Do Youth Dream of Gender Stereotypes? The Relationship among Gender Stereotyping, Support for Feminism, and Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Social Roles, Gender Stereotypes, and Objectification
1.2. Gender Stereotyping, Sexism, and Gender-Based Violence
1.3. Contextualizing the Study of Gender Stereotypes in Spain
2. Current Study
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Participants and Data Collection
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Dependent Variables
3.2.2. Independent Variables
3.3. Analytic Strategy
4. Results
4.1. Attributes Used to Describe Women and Men
4.2. Gender Stereotyping around Occupations
4.3. Gender Stereotyping, Support for Feminism, and Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence
4.4. Correlates of Support for Feminism and Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Spanish Barometer on Youth and Gender | |
---|---|
Institution in charge | Centro Reina Sofía (https://www.adolescenciayjuventud.org/que-es-el-crs/ accessed on 1 November 2022) |
Survey frequency | Once every two years |
Population | Young people between 15 and 29 years old |
Geographical coverage | Spain |
Panel provider | CINT (https://es.cint.com/ accessed on 1 November 2022) |
Sampling approach | Non-probabilistic Proportional allocation—quotas for age and education |
Achieved sample size | 1201 |
Participation rate | 36.6% |
Fieldwork period | April and May 2021 |
Main topics covered | Gender stereotypes; relationships, inequalities, and discrimination; harassment, gender-based violence, and intimate partner violence |
Survey mode | Online |
Survey length | 20–25 min |
Data access | https://www.adolescenciayjuventud.org/bases-microdatos/ accessed on 1 November 2022 |
Appendix B
Item | Factor 1 | Uniqueness |
---|---|---|
Welfare, health, care of people | 0.54 | 0.71 |
Education/teaching | 0.48 | 0.77 |
Science and research | 0.71 | 0.49 |
Computer science | 0.67 | 0.55 |
Business management | 0.68 | 0.53 |
Engineering | 0.73 | 0.47 |
Appendix C
Variable | % (n) |
---|---|
Political orientation | 13.1% (157) |
Support for feminism | 3.5% (42) |
Acceptance of gender-based violence | 3.5% (42) |
Gender-based occupational stereotypes | 2.8% (34) |
Sexual orientation | 2.6% (31) |
Habitat | 2.0% (24) |
Gender | 0.4% (5) |
Nationality | 0.2% (2) |
Appendix D
Variable | Support for Feminism | Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
b | [95% CI] | b | [95% CI] | |
Gender (women) | 1.17 *** | [0.93, 1.40] | −0.94 *** | [−1.20, −0.68] |
Age (ref. 15–19 years old) | ||||
20–24 years old | 0.25 | [−0.03, 0.53] | −0.25 | [−0.57, 0.07] |
25–29 years old | −0.09 | [−0.36, 0.19] | −0.19 | [−0.51, 0.12] |
Nationality (Spanish) | 0.18 | [−0.15, 0.51] | −0.49 ** | [−0.86, −0.12] |
Sexual orientation (heterosexual) | −0.45 ** | [−0.74, −0.16] | −0.05 | [−0.38, 0.28] |
Political orientation (left–right) | −0.33 *** | [−0.38, −0.28] | 0.33 *** | [0.27, 0.39] |
Habitat (ref. town or small city) | ||||
Mid-sized city with 10,000 inhabitants or less | −0.30 * | [−0.58, −0.02] | 0.28 | [−0.04, 0.60] |
Large city with 1M inhabitants or more | −0.38 ** | [−0.66, −0.10] | 0.11 | [−0.21, 0.43] |
Gender stereotypes about men | 0.20 ** | [0.07, 0.33] | −0.46 *** | [−0.61, −0.31] |
Gender stereotypes about women | −0.18 ** | [−0.32, −0.05] | 0.03 | [−0.12, 0.17] |
Gender-based occupational stereotypes | 0.62 * | [0.01, 1.24] | −0.06 | [−0.77, 0.65] |
Gender-based occupational stereotypes^2 | −0.05 | [−0.10, 0.00] | 0.01 | [−0.05, 0.07] |
F | 37.63 *** | 24.37 *** | ||
N | 1159 | 1159 | ||
Adjusted R-square | 0.28 | 0.20 |
References
- Dovidio, J.F.; Evans, N.; Tyler, R.B. Racial stereotypes: The contents of their cognitive representations. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 1986, 22, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, M.E. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 2001, 57, 657–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prentice, D.A.; Carranza, E. What women should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychol. Women Q. 2002, 26, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Human Rights Council. Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/en/women/gender-stereotyping (accessed on 9 October 2022).
- Moya, M.; Puertas, S. Definición de sexismo y conceptos relacionados. In Psicología, Cultura y Educación; Páez, D., Fernández, I., Ubillos, S., Zubieta, E., Eds.; Prentice Hall: Madrid, Spain, 2003; p. 208223. [Google Scholar]
- Eagly, A.H. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Eagly, A.H.; Wood, W.; Diekman, A.B. Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender; Eckes, T., Trautner, H.M., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2000; p. 123174. [Google Scholar]
- Eagly, A.H.; Wood, W. Social role theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 2; Van Lange, P.A.L., Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2012; p. 458476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo-Mayén, R.; Montes-Berges, B. Análisis de los estereotipos de género actuales. An. De Psicol. 2014, 30, 1044–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herrero, J.; Torres, A.; Rodríguez, F.J.; Juarros-Basterretxea, J. Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners’ traditional gender roles and general violence. Psychol. Violence 2017, 7, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, K.J.; Mehta, R.; Haberland, N.A. Gender, power, and violence: A systematic review of measures and their association with male perpetration of IPV. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0207091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koenig, A.M.; Eagly, A.H. Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 107, 371–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lippa, R.A.; Preston, K.; Penner, J. Women’s representation in 60 occupations from 1972 to 2010: More women in high-status jobs, few women in things-oriented jobs. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e95960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Communion in Western Man; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Eagly, A. Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Leadersh. Q. 2005, 16, 459–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Karau, S.J. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev. 2002, 109, 573–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ellemers, N. Gender stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2018, 69, 275–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fredrickson, B.L.; Roberts, T. Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychol. Women Q. 1997, 21, 173–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cikara, M.; Botvinick, M.M.; Fiske, S.T. Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 306–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Heflick, N.; Goldenberg, J.; Cooper, D.; Puvia, E. From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 2011, 47, 572–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rollero, C.; Tartaglia, S. The effects of objectification on stereotypical perception and attractiveness of women and men. Psuhologija 2016, 49, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haslam, N.; Loughnan, S.; Reynolds, C.; Wilson, S. Dehumanization: A new perspective. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2007, 1, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glick, P.; Larsen, S.; Johnson, C.; Branstiter, H. Evaluations of sexy women in low and high-status jobs. Psychol. Women Q. 2005, 29, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haines, E.L.; Deaux, K.; Lofaro, N. The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychol. Women Q. 2016, 40, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhatia, N.; Bhatia, S. Changes in gender stereotypes over time: A computational analysis. Psychol. Women Q. 2020, 45, 106–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez-Zafra, E.; Garcia-Retamero, R. Are gender stereotypes changing over time? A cross-temporal analysis of perceptions about gender stereotypes in Spain. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 36, 330–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moya, M.; Moya-Garófano, A. Evolution of gender stereotypes in Spain: From 1985 to 2018. Psicothema 2021, 33, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- López-Sáez, M.; Lisbona, A. Descriptive and prescriptive features of gender stereotyping. Relationships among its components. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 24, 363–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Retamero, R.; Müller, S.M.; López-Zafra, E. The malleability of gender stereotypes: Influence of population size and perception of men and women in the past, present, and future. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 151, 635–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Breen, J.A.; Spears, R.; Kuppens, T.; De Lemus, S. A multiple identity approach to gender: Identification with women, identification with feminists, and their interaction. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaiser, C.R.; Vick, S.B.; Major, B. Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious attention to cues that are threatening to social identity. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, C.T.; Kaiser, C.R. A theoretical perspective on coping with stigma. J. Soc. Issues 2001, 57, 73–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakalli-Uğurlu, N.; Türkoğlu, B.; Kuzlak, A. How are women and men perceived? Structure of gender stereotypes in contemporary Turkey. Nesne Psikol. Derg. 2018, 6, 309–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, C.S.; Stone, E.A. Gender stereotypes and discrimination: How sexism impacts development. In Equity and Justice in Developmental Science: Theoretical and Methodological Issues; Horn, S.S., Ruck, M.D., Liben, L.S., Eds.; Elservier Academic Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 105–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swim, J.K.; Aikin, K.J.; Hall, W.S.; Hunter, B.A. Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 68, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kite, M.E. Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be. In The Handbook of the Psychology of Women and Gender; Unger, R., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 215–227. [Google Scholar]
- Denmark, F.; Paludi, M. Psychology of Women: Handbook of Issues and Theories, 3rd ed.; Praeger: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Estevan-Reina, L.; De Lemus, S.; Megías, J.L. Feminist or paternalistic: Understanding men’s motivations to confront sexism. Front. Psychol. 2020, 10, 2988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunst, J.R.; Dovidio, J.F.; Dotsch, R. White look-alikes: Mainstream culture adoption makes immigrants “look” phenotypically white. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2018, 44, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Institute for Gender Equality. Available online: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence/what-is-gender-based-violence (accessed on 9 October 2022).
- Dobash, R.P.; Dobash, R.E. Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. Br. J. Criminol. 2004, 44, 324–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, G.L. Gender stereotypes and power: Perceptions of the roles in violent marriages. Sex Roles 1991, 24, 439–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flood, M.; Pease, B. Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma Violence Abus. 2009, 10, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gracia, E.; Lila, M.; Santirso, F.A. Attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: A systematic review. Eur. Psychol. 2020, 25, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cinquegrana, V.; Baldry, A.C.; Pagliaro, S. Intimate partner violence and bystanders’ helping behaviour: An experimental study. J. Aggress. Confl. Peace Res. 2018, 10, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques-Fagundes, A.; Megías, J.L.; García-García, D.M.; Petkanopoulou, K. Ambivalent sexism and egalitarian ideology in perception of psychological abuse and (in)vulnerability to violence. Rev. De Psicol. Soc. 2015, 30, 31–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morcillo, A.G. En Cuerpo y Alma. Ser Mujer en Tiempos de Franco; Siglo XXI de España Editores: Madrid, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Institute for Gender Equality. Available online: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/country/ES (accessed on 9 October 2022).
- López-Sáez, M.; Morales, J.F.; Lisbona, A. Evolution of gender stereotypes in Spain: Traits and roles. Span. J. Psychol. 2008, 11, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eagly, A.H.; Mladinic, A. Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 15, 543–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckes, T. Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles 2002, 47, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Nater, C.; Miller, D.I.; Kaufmann, M.; Sczesny, S. Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. Am. Psychol. 2020, 75, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moya, M.; Pérez, C. Nuevas perspectivas en el estudio de los estereotipos de género. In Métodos y Técnicas de Intervención; Valcárcel, P., Meliá, J.L., Eds.; Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias: Barcelona, Spain, 1990; pp. 49–60. [Google Scholar]
- Begeny, C.T.; Ryan, M.K.; Moss-Racusin, C.A.; Ravetz, G. In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists -perpetuated by those who think it is not happening. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaba7814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chatzi, A.V.; Murphy, C. Exploring correlations between gender and area of study stereotypes among third level education students in Ireland. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2022, 3, 100171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilman, M.E. Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Res. Organ. Behav. 1983, 5, 269–298. [Google Scholar]
- Bettencourt, K.E.F.; Vacha-Haase, T.; Bryne, Z.S. Older and younger adults’ attitudes toward feminism: The influence of religiosity, political orientation, gender, education, and family. Sex Roles 2011, 64, 863–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogletree, S.M.; Diaz, P.; Padilla, V. What is feminism? College students’ definitions and correlates. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 38, 1576–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, A.; Espinosa-Fajardo, J. Blitzkrieg against democracy: Gender equality and the rise of the populist radical right in Spain. Soc. Politics 2021, 28, 656–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jost, J.T.; Kay, A.C. Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 88, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rudman, L.A.; Glick, P. The Social Psychology of Gender: How Power and Intimacy Shape Gender Relations; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zitelny, H.; Shalom, M.; Bar-Ananx, Y. What is the implicit gender-science stereotype? Exploring correlations between the gender-science IAT and self-report measures. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2017, 8, 719–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barreto, M.; Ellemers, N. Detecting and experiencing prejudice: New answers to old questions. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 52, 139–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attribute | Women | Men | Neutral/Unclear |
---|---|---|---|
Dynamic, active | X | ||
Hard-working, studious | X | ||
Responsible, prudent | X | ||
Smart | X | ||
Sensitive, affectionate | X | ||
Calm | X | ||
Dependent | X | ||
Independent | X | ||
Understanding | X | ||
Worried about self-image, flirtatious | X | ||
Possessive, jealous | X | ||
Linked to home | X | ||
Superficial | X | ||
Enterprising | X |
Variable | Full Sample (N = 1201) | Gender | X2 | Cramer’s V | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Women (n = 605) | Men (n = 591) | ||||
Attributes Used to Describe Women | |||||
Dynamic, active | 13.0% (155) | 14.7% (89) | 11.2% (66) | 3.33 | 0.05 |
Hard-working, studious | 41.5% (496) | 48.6% (294) | 34.2% (202) | 25.60 *** | 0.15 |
Responsible, prudent | 26.6% (318) | 28.4% (172) | 24.7% (146) | 2.13 | 0.04 |
Smart | 38.6% (462) | 41.8% (253) | 35.4% (209) | 5.25 * | 0.07 |
Sensitive, affectionate | 21.5% (257) | 18.5% (112) | 24.5% (145) | 6.43 * | −0.07 |
Calm | 7.4% (89) | 5.8% (35) | 9.1% (54) | 4.88 * | −0.06 |
Dependent | 6.1% (73) | 5.0% (30) | 7.3% (43) | 2.80 | −0.05 |
Independent | 28.9% (346) | 37.5% (227) | 20.1% (119) | 43.95 *** | 0.19 |
Understanding | 13.3% (159) | 12.1% (73) | 14.6% (86) | 1.60 | −0.04 |
Worried about self-image, flirtatious | 13.8% (165) | 10.4% (63) | 17.3% (102) | 11.78 *** | −0.10 |
Possessive, jealous | 5.4% (65) | 3.3% (20) | 7.6% (45) | 10.80 *** | −0.10 |
Linked to home | 4.5% (54) | 4.1% (25) | 4.9% (29) | 0.42 | −0.02 |
Superficial | 3.8% (45) | 1.3% (8) | 6.3% (37) | 20.13 *** | −0.13 |
Enterprising | 19.7% (236) | 27.4% (166) | 11.8% (70) | 45.90 *** | 0.20 |
Attributes to Describe Men | |||||
Dynamic, active | 23.8% (284) | 28.3% (171) | 19.1% (113) | 13.81 *** | 0.11 |
Hard-working, studious | 27.6% (330) | 27.9% (169) | 27.2% (161) | 0.07 | 0.01 |
Responsible, prudent | 20.2% (241) | 17.7% (107) | 22.7% (134) | 4.62 * | −0.06 |
Smart | 24.6% (294) | 22.6% (137) | 26.6% (157) | 2.48 | −0.05 |
Sensitive, affectionate | 5.0% (60) | 4.8% (29) | 5.3% (31) | 0.13 | −0.01 |
Calm | 8.6% (103) | 9.4% (57) | 7.8% (46) | 1.02 | 0.03 |
Dependent | 15.9% (190) | 16.5% (100) | 15.2% (90) | 0.38 | 0.02 |
Independent | 33.7% (403) | 34.4% (208) | 33.0% (195) | 0.26 | 0.02 |
Understanding | 7.4% (88) | 6.1% (37) | 8.6% (51) | 2.77 | −0.05 |
Worried about self-image, flirtatious | 7.9% (95) | 9.3% (56) | 6.6% (39) | 2.89 | 0.05 |
Possessive, jealous | 12.1% (145) | 13.1% (79) | 11.2% (66) | 1.00 | 0.03 |
Linked to home | 2.5% (30) | 1.8% (11) | 3.2% (19) | 2.38 | −0.05 |
Superficial | 23.2% (278) | 25.8% (156) | 20.6% (122) | 4.43 * | 0.06 |
Enterprising | 25.4% (304) | 27.8% (168) | 23.0% (136) | 3.57 | 0.06 |
Variable | For Women M (SE) | For Men M (SE) | z | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dynamic, active | 0.13 (0.01) | 0.24 (0.01) | −6.81 | ≤0.001 |
Hard-working, studious | 0.41 (0.01) | 0.27 (0.01) | 7.13 | ≤0.001 |
Responsible, prudent | 0.27 (0.01) | 0.20 (0.01) | 3.66 | ≤0.001 |
Smart | 0.38 (0.01) | 0.24 (0.01) | 7.38 | ≤0.001 |
Sensitive, affectionate | 0.22 (0.01) | 0.05 (0.01) | 11.96 | ≤0.001 |
Calm | 0.07 (0.01) | 0.09 (0.01) | −1.05 | 0.295 |
Dependent | 0.06 (0.01) | 0.16 (0.01) | −7.65 | ≤0.001 |
Independent | 0.29 (0.01) | 0.34 (0.01) | −2.51 | 0.012 |
Understanding | 0.13 (0.01) | 0.07 (0.01) | 4.69 | ≤0.001 |
Worried about self-image, flirtatious | 0.14 (0.01) | 0.08 (0.01) | 4.58 | ≤0.001 |
Possessive, jealous | 0.05 (0.01) | 0.12 (0.01) | −5.84 | ≤0.001 |
Linked to home | 0.04 (0.01) | 0.02 (0.01) | 2.67 | ≤0.001 |
Superficial | 0.04 (0.01) | 0.23 (0.01) | −13.86 | ≤0.001 |
Enterprising | 0.20 (0.01) | 0.25 (0.01) | −3.32 | ≤0.001 |
Variable | Full Sample % Selecting the Middle Point (n) | Gender | t | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Women % Selecting the Middle Point (n) | Men % Selecting the Middle Point (n) | |||
Welfare, health, care of people | 45.5% (529) M = 4.26, SD = 2.37 (range 0–10) | 52.7% (308) M = 4.36, SD = 2.28 (range 0–10) | 38.4% (220) M = 4.16, SD = 2.47 (range 0–10) | −1.47 |
Education/teaching | 47.9% (557) M = 4.49, SD = 2.17 (range 0–10) | 52.5% (308) M = 4.54, SD = 2.07 (range 0–10) | 42.9% (246) M = 4.45, SD = 2.28 (range 0–10) | −0.74 |
Science and research | 47.6% (552) M = 5.26, SD = 2.22 (range 0–10) | 53.9% (315) M = 5.32, SD = 2.14 (range 0–10) | 41.1% (235) M = 5.21, SD = 2.32 (range 0–10) | −0.82 |
Computer science | 40.3% (469) M = 6.02, SD = 2.24 (range 0–10) | 47.0% (276) M = 6.07, SD = 2.12 (range 0–10) | 33.5% (192) M = 5.97, SD = 2.35 (range 0–10) | −0.80 |
Business management | 48.7% (562) M = 5.44, SD = 2.20 (range 0–10) | 54.3% (318) M = 5.37, SD = 2.08 (range 0–10) | 42.9% (243) M = 5.53, SD = 2.32 (range 0–10) | 1.28 |
Engineering | 42.7% (493) M = 5.84, SD = 2.27 (range 0–10) | 49.7% (291) M = 5.86, SD = 2.11 (range 0–10) | 35.2% (200) M = 5.82, SD = 2.44 (range 0–10) | −0.28 |
Variable | Full Sample M (SD) | Gender | t | Cohen’s d | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Women M (SD) | Men M (SD) | ||||
Support for Feminism (range 0–10) | |||||
Support for Feminism (α = 0.84) | 6.39 (2.25) | 7.17 (2.16) | 5.57 (2.04) | −12.88 *** | −0.76 |
Individual items (range 0–10): | |||||
Feminism is necessary to achieve real equality between men and women | 5.90 (3.43) | 6.84 (3.18) | 4.91 (3.40) | −9.93 *** | −0.59 |
Feminism seeks to harm men (R) | 3.28 (3.34) | 2.43 (3.22) | 4.17 (3.23) | 9.13 *** | 0.54 |
Feminism seeks to overcome traditional barriers to allow women to access equality | 6.58 (3.14) | 7.49 (2.83) | 5.64 (3.17) | −10.37 *** | −0.62 |
Feminism has no real impact; it is only used as a political tool (R) | 3.90 (3.22) | 3.37 (3.17) | 4.45 (3.19) | 5.71 *** | 0.34 |
Feminism is essential to achieve a just society | 6.20 (3.27) | 7.13 (3.05) | 5.24 (3.21) | −10.12 *** | −0.60 |
Feminism does not care about the real problems of women (R) | 3.88 (3.31) | 3.17 (3.24) | 4.62 (3.22) | 7.55 *** | 0.45 |
Feminism must involve both women and men | 6.77 (3.07) | 7.21 (3.07) | 6.32 (3.19) | −4.81 *** | −0.29 |
Feminism is not necessary because equality between men and women already exists (R) | 3.31 (3.37) | 2.32 (3.37) | 4.36 (3.33) | 10.66 *** | 0.63 |
Acceptance of Gender-based Violence (range 0–10) | |||||
Acceptance of Gender-based Violence (α = 0.82) | 2.62 (2.43) | 1.99 (2.26) | 3.28 (2.42) | 9.41 *** | 0.56 |
Individual items (range 0–10): | |||||
Gender-based violence is common within couples | 2.58 (3.13) | 2.20 (3.04) | 2.97 (3.17) | 4.18 *** | −0.25 |
If gender-based violence is of low intensity, it is not a problem for the couple’s relationship | 2.26 (3.02) | 1.53 (2.64) | 3.02 (3.18) | 8.55 *** | −0.51 |
Although gender-based violence is wrong, it has always existed. It is unavoidable | 3.30 (3.35) | 2.75 (3.24) | 3.87 (3.36) | 5.73 *** | −0.34 |
Gender-based violence is a very serious social problem (R) | 7.45 (3.15) | 8.22 (2.86) | 6.64 (3.24) | −8.73 *** | −0.52 |
Gender-based violence does not exist; it is an ideological invention | 2.37 (3.21) | 1.63 (2.83) | 3.15 (3.40) | 8.13 *** | 0.49 |
Variable | Support for Feminism | Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
b | [95% CI] | b | [95% CI] | b | [95% CI] | b | [95% CI] | |
Gender (women) | 1.22 *** | [0.99, 1.46] | 1.17 *** | [0.94, 1.40] | −0.99 *** | [−1.25, −0.72] | −0.94 *** | [−1.20, −0.68] |
Age (ref. 15–19 years old) | ||||||||
20–24 years old | 0.28 | [−0.00, 0.57] | 0.25 | [−0.03, 0.53] | −0.31 | [−0.63, 0.02] | −0.25 | [−0.57, 0.07] |
25–29 years old | −0.09 | [−0.37, 0.19] | −0.09 | [−0.36, 0.19] | −0.24 | [−0.56, 0.07] | −0.19 | [−0.51, 0.12] |
Nationality (Spanish) | 0.18 | [−0.15, 0.51] | 0.18 | [−0.15, 0.51] | −0.48 * | [−0.85, −0.10] | −0.49 ** | [−0.86, −0.12] |
Sexual orientation (heterosexual) | −0.42 ** | [−0.71, −0.13] | −0.44 ** | [−0.73, −0.14] | −0.15 | [−0.48, 0.18] | −0.05 | [−0.39, 0.28] |
Political orientation (left–right) | −0.34 *** | [−0.39, −0.29] | −0.33 *** | [−0.38, −0.28] | 0.34 *** | [0.28, 0.40] | 0.33 *** | [0.27, 0.39] |
Habitat (ref. town or small city) | ||||||||
Mid-sized city with 10,000 inhabitants or less | −0.33 * | [−0.61, −0.05] | −0.30 * | [−0.58, −0.03] | 0.32 | [−0.00, 0.64] | 0.28 | [0.04, 0.60] |
Large city with 1M inhabitants or more | −0.38 ** | [−0.66, −0.10] | −0.38 ** | [−0.66, −0.11] | 0.09 | [−0.24, 0.41] | 0.11 | [−0.21, 0.43] |
Gender stereotypes about men | 0.21 ** | [0.08, 0.34] | −0.46 *** | [−0.61, −0.32] | ||||
Gender stereotypes about women | −0.18 ** | [−0.31, −0.05] | 0.03 | [−0.12, 0.17] | ||||
Gender-based occupational stereotypes | 0.02 | [−0.08, 0.12] | 0.03 | [−0.08, 0.14] | ||||
F | 53.05 *** | 40.56 *** | 30.67 *** | 26.63 *** | ||||
N | 1159 | 1159 | 1159 | 1159 | ||||
Adjusted R-square | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.20 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Leon, C.M.; Aizpurua, E. Do Youth Dream of Gender Stereotypes? The Relationship among Gender Stereotyping, Support for Feminism, and Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032439
Leon CM, Aizpurua E. Do Youth Dream of Gender Stereotypes? The Relationship among Gender Stereotyping, Support for Feminism, and Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032439
Chicago/Turabian StyleLeon, Carmen M., and Eva Aizpurua. 2023. "Do Youth Dream of Gender Stereotypes? The Relationship among Gender Stereotyping, Support for Feminism, and Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032439