-YA
If a husband and wife both work full time, they should share household tasks equally. NSFH
(Continued )
ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
Table 1 (Continued )
Item Instrument(s)a
Acceptance of male privilege
It is more important for a wife to help her husband’s career than to have one herself. GSS; IPSPC
Parents should encourage as much independence in their daughters as in their sons. NSFH
A university education is more important for a boy than for a girl. WVS
If you were to have only one child, would you rather have it be a boy or a girl? WVS
On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do. WVS
a
Instrument abbreviations: GSS, General Social Survey; HS&B, High School and Beyond; IPSPC, Intergenerational Panel Study of Parents and
Children; ISSP, International Social Survey Program; MIOLC, Marital Instability over the Live Course; NLSY79&C-YA, National Longitudinal Survey
of Youth, 1979 Cohort and Child/Young Adult Sample; NSCW, National Study of the Changing Workforce; NSFH, National Study of Families and
Households; WVS, World Values Survey.
agree or disagree with a series of statements ology over time but also whether there have
about women’s and men’s responsibilities rel- been changes in the predictors of gender ideol-
evant to the separate spheres framework. How- ogy in the United States over time. Data sets
ever, not all research has used this method. such as the National Longitudinal Survey of
Hochschild & Machung’s (1989) groundbreak- Youth, 1979, have allowed researchers to move
ing work categorizing individuals as traditional, beyond trend studies and examine changes in
transitional, or egalitarian was based on inter- ideology and influences on ideology over the
views and participant observation rather than life course of individuals. Here we review re-
answers to closed-ended questions. Through search on the construction of gender ideology,
these interviews, Hochschild determined that incorporating findings from cross-sectional and
individuals had ideologies “on top” and “under- longitudinal studies, while focusing on social
neath”; they could hold specific beliefs about and demographic predictors of ideology.
women’s employment and men’s domestic re-
sponsibilities (on top ideologies), but their own
Cultural Shifts: Period
lived experiences could reflect a potentially
and Cohort Changes
different reality of shared work (underneath
ideologies). Kroska (2000) questioned whether Period effects on gender ideology are shown
gender ideology should be considered a be- through changes in individual predictors over
lief system or an identity; she reports measur- time. Several researchers using trend data to
ing gender-ideological identity by determin- study changes in gender ideology in the United
ing the extent to which respondents reported States have found period effects, although the
their similarity (and their partner’s similarity) impetus for change continues to be unclear
to characters within five same-sex vignettes on (Brewster & Padavic 2000, Carter & Borch
outlook toward women, ideals, and life commit- 2005, Ciabattari 2001). What is clear is that
ments. The vignettes and corresponding ques- period effects have influenced men’s slower
tions seem to provide a method of measuring pace of gender ideology change since the 1970s
characteristics associated with gender ideology, (Ciabattari 2001). The influence of context
as the measures have high construct validity. on gender ideology differs based on period
(Bolzendahl & Myers 2004, Carter & Borch
2005, Powers et al. 2003). Living in bigger
GENDER IDEOLOGY cities led to more egalitarian attitudes in the
CONSTRUCTION 1970s and 1980s but not in the 1990s. Living
Given the collection of data in large-scale data in a border state declined in influence from the
sets as described above, sociologists have been 1970s to the 1990s, but the gap between the
able to examine not only changes in gender ide- South and non-South existed in the 1990s even

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
when individual demographic characteristics hold more egalitarian gender beliefs. As there
were controlled. However, region became less is abundant evidence that most people’s inter-
of an influence on ideologies in the 1990s than ests, regardless of gender, would benefit from
in earlier decades due largely to increasing re- gender equality (Barnett & Rivers 2004), why
gional similarity in other characteristics such would someone not hold egalitarian gender be-
as employment and education (Powers et al. liefs? One answer is that the interest structures
2003). Bolzendahl & Myers noted that while of women and men are culturally expected to
later periods show few differences in the specific be different based upon the hegemonic gen-
influences on gender ideologies, both women der beliefs reifying the notion of polarized gen-
and men became more egalitarian in the 1990s der differences (Ridgeway & Correll 2004) and
than in previous periods. that this expectation becomes real in its conse-
Cohort effects on gender ideology are the quences (Barnett & Rivers 2004). This explains
result of more egalitarian cohorts aging into why women have more egalitarian gender ide-
the adult population and replacing the older ologies than do men, as men are less likely to be-
traditional cohorts. This leads to population- lieve, based on cultural explanations, that gen-
level shifts in attitudes. Brewster & Padavic der equality will benefit them.
(2000) found that cohort succession was more Exposure-based explanations argue that ex-
important in attitude change than were changes posure to ideas and situations that are con-
in individual characteristics. More recent co- sonant with egalitarian ideals will lead to
horts show larger differences between men and the development of more egalitarian beliefs
women and a smaller effect of education on (Bolzendahl & Myers 2004). This exposure may
attitudes. Compared to men born in the pre– be in the form of socialization, education, or
baby boom era, men born later are less tradi- personal experience. These explanations are in-
tional (Ciabattari 2001). Brooks & Bolzendahl herently about change over time; exposure to
(2004) also found substantial cohort effects in egalitarian ideals or situations encourages the
their analysis of beliefs about gender from the subsequent development of egalitarian ideolo-
mid-1980s to the 1990s (over 55% of change gies. Conversely, exposure to situations encour-
in attitudes was due to cohort differences), al- aging individuals to believe that egalitarian-
though ideological learning seemed to mediate ism is not in their best interest would lead to
much of the cohort effect. Changes in social- less egalitarian beliefs. Alternatively, individu-
structural factors such as labor force participa- als could become less egalitarian to reduce cog-
tion and marital status played only a small role nitive dissonance in interactions where gender
in attitude change; approximately one-third of egalitarianism is expected but gender inequality
the cohort effects and one-half of the period ef- is historically the norm (e.g., in marriages and
fects were mediated by changes in rights-based parenting).
ideology. Whereas exposure to gender egalitarianism
may come in the form of socialization, and
personal interests relative to gender egali-
Social and Demographic tarianism may develop through socialization,
Background Characteristics social and demographic characteristics may
Bolzendahl & Myers (2004) argued that indi- also influence gender ideology formation. For
vidual “attitudes toward feminist issues,” in- example, Bolzendahl & Myers (2004) argued
cluding the concept of gender ideology, are a that because women have more of a vested
function of interest-based or exposure-based interest in increased egalitarianism, men are
explanations. Interest-based explanations rely expected to be less egalitarian than women.
on the interest structures of individuals, that Both longitudinal trend studies (Bolzendahl
is, personal goals. When people’s interests ben- & Myers 2004, Brooks & Bolzendahl 2004,
efit from gender equality, they are likely to Thornton & Young-DeMarco 2001) and
ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
panel studies (Cunningham et al. 2005, Fan shown to engage in more sex-typed treatment
& Marini 2000) noted that men are less of their children and to be more involved with
gender egalitarian than are women. Young their sons than their daughters, giving fathers
men in particular are hesitant to challenge more opportunities to model traditional atti-
the cultural standard of the mother role and tudes and behaviors for their sons (Bulanda
the expectation of negative child outcomes 2004; McHale et al. 2003, 2004). Researchers
due to maternal employment ( Jorgenson & who have examined fathers’ and mothers’ gen-
Tanner 1983, Mason & Lu 1988, Thornton der ideologies together have found that moth-
et al. 1983). Perhaps this hesitation is because ers and daughters tend to be more egalitarian
in general, men benefit from women’s unequal than sons and fathers within the same families
performance of family and household tasks. (Burt & Scott 2002, Kulik 2002), that nontra-
One key factor in socialization is the inter- ditional fathers are more involved in parent-
generational transmission of ideology. Mothers ing than traditional ones, regardless of mater-
play a key role in socialization, and as a re- nal gender ideology (Bulanda 2004), and that
sult much of the previous research has fo- in terms of beliefs about marital roles fathers’
cused on maternal influence. Maternal educa- attitudes—but not mothers’—are significantly
tion and employment are both representative of related to their children’s attitudes.
mothers’ increased exposure to egalitarian be- In sum, parental ideologies are positively
liefs and practices (Banaszak & Plutzer 1993, associated with child gender ideologies, such
Ciabattari 2001, Liao & Cai 1995, Rhodebeck that more gender egalitarian parents are likely
1996, Tallichet & Willits 1986). Mothers’ own to have more gender egalitarian children. This
ideologies are expected to change in response intergenerational transmission of beliefs occurs
to increased exposure to gender egalitarianism. through direct interaction, modeling, and the
Further, mothers act as role models during so- construction of the child’s home environment
cialization. Maternal education and labor force (Sutfin et al. 2008). Sutfin et al. found that
participation provide children with exposure to parents with more traditional gender ideologies
a more gender egalitarian method of household organized their home environments in ways
organization. Not only are increased mater- that reinforced sex stereotypes that in turn inde-
nal employment and education associated with pendently encourage the development of tradi-
egalitarianism in children (Bolzendahl & Myers tional gender ideologies among children. How-
2004, Ciabattari 2001, Fan & Marini 2000, ever, regardless of socialization, the saliency of
Harris & Firestone 1998), but more egalitarian family-of-origin effects on attitude formation
mothers tend to have less gender-role stereo- seems to recede during adolescence as the
typed children (Bliss 1988, Myers & Booth influence of adolescents’ peers and their own
2002, Thornton et al. 1983). Myers & Booth life experiences becomes stronger (Davis 2007).
(2002) noted that having both mothers and fa- Racial and ethnic differences in gender ide-
thers who are gender egalitarian significantly ology have roots in historical racial and eth-
increases the likelihood that boys will also be nic differences in labor force participation and
forerunners in gender egalitarianism (this rela- access to education. African Americans are ex-
tionship does not exist for girls). pected to be more gender egalitarian than
Fathers’ gender ideologies seem to be inde- whites because African American women have a
pendently influential in the socialization pro- higher rate of labor force participation (Bureau
cess. Fathers are likely to set expectations for of Labor Statistics 2005) and African Americans
their children and model how to divide family have a higher commitment to egalitarianism
responsibilities in a manner similar to mothers. in general (Harris & Firestone 1998). Among
However, the lion’s share of childrearing con- those studies that find racial and ethnic differ-
tinues to be performed by mothers. Further- ences in gender ideologies, African American
more, compared to mothers, fathers have been women are more egalitarian than white women

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
(Bolzendahl & Myers 2004, Fan & Marini ual marriages, though this process is moderated
2000, Kane 2000). While some research ar- by social class. Middle- and upper-class Con-
gues that there is little difference in gender servative Protestants tend to be more egalitar-
ideologies among men (Kane 2000), Ciabattari ian than lower-class Conservative Protestants,
(2001) found that African American men were likely as a way to reduce cognitive dissonance
less traditional than white men on attitudes to- (Bartkowski 2001). The narratives surrounding
ward employed mothers. These relationships appropriate gendered responsibilities, such as
are complicated by social class, however. Recent men as the heads of households, are altered to
upwardly mobile middle-class African Amer- explain the pragmatic egalitarianism that may
icans may be more traditional than African exist in daily life. Women’s employment con-
Americans with a middle-class background, as tinues to be problematic because of the possi-
a way of distancing themselves from stereo- bility of child neglect, but men’s participation
types about black families (Hill 2002). African in childrearing is seen as an example of their
American women who have recently achieved headship in the family (Gallagher 2003).
middle-class status see living out the separate Context also shapes an individual’s gender
spheres model and being a homemaker as a ideologies; living in a state with a higher propor-
privilege. Lower-class African American moth- tion of fundamentalists is negatively associated

ers tend to hold traditional beliefs while mod- with holding egalitarian gender beliefs (Moore
eling egalitarian behavior. Some evidence also & Vanneman 2003). Research performed in
suggests that Hispanics are less egalitarian than Louisiana comparing covenant and standard
are non-Hispanic whites (Fan & Marini 2000, marriages found that couples in covenant mar-
Kane 2000), especially regarding attitudes to- riages hold more traditional gender ideologies
ward separate spheres (Ciabattari 2001, Kane than do those in standard marriages (Baker
2000). et al. 2009). Covenant couples see their mar-
Although the relationship between aspects riage choice as an outward expression of their
of religion and beliefs about gender is com- gender ideologies, intentionally using their re-
plex (Denton 2004), increased levels of religious lationships to perform a patriarchal model of
practice are expected to reinforce traditional gender within marriage.
viewpoints and reduce support for gender egal- Education provides exposure to egalitarian
itarianism (Hertel & Hughes 1987, Peek et al. ideas and counters acceptance of gender myths
1991). Further, specific tenets within religious and stereotypes (Cassidy & Warren 1996, Davis
doctrines often focus on gender relations and & Robinson 1991, Rhodebeck 1996). Trend and
women’s and men’s relative responsibilities for panel studies have shown that increased educa-
childrearing. As such, religions are expected to tion is associated with increased gender egali-
differ in their teachings about gender relations tarianism (Bolzendahl & Myers 2004, Brewster
and thus lead to different ideologies among & Padavic 2000, Brooks & Bolzendahl 2004,
their followers. Findings generally indicate that Ciabattari 2001, Corrigall & Konrad 2007,
Conservative Protestants are the least support- Cunningham 2005, Fan & Marini 2000, Moore
ive of gender egalitarianism, and Jews are the & Vanneman 2003, Tallichet & Willits 1986).
most supportive, with Catholics and mainline Bryant (2003) reported that both women and
Protestants somewhere in between (Baker et al. men become less traditional after four years of
2009, Bolzendahl & Myers 2004, Ciabattari college, and the college experiences that lead to
2001; but see Fan & Marini 2000, Greeley this change are similar for women and men.
1989, Hoffmann & Miller 1997, Moore & Labor force participation also provides ex-
Vanneman 2003). Religious affiliation and per- posure to new ideas and people. For young
sonal religious beliefs influence gender ideol- women in particular, labor force participation
ogy by constructing narratives regarding the increases confidence and expectations for fi-
appropriateness of power-sharing in heterosex- nancial independence and provides additional
ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
role models for negotiating family and work In sum, the literature provides evidence for
roles (Klein 1984). Labor force participation Bolzendahl & Myers’ argument that gender
seems related to young men’s interests as well, as ideologies are a function of interest-based and
Gerson (1993) and Coltrane (1996) both noted exposure-based explanations. Among interest-
that men who experience blocked opportuni- based explanations, individuals’ social loca-
ties in the labor force are likely to become tion vis-à-vis social inequality seems to influ-
more gender egalitarian as they change their ence their gender ideology. Women and men
definitions of success. Being in the labor force hold different gender ideologies, with women
does seem to be related to holding more gen- slightly more egalitarian than men. There is
der egalitarian beliefs among women, depend- some evidence for racial and ethnic differences
ing on the age at which the relationship is mea- in gender ideologies, although the differences
sured (Bolzendahl & Myers 2004, Corrigall & seem to be more a function of the intersec-
Konrad 2007, Cunningham et al. 2005, Fan & tions of sex and social class with race than race
Marini 2000, Harris & Firestone 1998, Moore and ethnicity per se. Exposure-based explana-
& Vanneman 2003, Tallichet & Willits 1986), tions include the influence of parental ideolo-
with no corresponding effect for men. How- gies, socialization (including modeled behavior
ever, men whose wives work less than full time by parents), religion, educational attainment,
have more traditional gender beliefs than men employment, and entrance into the tradition-
whose wives work full time (Ciabattari 2001). ally gendered relationships of marriage and par-
Marriage is a highly gendered institution. enthood. The literature also shows the complex
Men who enter coresidential unions (either nature of gender ideology construction over
marriages or cohabitations) behave in more time, both as a person matures and gains life
traditional ways than they did when living as experience and as historical time passes. Influ-
a single person (Gupta 1999). Fan & Marini ential life experiences, personal characteristics,
(2000) found that entering marriage typically and social contextual factors waxed and waned
led to young women becoming less egalitarian, in their import for gender ideology construc-
whereas men in their early twenties who mar- tion throughout the late twentieth century, and
ried became slightly more egalitarian. Moore & evidence suggests these changes will continue
Vanneman (2003) found that individuals who into the twenty-first century as well.
were divorced or separated were more egali-
tarian than were currently married individu-
als, whereas Cunningham and colleagues (2005) CONSEQUENCES OF
found no effect of relationship status change GENDER IDEOLOGY
(either to cohabitation or marriage) on gender This section summarizes research on the con-
attitudes. sequences of gender ideology. Focusing first on
Previous research has also used the number families, we review research examining the ef-
of children to identify traditional family cir- fects of gender ideology on relationship forma-
cumstances (Bolzendahl & Myers 2004, Plutzer tion and dissolution, including on cohabitation
1991), as married couples with several children and marriage, on fertility and birth timing, and
are considered the most traditional family ar- on the processes within relationships and fami-
rangement and are expected to be less gender lies such as the division of household labor and
egalitarian. However, there is little evidence to perceptions of its fairness. We next review the
suggest that the birth of children has the same literature on the effects of gender ideology on
traditionalizing effect across the life course and workplace and educational outcomes such as
for both women and men (Bolzendahl & Myers labor force participation, occupational choice,
2004, Ciabattari 2001, Corrigall & Konrad educational expectations, and educational at-
2007, Cunningham et al. 2005, Fan & Marini tainment. We conclude by offering some sug-
2000, Tallichet & Willits 1986). gestions for further theoretical refinement of

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
the concept of gender ideology and possible ditional fathers tend to spend more time in child
arenas for future empirical investigation. care and related activities. In-depth interviews
Gender ideology has very real effects on reveal egalitarian men’s definitions of success
family processes. A review of the literature for as reflecting their beliefs; these men note that
the past 20 years or so reveals research on the ef- their relationships with their children are better
fects of gender ideology in six general categories markers of success than their financial contri-
of outcomes: child care; division of household bution to the household or their business acu-
labor (including the perception of the fairness of men (Coltrane 1998, Gerson 1993, Hochschild
the division of household labor and its inequal- & Machung 1989). Wada & Beagan (2006) ar-
ities); union stability and conflict; relationship gued that men experience greater challenges in
quality; wife abuse; and work, earnings, and oc- translating their egalitarian beliefs (when con-
cupations. Within each of these areas we can structed) into behavior owing to the gendered
further distinguish whether gender ideology expectations of workplaces, especially among
has a direct effect on the outcome or whether highly demanding professions like medicine.
gender ideology moderates the effect of some Even when men change their definition of suc-
other factor. cess to include a balance of work and family,
they encounter structural constraints that in-

hibit the enacting of their beliefs. Indeed, al-
Fertility and Relationship Transitions though sharing child care is associated with
Stewart (2003) found that traditional ideology holding egalitarian gender ideologies, holding
leads to lower age at first motherhood regard- these beliefs is neither a necessary nor sufficient
less of relationship status. Egalitarian gender condition for equal parenting (Deutsch 1999).
ideology positively affects months of indepen-
dent living, delays marriage (but not cohabita-
tion), and delays timing of first marital birth Division of Household Labor
(Cunningham et al. 2005). Couples planning Even a cursory review of the literature over the
their wedding tend to divide the wedding plan- past 20 years or so turns up dozens of studies
ning labor according to their gender ideologies, that have examined the effects of gender ide-
even when they do not intend to do so (Humble ology on the division of household labor and
et al. 2008). Couples in which both partners related issues such as perceptions of fairness.
espouse traditional gender ideologies tend to Nearly all these studies find that the division
conform to traditionally gendered expectations of household labor in heterosexual couples—
in the division of labor around wedding plan- usually operationalized as the proportion of
ning, whereas couples with egalitarian gender housework performed by the woman—is re-
ideologies tend to negotiate gender in the wed- lated to the woman’s gender ideology, the man’s
ding planning in nonstereotypical ways. gender ideology, or both. Further, some re-
search suggests that there is an interaction be-
tween the ideologies of the woman and the man.
Child Care Finally, gender ideology seems to moderate the
A number of studies (Aldous et al. 1998, effects of some factors on the division of house-
Appelbaum et al. 2000, Bulanda 2004, Deutsch hold labor.
1999, Gaunt 2006, Ishii-Kuntz et al. 2004) Hochschild & Machung (1989) argued that
have found that father’s gender ideology (but gender ideologies, behavior, and emotional
not usually mother’s gender ideology) is associ- responses to beliefs and the lived reality of
ated with paternal involvement with child care, paid and unpaid labor lead to an individual’s
whereas other studies (e.g., Marsiglio 1991) gender strategy; the interplay of partners’
have found mixed evidence. In general, those gender strategies leads to the couple’s division
studies observing an effect found that less tra- of household labor. Subsequent analyses of
ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
quantitative data have found support for the husband’s gender ideology is not associated with
relationship between gender ideologies and the housework contributions of men married to
the division of household labor. Most of these traditional women.
studies found that men with less traditional
gender ideologies do a greater share of the
household labor. These findings are confirmed Union Stability and Conflict
in samples from Taiwan (Hu & Kamo 2007), At least two studies (Greenstein 1995,
Germany (Lavee & Katz 2002), Israel (Lavee & Hohmann-Marriott 2006) found that the
Katz 2002, Lewin-Epstein et al. 2006), China woman’s gender ideology was unrelated to
(Pimentel 2006), Canada (Brayfield 1992, union stability, whereas others (Davis &
Gazso-Windle & McMullin 2003), Sweden Greenstein 2004, Kalmijn et al. 2004) found
(Nordenmark & Nyman 2003), Great Britain that traditional women were at somewhat
(Baxter 1992, Kan 2008), and the United States lower risk of marital instability. Sayer &
(Bianchi et al. 2000; Coltrane & Ishii-Kuntz Bianchi (2000) found that women married to
1992; Cunningham 2005; Greenstein 1996a,b; egalitarian men were at less risk of marital
Hochschild & Machung 1989), as well as in instability, but that wives’ gender ideology was
a number of cross-national studies (Batalova not related to marital instability.

& Cohen 2002, SN Davis et al. 2007, Fuwa More important, though, seems to be the
2004, Nordenmark 2004, Yodanis 2005). As moderating effect of gender ideology on union
Kroska (2004, p. 921) noted in a summary stability. Greenstein (1995), for example, found
of many of these studies, “husbands’ gender that the effect of wives’ employment on marital
ideology may be a stronger determinant of stability was moderated by the wives’ gender
housework divisions than the wives’ gender ideology: Number of hours worked per week
ideology.” was negatively related to marital stability for
There is evidence that gender ideology nontraditional women, but not for traditional
is associated with perceptions of fairness in women. Davis & Greenstein (2004) observed
the division of household labor. Several stud- that the effects of age at first marriage on likeli-
ies (DeMaris & Longmore 1996, Greenstein hood of divorce were moderated by gender ide-
1996a, Nordenmark & Nyman 2003) indicated ology (age at first marriage had a strong effect
that traditional women are less likely than non- for traditional women, but no effect for non-
traditional or egalitarian women to perceive traditional women). Hohmann-Marriott (2006)
that inequalities in the division of household noted no effects of gender ideology but did
labor are unfair. Greenstein (1996a) found that observe effects of similarity of ideologies be-
for married women gender ideology interacts tween husbands and wives on the stability of
with proportion of housework performed to af- both marital and nonmarital unions. Sayer &
fect perceptions of fairness: Traditional women Bianchi (2000) did not find an interaction be-
are relatively unlikely to perceive inequali- tween wives’ economic dependence and marital
ties in the division of household labor as un- stability, however.
just, whereas the perceptions of nontraditional
women are associated with the extent of the
inequality. Relationship Quality
Finally, Greenstein (1996a) found that the A number of studies have found that gender ide-
gender ideologies of women and their hus- ology is related to self-reports of relationship
bands interact to affect the amount of house- quality. Amato & Booth (1995) and Mickelson
work performed by the husband. The amount et al. (2006), for example, found that nontra-
of housework performed by husbands is highly ditional wives tended to report lower levels
associated with the husband’s gender ideology of marital quality, whereas nontraditional men
for men with nontraditional wives, whereas the tended to report higher levels. Wilcox & Nock

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
(2006) found that wives’ gender ideology was husband’s gender ideology moderates the rela-
related to three indicators of marital quality tionship between the wife’s share of household
(nontraditional women reported poorer rela- earnings and her likelihood of being a victim
tionship quality) but that husbands’ ideology of assault. Specifically, their study found that
was not. Marshall (2008) noted effects of gender the wife’s share of household earnings is pos-
ideology on intimacy in dating relationships. itively related to the likelihood of wife abuse,
Two studies (Blair 1993, Xu & Lai 2004), how- but only for women married to husbands with a
ever, found no direct effects of gender ideology traditional gender ideology. There was no sta-
on marital quality. tistically significant effect of the wife’s share
Again, some of the most interesting effects of income for women married to egalitarian
on relationship quality are moderated by gender or transitional men. Perhaps for some tradi-
ideology. In a study of American married cou- tional men, having their breadwinner status
ples, Greenstein (1996a) found that the effects challenged becomes more than they can handle.
of perceptions of inequity on reported marital This explanation is consistent with inter-
quality were much stronger for nontraditional view data from young men who were violent to-
wives than for traditional wives. Lavee & Katz ward their dating partners (Totten 2003). Tradi-
(2002) noted similar findings with a sample of tional beliefs about gendered relations became
Israeli couples. the justification for relationship violence, as the
Tichenor’s (2005) research provides a possi- boys argued that girls needed to learn their
ble mechanism for understanding the influence place in the world with regard to relationships
of gender ideology on relationship quality, with men. Violence was seen as a mechanism
at least for men. In her research on couples through which they could ensure that their girl-
in which women out-earn their husbands, friends would engage in stereotypical behaviors
Tichenor noted that men with egalitarian ide- and not threaten their manhood (i.e., get a job
ologies do not see their identities as men being making more money or making them feel or
threatened by their wives’ breadwinning status. look stupid in public).
They reframe their work in the relationship as
masculine, regardless of whether it is tradition-
ally masculine or not. As such, these egalitarian Work, Earnings, and Education
men are more comfortable with their relation- A variety of studies have examined the rela-
ships than are similarly situated traditional men. tionship of gender ideology to human capital–
related issues of work, earnings, and educa-
tion. For example, Davis & Pearce (2007) ex-
Wife Abuse amined the effects of gender ideology on the
In a meta-analytic review of research on wife educational attainment expectations of adoles-
assault, Sugarman & Frankel (1996) found rel- cents. They found that girls and boys holding
atively few associations of gender ideology ei- more nontraditional or egalitarian ideologies
ther with the likelihood of a given husband as- were more likely to aspire to a postsecondary
saulting his wife or with the wife being a victim degree and that the effect was stronger for
of assault by her husband. In fact, some of the girls. Studying mothers’ earnings over a 10-year
observed associations were contrary to predic- period, Christie-Mizell and colleagues (2007)
tions. For example, maritally violent husbands noted that mothers with a traditional gender
were underrepresented in the “traditional male ideology tended to have lower earnings (the ef-
gender” ideology group, and traditional women fect was stronger for whites than for African
were less likely to be victims of assault. Americans). Gender ideology influences paid
One explanation of these counterintuitive work hours, months of full-time employment,
findings is suggested by the findings by and hourly earnings for women, but not for
Atkinson et al. (2005), who observed that the men (Corrigall & Konrad 2007, Cunningham
ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
et al. 2005). Corrigall & Konrad suggested using alternative types of measurement strate-
this means that women but not men use gen- gies [like Kroska’s (2000) work with vignettes]
der ideology as part of their rational planning or the construction of open-ended questions
for combining work and family lives. Christie- that provide context to individual responses. A
Mizell (2006) found that traditional attitudes critical eye also needs to be cast upon how qual-
reduce earnings for African American men, itative researchers capture the subjective nature
African American women, and white women, of self-identifications relevant to gender ide-
with white women experiencing the greatest re- ology, paying particular attention to the com-
duction in wages due to traditional ideologies. parability of such work across researchers and
Stickney & Konrad (2007), using data from 28 studies.
countries, found that among married individ- Second, as suggested above, more longitu-
uals, egalitarian beliefs had a stronger positive dinal studies need to include measures of gen-
influence on earnings for both women and men der ideology in both their closed-ended survey
working more hours, whereas on average, egal- questions and open-ended interview questions.
itarian women had higher earnings than tradi- Research is unequivocal in that attitudes toward
tional women. In a three-wave study of mar- gender relations change not only as individuals
ried men, Zuo (2004, p. 827) concluded that age but also as life is experienced and as the
“men of a lower breadwinner status relative to world around us changes. To date, relatively
that of their wives are more likely to embrace few large-scale panel studies have included re-
egalitarian ideology” and that egalitarian men peated measures of gender ideology. Even such
“are more likely to engage in a more equal shar- well-designed studies as the National Longitu-
ing of the provider role.” Although a decline in dinal Survey of Youth, 1979 (Center for Hu-
men’s breadwinning status is likely to promote man Resource Research 2006b) do not usually
more egalitarian attitudes among men, perhaps include measures of ideology at each wave of
owing to changing definitions of success, men’s the panel, making it difficult for researchers
ideologies cannot de-identify breadwinning as to study changes in individuals’ ideologies over
a male responsibility without a commensurate time.
structural shift in workplace organization (Zuo Understanding how gender ideology is con-
2004). structed (in a social sense) can help researchers
understand the choices boys and girls make
regarding education and careers, how young
CONCLUSIONS AND adults choose partners and make decisions
IMPLICATIONS FOR about fertility, and how individuals negotiate
FUTURE RESEARCH their family lives. Given the important so-
Future research on gender ideology can be in- cial implications of all these individual de-
formed by each of the three sections of this cisions, more data on how gender ideology
article. First, much more can be done both to is constructed, and data from nationally rep-
extend and to refine the measurement of gen- resentative samples (for example, including
der ideology. Rather than continuing to create more Hispanic and Asian respondents), are
new measurement strategies with closed-ended necessary.
questions, research should implement the cur- Another issue in the construction of gender
rent measures broadly into panel studies al- ideology is the relatively atheoretical approach
lowing a better understanding of how ideology taken by most scholars. For example, much of
changes over the life course of individuals (and this literature has argued that factors such as so-
how differing kinds of measures may capture cial class and education undoubtedly affect one’s
ideology differently at different parts of the life gender ideology, but the linkages and mecha-
course). In addition, more work can be done nisms involved are not always clear. A thorough
to extend the measurement of gender ideology understanding of the conceptual or theoretical

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
processes by which such factors affect gender Finally, one of the common threads run-
ideology is essential. ning through this literature is that gender ide-
Review of the consequences of gender ideology often functions as a lens through which
ology finds two general ways in which gen- many social processes and events are viewed,
der ideology affects outcomes. First, some interpreted, and acted upon. Given the power-
outcomes—for example, the timing of first ful organizing characteristics of gender in con-
birth—seem to be directly affected by one’s gen- temporary societies, it is no surprise that gen-
der ideology; egalitarian women tend to de- der ideology is a primary lens through which
lay first birth longer than traditional women. both women and men view the world. Deci-
Other outcomes—say, the likelihood of a mar- sions we make in our lives are often guided
ried woman perceiving an unequal division of by the way in which we believe the relation-
household labor as unfair or unjust—seem to ships between women and men should be. One
involve gender ideology as a moderating factor. will view one’s place in an intimate relation-
Greenstein (1995), for example, found that the ship, role as a parent, occupational choice, and
effects of a wife’s employment on marital sta- many other issues very differently based on
bility were moderated by gender ideology; the whether one holds traditional, transitional, or
wife’s employment hours affected marital stabil- nontraditional beliefs. Thus, research should
ity for egalitarian women but not for traditional explicitly take into consideration the influ-
women. Future research employing gender ide- ence of gender ideology as one of the po-
ology as a predictor must be alert to both kinds tential explanatory mechanisms for gendered
of effects. behaviors.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Gender ideology has been measured using many different individual items that can be
organized into six categories: primacy of the breadwinner role, belief in gendered separate
spheres, working women and relationship quality, motherhood and the feminine self,
household utility, and acceptance of male privilege.
2. Although social and demographic characteristics based on vested interests and exposures
to egalitarianism continue to contribute to the extent to which an individual holds an
egalitarian gender ideology, the influence of those characteristics seems to be waning,
owing largely to cohort replacement. However, women continue to be more likely to
hold egalitarian gender ideologies than men.
3. Gender ideology acts as a lens through which individuals view their social world and
upon which they make decisions. Many family-related behaviors, such as fertility tim-
ing, relationship timing, quality, dissolution, and childrearing are influenced by gender
ideology. In addition, gender ideology influences the decisions adolescents and young
adults make regarding education and employment as well as the returns on investments
young adults make in their human capital.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. Does the type of measure used to capture gender ideology provide different responses
at different points in the life course? How is the reliability of measures influenced by
individual-level change in respondents? Are certain measures better at different points
in the life course than others?

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
2. How will our understanding of gender ideology change once more panel data incorpo-
rating truly representative samples of the U.S. population become available?
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this
review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Laura Hinton for her assistance with the completion of this review. We also thank our
research collaborators, especially Jeremiah B. Wills and Matthew Loyd, for conversations that led
to improvements in this review.

LITERATURE CITED
Aldous J, Mulligan GM, Bjarnason T. 1998. Fathering over time: What makes the difference? J. Marriage
Fam. 60:809–20
Amato PR, Booth A. 1995. Changes in gender role attitudes and perceived marital quality. Am. Sociol. Rev.
60:58–66
Appelbaum M, Belsky J, Booth C, Bradley R, Brownell C, et al. 2000. Factors associated with fathers’ caregiving
activities and sensitivity with young children. J. Fam. Psychol. 14:200–19
Atkinson MP, Greenstein TN, Lang MM. 2005. For women, breadwinning can be dangerous: gendered
resource theory and wife abuse. J. Marriage Fam. 67:1137–48
Baber KM, Tucker CJ. 2006. The social roles questionnaire: a new approach to measuring attitudes toward
gender. Sex Roles 54:459–67
Baker EH, Sanchez LA, Nock SL, Wright JD. 2009. Covenant marriage and the sanctification of gendered
marital roles. J. Fam. Issues 30:147–78
Banaszak LA, Plutzer E. 1993. Contextual determinants of feminist attitudes—national and subnational in-
fluences in western-Europe. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 87:147–57
Barnett R, Rivers C. 2004. Same Difference: How Gender Myths are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and
Our Jobs. New York: Basic Books
Bartkowski JP. 2001. Remaking the Godly Marriage: Gender Negotiation in Evangelical Families. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Batalova JA, Cohen PN. 2002. Premarital cohabitation and housework: couples in cross-national perspective.
J. Marriage Fam. 64:743–55
Baxter J. 1992. Power attitudes and time: the domestic division of labour. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 23:165–82
Bianchi SM, Milkie MA, Sayer LC, Robinson JP. 2000. Is anyone doing the housework: trends in the gender
division of household labor. Soc. Forces 79:191–228
Bianchi SM, Robinson JP, Milkie MA. 2006. Changing Rhythms of American Family Life. New York: Russell
Sage Found.
Blair SL. 1993. Employment, family, and perceptions of marital quality among husbands and wives. J. Fam.
Issues 14:189–212
Bliss SB. 1988. The effect of feminist attitudes in parents on their kindergarten-children. Smith Coll. Stud. Soc.
Work 58:182–92
Bolzendahl CI, Myers DJ. 2004. Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: opinion change in women
and men, 1974–1998. Soc. Forces 83:759–89
Bond JT, Galinsky E, Swanberg JE. 1998. The 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce. New York: Work
Fam. Inst.

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
Booth A, Johnson DR, Amato P, Rogers SJ. 2003. Marital Instability Over the Life Course (United States): A
Six-Wave Panel Study, 1980, 1983, 1988, 1992–1994, 1997, 2000 (Computer file). University Park: Penn.
State Univ. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/access/index.html
Brayfield AA. 1992. Employment resources and housework in Canada. J. Marriage Fam. 54:19–30
Brewster KL, Padavic I. 2000. Change in gender-ideology, 1977–1996: the contributions of intracohort change
and population turnover. J. Marriage Fam. 62:477–87
Brooks C, Bolzendahl C. 2004. The transformation of US gender role attitudes: cohort replacement, social-
structural change, and ideological learning. Soc. Sci. Res. 33:106–33
Bryant AN. 2003. Changes in attitudes toward women’s roles: predicting gender-role traditionalism among
college students. Sex Roles 48:131–42
Bulanda RE. 2004. Paternal involvement with children: the influence of gender ideologies. J. Marriage Fam.
66:40–45
Bur. Labor Stat. 2005. Employment and earnings, January 2005: household data annual averages. http://www.
bls.gov/cps/cpsa2004.pdf
Burt KB, Scott J. 2002. Parent and adolescent gender role attitudes in 1990s Great Britain. Sex Roles 46:239–45
Carter JS, Borch CA. 2005. Assessing the effects of urbanism and regionalism on gender-role attitudes, 1974–
1998. Sociol. Inq. 75:548–63
Cassidy ML, Warren BO. 1996. Family employment status and gender role attitudes—a comparison of women
and men college graduates. Gend. Soc. 10:312–29

Cent. Hum. Resour. Res. 2006a. NLSY79 child & young adult data user’s guide: a guide to the 1986–2004 child
data, 1994–2004 young adult data. Columbus: The Ohio State Univ.
Cent. Hum. Resour. Res. 2006b. NLSY79 user’s guide: a guide to the 1979–2004 national longitudinal survey of
youth data. Columbus: The Ohio State Univ.
Cherlin A, Walters PB. 1981. Trends in United States men’s and women’s sex-role attitudes: 1972–1978. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 46:453–60
Christie-Mizell CA. 2006. The effects of traditional family and gender ideology on earnings: race and gender
differences. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 27:48–71
Christie-Mizell CA, Keil JM, Kimura A, Blount SA. 2007. Gender ideology and motherhood: the consequences
of race on earnings. Sex Roles 57:689–702
Ciabattari T. 2001. Changes in men’s conservative gender ideologies—cohort and period influences. Gend.
Soc. 15:574–91
Coltrane S. 1996. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Coltrane S. 1998. Gender and Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press
Coltrane S, Ishii-Kuntz M. 1992. Men’s housework: a life course perspective. J. Marriage Fam. 54:43–57
Corrigall EA, Konrad AM. 2007. Gender role attitudes and careers: a longitudinal study. Sex Roles 56:847–55
Cunningham M. 2005. Gender in cohabitation and marriage—the influence of gender ideology on housework
allocation over the life course. J. Fam. Issues 26:1037–61
Cunningham M, Beutel AM, Barber JS, Thornton A. 2005. Reciprocal relationships between attitudes about
gender and social contexts during young adulthood. Soc. Sci. Res. 34:862–92
Davis JA, Smith TW, Marsden PV. 2007. General Social Surveys, 1972–2006 (Computer file). Chicago: Natl.
Opin. Res. Cent. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/access/index.html
Davis NJ, Robinson RV. 1991. Men’s and women’s consciousness of gender inequality: Austria, West Germany,
Great Britain, and the United States. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56:72–84
Davis SN. 2007. Gender ideology construction from adolescence to young adulthood. Soc. Sci. Res. 36:1021–41
Davis SN, Greenstein TN. 2004. Interactive effects of gender ideology and age at first marriage on women’s
marital disruption. J. Fam. Issues 25:658–82
Davis SN, Greenstein TN, Marks JPG. 2007. Effects of union type on division of household labor: Do
cohabiting men really perform more housework? J. Fam. Issues 28:1246–72
Davis SN, Pearce LD. 2007. Adolescents’ work-family gender ideologies and educational expectations. Sociol.
Perspect. 50:249–71
DeMaris A, Longmore MA. 1996. Ideology, power, and equity: testing competing explanations for the per-
ception of fairness in household labor. Soc. Forces 74:1043–71

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
Denton ML. 2004. Gender and marital decision making: negotiating religious ideology and practice. Soc.
Forces 82:1151–80
Deutsch FM. 1999. Halving It All: How Equally Shared Parenting Works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Eur. Values Study Found. World Values Surv. Assoc. 2006. European and World Values Surveys Four-Wave
Integrated Data File, 1981–2004. Madrid, Spain/Tilburg, Neth.: ASEP/JDS/Tilburg Univ.
Fan PL, Marini MM. 2000. Influences on gender-role attitudes during the transition to adulthood. Soc. Sci.
Res. 29:258–83
Fuwa M. 2004. Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 69:751–67
Gallagher SK. 2003. Evangelical Identity and Gendered Family Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Gaunt R. 2006. Biological essentialism, gender ideologies, and role attitudes: what determines parents’ in-
volvement in child care. Sex Roles 55:523–33
Gazso-Windle A, McMullin JA. 2003. Doing domestic labour: strategising in a gendered domain. Can. J.
Sociol. 28:341–66
Gerson K. 1993. No Man’s Land: Men’s Changing Commitments to Family and Work. New York: Basic Books
Greeley AM. 1989. Religious Change in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Greenstein TN. 1995. Gender ideology, marital disruption, and the employment of married women. J. Mar-
riage Fam. 57:31–42
Greenstein TN. 1996a. Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor:
effects on marital quality. Soc. Forces 74:1029–42
Greenstein TN. 1996b. Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’
gender ideologies. J. Marriage Fam. 58:585–95
Gupta S. 1999. The effects of transitions in marital status on men’s performance of housework. J. Marriage
Fam. 61:700–11
Harris RJ, Firestone JM. 1998. Changes in predictors of gender role ideologies among women: a multivariate
analysis. Sex Roles 38:239–52
Hertel BR, Hughes M. 1987. Religious affiliation, attendance, and support for pro-family issues in the United
States. Soc. Forces 65:858–82
Hill SA. 2002. Teaching and doing gender in African American families. Sex Roles 47:493–506
Hochschild A, Machung A. 1989. The Second Shift. New York: Viking
Hoffmann JP, Miller AS. 1997. Social and political attitudes among religious groups: convergence and diver-
gence over time. J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 36:52–70
Hohmann-Marriott BE. 2006. Shared beliefs and the union stability of married and cohabiting couples.
Hu CY, Kamo Y. 2007. The division of household labor in Taiwan. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 38:105–24
Humble AM, Zvonkovic AM, Walker AJ. 2008. “The royal we”: gender ideology, display, and assessment in
wedding work. J. Fam. Issues 29:3–25
Ishii-Kuntz M, Makino K, Kato K, Tsuchiya M. 2004. Japanese fathers of preschoolers and their involvement
in child care. J. Marriage Fam. 66:779–91
Jorgenson DE, Tanner LM. 1983. Attitude comparisons toward the wife/mother work-role: a study of husbands
and wives. Int. J. Soc. Fam. 13:103–15
Kalmijn M, De Graaf PM, Poortman AR. 2004. Interactions between cultural and economic determinants of
divorce in The Netherlands. J. Marriage Fam. 66:75–89
Kan MY. 2008. Does gender trump money? Housework hours of husbands and wives in Britain. Work Employ.
Soc. 22:45–66
Kane EW. 2000. Racial and ethnic variations in gender-related attitudes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:419–39
Klein E. 1984. Gender Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Kroska A. 2000. Conceptualizing and measuring gender ideology as an identity. Gend. Soc. 14:368–94
Kroska A. 2004. Divisions of domestic work: revising and expanding the theoretical explanations. J. Fam. Issues
25:900–32
Kulik L. 2002. Like-sex versus opposite-sex effects in transmission of gender role ideology from parents to
adolescents in Israel. J. Youth Adolesc. 31:451–57

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
Lavee Y, Katz R. 2002. Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: the effect of gender ideology.
Lewin-Epstein N, Stier H, Braun M. 2006. The division of household labor in Germany and Israel. J. Marriage
Fam. 68:1147–64
Liao TF, Cai Y. 1995. Socialization, life situations, and gender-role attitudes regarding the family among
white American women. Sociol. Perspect. 38:241–60
Marshall TC. 2008. Cultural differences in intimacy: the influence of gender-role ideology and individualism-
collectivism. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 25:143–68
Marsiglio W. 1991. Paternal engagement activities with minor children. J. Marriage Fam. 53:973–86
Mason KO, Czajka JL, Arber S. 1976. Change in U.S. women’s sex-role attitudes: 1964–1974. Am. Sociol. Rev.
41:573–96
Mason KO, Lu Y-H. 1988. Attitudes toward women’s familial roles: changes in the United States, 1977–1985.
Gend. Soc. 2:39–57
McHale SM, Crouter AC, Whiteman SD. 2003. The family contexts of gender development in childhood
and adolescence. Soc. Dev. 12:125–48
McHale SM, Kim JY, Whiteman S, Crouter AC. 2004. Links between sex-typed time use in middle childhood
and gender development in early adolescence. Dev. Psychol. 40:868–81
Mickelson KD, Claffey ST, Williams SL. 2006. The moderating role of gender and gender role attitudes on
the link between spousal support and marital quality. Sex Roles 55:73–82
Moore LM, Vanneman R. 2003. Context matters: effects of the proportion of fundamentalists on gender
attitudes. Soc. Forces 82:115–39
Myers SM, Booth A. 2002. Forerunners of change in nontraditional gender ideology. Soc. Psychol. Q. 65:18–37
Nordenmark M. 2004. Does gender ideology explain differences between countries regarding the involvement
of women and of men in paid and unpaid work? Int. J. Soc. Welf. 13:233–43
Nordenmark M, Nyman C. 2003. Fair or unfair? Perceived fairness of household division of labour and gender
equality among women and men—the Swedish case. Eur. J. Women’s Stud. 10:181–209
Peek CW, Lowe GD, Williams LS. 1991. Gender and God’s word: another look at religious fundamentalism
and sexism. Soc. Forces 69:1205–21
Pimentel EE. 2006. Gender ideology, household behavior, and backlash in urban China. J. Fam. Issues 27:341–
65
Plutzer E. 1991. Preferences in family politics: women’s consciousness or family context. Polit. Geogr. Q.
10:162–73
Powers RS, Suitor JJ, Guerra S, Shackelford M, Mecom D, Gusman K. 2003. Regional differences in gender-
role attitudes: variations by gender and race. Gend. Issues 21:40–54
Rhodebeck LA. 1996. The structure of men’s and women’s feminist organizations: feminist identity and
feminist opinion. Gend. Soc. 10:386–403
Ridgeway CL, Correll SJ. 2004. Unpacking the gender system: a theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and
social relations. Gend. Soc. 18:510–31
Sayer LC, Bianchi SM. 2000. Women’s economic independence and the probability of divorce: a review and
reexamination. J. Fam. Issues 21:906–43
Spence JT, Helmreich RL. 1978. Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates and
Antecedents. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
Stacey J, Thorne B. 1985. The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Soc. Probl. 32:301–16
Stewart J. 2003. The mommy track: the consequences of gender ideology and aspirations on age at first
motherhood. J. Sociol. Soc. Welf. 30:2–30
Stickney LT, Konrad AM. 2007. Gender-role attitudes and earnings: a multinational study of married women
and men. Sex Roles 57:801–11
Sugarman DB, Frankel SL. 1996. Patriarchal ideology and wife assault: a meta-analytic review. J. Fam. Violence
11:13–40
Sutfin EL, Fulcher M, Bowles RP, Patterson CJ. 2008. How lesbian and heterosexual parents convey attitudes
about gender to their children: the role of gendered environments. Sex Roles 58:501–13
Sweet J, Bumpass L, Call V. 1988. The Design and Content of the National Survey of Families and Households.
Madison, WI: Cent. Demogr. Ecol.

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57
Swim JK, Aikin KJ, Hall WS, Hunter BA. 1995. Sexism and racism: old-fashioned and modern prejudices.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68:199–214
Tallichet SE, Willits FK. 1986. Gender-role attitude-change of young-women: influential factors from a panel
study. Soc. Psychol. Q. 49:219–27
Thornton A, Alwin DF, Camburn D. 1983. Causes and consequences of sex-role attitudes and attitude-change.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 48:211–27
Thornton A, Freedman R, Axinn WG. 2002. Intergenerational panel study of parents and children. In Looking
at Lives: American Longitudinal Studies of the Twentieth Century, ed. E Phelps, FF Furstenberg Jr, A Colby,
pp. 315–44. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Thornton A, Young-DeMarco L. 2001. Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United
States: the 1960s through the 1990s. J. Marriage Fam. 63:1009–37
Tichenor VJ. 2005. Earning More and Getting Less: Why Successful Wives Can’t Buy Quality. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Totten M. 2003. Girlfriend abuse as a form of masculinity construction among violent, marginal male youth.
Men Masc. 6:70–92
U.S. Dep. Educ. 2001. High School and Beyond, 1980: A Longitudinal Survey of Students in the United States
(Computer file). Chicago: Natl. Opin. Res. Cent. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/access/index.html
Valentine S. 2001. Development of a brief multidimensional aversion to women who work scale. Sex Roles
44:773–87
Wada M, Beagan B. 2006. Values concerning employment-related and family-related occupations: perspectives
of young Canadian male medical students. J. Occup. Sci. 13:117–25
Wilcox WB, Nock SL. 2006. What’s love got to do with it? Equality, equity, commitment and women’s marital
quality. Soc. Forces 84:1321–45
Xu XH, Lai SC. 2004. Gender ideologies, marital roles, and marital quality in Taiwan. J. Fam. Issues 25:318–55
Yodanis C. 2005. Divorce culture and marital gender equality: a cross-national study. Gend. Soc. 19:644–59
Zent. Empir. Soz. 2004. The International Social Survey Programme. http://www.gesis.org/en/data
service/issp
Zuo HP. 2004. Shifting the breadwinning boundary: the role of men’s breadwinner status and their gender
ideologies. J. Fam. Issues 25:811–32

AR348-FM ARI 2 June 2009 9:48
Annual Review
of Sociology
Contents Volume 35, 2009
Frontispiece
Herbert J. Gans p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p xiv
Prefatory Chapters
Working in Six Research Areas: A Multi-Field Sociological Career
Herbert J. Gans p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Theory and Methods
Ethnicity, Race, and Nationalism
Rogers Brubaker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment
Jerry A. Jacobs and Scott Frickel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p43
Nonparametric Methods for Modeling Nonlinearity
in Regression Analysis
Robert Andersen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p67
Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences
Shannon N. Davis and Theodore N. Greenstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
Genetics and Social Inquiry
Jeremy Freese and Sara Shostak p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 107
Social Processes
Race Mixture: Boundary Crossing in Comparative Perspective
Edward E. Telles and Christina A. Sue p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 129
The Sociology of Emotional Labor
Amy S. Wharton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 147
Societal Responses toTerrorist Attacks
Seymour Spilerman and Guy Stecklov p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
Intergenerational Family Relations in Adulthood: Patterns, Variations,
and Implications in the Contemporary United States
Teresa Toguchi Swartz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191
v
AR348-FM ARI 2 June 2009 9:48
Institutions and Culture

Sociology of Sex Work
Ronald Weitzer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
The Sociology of War and the Military
Meyer Kestnbaum p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans
Arthur Sakamoto, Kimberly A. Goyette, and ChangHwan Kim p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 255
Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts
Douglas Schrock and Michael Schwalbe p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 277
Formal Organizations
American Trade Unions and Data Limitations: A New Agenda

for Labor Studies
Caleb Southworth and Judith Stepan-Norris p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 297

Outsourcing and the Changing Nature of Work
Alison Davis-Blake and Joseph P. Broschak p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 321
Taming Prometheus: Talk About Safety and Culture
Susan S. Silbey p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 341
Political and Economic Sociology
Paradoxes of China’s Economic Boom
Martin King Whyte p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Political Sociology and Social Movements
Andrew G. Walder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 393
Differentiation and Stratification
New Directions in Life Course Research
Karl Ulrich Mayer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 413
Is America Fragmenting?
Claude S. Fischer and Greggor Mattson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 435
Switching Social Contexts: The Effects of Housing Mobility and
School Choice Programs on Youth Outcomes
Stefanie DeLuca and Elizabeth Dayton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 457
Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction
Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate E. Pickett p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493
Educational Assortative Marriage in Comparative Perspective
Hans-Peter Blossfeld p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 513
vi Contents
AR348-FM ARI 2 June 2009 9:48
Individual and Society

Nonhumans in Social Interaction
Karen A. Cerulo p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 531
Demography
Social Class Differentials in Health and Mortality: Patterns and
Explanations in Comparative Perspective
Irma T. Elo p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 553
Policy
The Impacts of Wal-Mart: The Rise and Consequences of the World’s
Dominant Retailer
Gary Gereffi and Michelle Christian p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 573

Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–35 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–35 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 597
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at

http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents vii

Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences: Shannon N. Davis and Theodore N. Greenstein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences: Shannon N. Davis and Theodore N. Greenstein

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences: Shannon N. Davis and Theodore N. Greenstein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANRV381-SO35-05 ARI 1 June 2009 17:57

Shannon N. Davis1 and Theodore N. Greenstein2

Virginia 22030; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009. 35:87–105 Key Words

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract

der ideology, 24 use gender attitudes or gender- feminine self ).

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 89

Table 1 Items used to measure gender ideology

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 91

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 93

privilege. Lower-class African American moth- tion of fundamentalists is negatively associated

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 95

they encounter structural constraints that in-

a number of cross-national studies (Batalova not related to marital instability.

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 97

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 99

100 Davis · Greenstein

to improvements in this review.

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 101

and men college graduates. Gend. Soc. 10:312–29

102 Davis · Greenstein

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 103

104 Davis · Greenstein

www.annualreviews.org • Gender Ideology 105

Contents Volume 35, 2009

Institutions and Culture

American Trade Unions and Data Limitations: A New Agenda

Caleb Southworth and Judith Stepan-Norris p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 297

Individual and Society

Gary Gerefﬁ and Michelle Christian p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 573

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–35 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at

You might also like