Maureen C. McHugh

The Measurement of Gender-Role Attitudes A Review and Commentary

This article reviews measures of gender-role attitudes with an emphasis on The Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS; Spence & Helmreich, 1972); the Sex Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES; Beere, King, Beere, & King, 1984); the Modern Sexism Scale (MS; Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995); the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Click & Fiske, 1996), and the Childrens Occupational Activity Trait-Attitude Measure (COAT-AM; Bigler, Liben, Lobliner, & Yekel, 1995). The discussion of gender-role attitude measures focuses on the following themes: psychometric criteria; theoretical and conceptual distinctions among measures; domains of attitudes and behaviors included; relationship to other measures; and the meaningfulness and relevance of items. Gender-role attitude scales are viewed as measuring gender-role ideology in a particular sociohistorical context; context-specificity is viewed as contributing to the proliferation of scales, and as limiting the usefulness of scales across cultural and temporal boundaries.

Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure

Three basic models of attributional sex differences are reviewed: General Externality, Self-Derogation, and Low Expectancy. Although all of the models predict that women are unlikely to attribute their successes to ability, the models were quite different in other predictions. A meta-analysis of 21 studies examining sex differences in success-failure attributions was done to determine which of these three models had the most empirical support. Wording of attribution questions was also assessed. Results indicated only two consistent sex differences: Men make stronger ability attributions than women regardless of the outcome when informational attributional wording is used; and men attribute their successes and failures less to luck. Empirically, none of the models was well supported.

A Postmodern Approach to Women's Use of Violence: Developing Multiple and Complex Conceptualizations

We review the research on intimate partner abuse and, in particular, the articles in this issue, from within a feminist and postmodern framework. Research on womens use of violence is reviewed in terms of how researchers have constructed and measured violence and have conceptualized intimate partner violence (IPV) and gender. What and how we measure determines what we find (McHugh & Cosgrove, 2005). We call for new conceptualizations of intimate violence and for more complex constructions of gender. We offer a postmodern perspective on gender and IPV arguing that interpersonal violence always involves gender, that approach and method influence results, and that men and women use violence in both similar and different ways.

Power and Influence Strategies in Violent and Nonviolent Marriages

How important is the use of physical violence in determining the balance of power within marriage? Do women in violent marriages make more use of indirect strategies in attempting to persuade their husbands than do women in nonviolent marriages? Is marital satisfaction related to influence styles? These questions are investigated by looking at decision making in couples and how this is related to the forms of influence strategies used by wives and husbands in violent and nonviolent marriages. Data from in-depth structured interviews with 137 self-identified battered wives and 137 comparison wives, some of whom were also found to have experienced violence from their husbands, are used to answer these questions. Results indicated that women with violent husbands used more influence strategies overall, although these women had less overall power in terms of decision making than did women with nonviolent husbands. The relationship of influence strategies to decision making was different for women with violent husbands than for those whose husbands were not violent. As expected, the use of coercive strategies related negatively to marital happiness, whereas positive strategies were positively predictive. Violence and other negative strategies should be included in future research on influence strategies in close relationships, and a positive–negative dimension should be included as a way of categorizing influence strategies.

Intimate-Partner Violence

Abstract:  This review examines multiple forms of intimate partner violence, including womens use of violence, and argues for development of more complex conceptualizations of intimate partner violence. As new victims are identified, partner violence has been reconceptualized. Research findings indicate that women are both victims and perpetrators in intimate partner violence, challenging previous conceptualizations and explanations. The authors argue that how researchers conceptualize intimate partner violence influences how they study and measure it. The authors call for researchers to develop more complex constructions of gender, and to distinguish between distinct forms of intimate partner violence.

Feminism and psychology: analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender.

Starting in the 1960s, feminists argued that the discipline of psychology had neglected the study of women and gender and misrepresented women in its research and theories. Feminists also posed many questions worthy of being addressed by psychological science. This call for research preceded the emergence of a new and influential body of research on gender and women that grew especially rapidly during the period of greatest feminist activism. The descriptions of this research presented in this article derive from searches of the journal articles cataloged by PsycINFO for 1960-2009. These explorations revealed (a) a concentration of studies in basic research areas investigating social behavior and individual dispositions and in many applied areas, (b) differing trajectories of research on prototypical topics, and (c) diverse theoretical orientations that authors have not typically labeled as feminist. The considerable dissemination of this research is evident in its dispersion beyond gender-specialty journals into a wide range of other journals, including psychologys core review and theory journals, as well as in its coverage in introductory psychology textbooks. In this formidable body of research, psychological science has reflected the profound changes in the status of women during the last half-century and addressed numerous questions that these changes have posed. Feminism served to catalyze this research area, which grew beyond the bounds of feminist psychology to incorporate a very large array of theories, methods, and topics.

Speaking for Ourselves: Feminist Methods and Community Psychology

Although feminist and community psychology share a number of epistemological and methodological perspectives that guide their respective theories and research practices, it has been argued that community psychology has not fully integrated a feminist perspective into the discipline. This paper examines how community psychology and feminist research methods might combine to help us better understand womens experiences without essentializing or universalizing those experiences. The authors offer a series of suggested directions for feminist research that may also prove promising for community psychology. Particular attention is paid to feminist social constructionist approaches insofar as they address the complex relationship between epistemology and methodology.

Attributions and Sex Differences in Achievement: Problems and New Perspectives

The status of research on sex differences in attribution is reviewed in light of the articles published in this issue. The authors conclude that several widely held beliefs about sex differences in attributions may be unwarranted. Various explanations for the lack of consistent results in studies exploring situational and dispositional effects on sex differences in attributions are offered. The authors conclude that alternative attributional questions need to be raised and investigated in order to understand sex differences in achievement.

Woman battering: The response of the clergy

This paper examines the response of the church and the clergy to the problem of woman battering. A critical review of the theological foundations which may or may not contribute to violence directed toward females is presented. The research examining the response of the clergy to battered women is reviewed. Clergy report being confronted with the problem of woman battering and experiencing much difficulty in handling situations of this nature. In a study conducted by the authors, traditional attitudes were reflected by some modern day clergy; several clerical responses included female-blaming statements. More progressive clergy in this and other studies recognized woman battering as unacceptable; some are even studying ways to more effectively handle woman battering situations. A series of recommendations are included.

MEASURING FEMINISM AND GENDER ROLE ATTITUDES

Attitudes toward feminism may be viewed as existing on a larger continuum of attitudes toward women and women’s roles. One part of this continuum was examined in our recent special issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly on the measurement of gender role attitudes (Frieze & McHugh, 1997). We initially conceptualized a continuum with misogynist attitudes at one end and profeminist attitudes at the other, with attitudes toward men and masculinity and attitudes toward gender roles situated in the middle of the dimension. We soon realized, however, that the level of research interest and the proliferation of scales measuring various aspects of attitudes toward women’s roles required h a t we limit our focus. Thus, the work of reviewing scales that measure attitudes toward feminism and relating these scales to the widely used measures of gender role attitudes remains. When the widely cited Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS) was developed by Spence and Helmreich (1972), it was intended to assess attitude changes as a result of feminist activities in the 1960s and 1970s. Items were based on an earlier scale, Kirkpatrick‘s (1936) Belief-Pattern Scale for Measuring Attitudes Towards Feminism. These items were updated by Spence and Helmreich to reflect the feminist issues of the time. As discussed by McHugh and Frieze (1997), the nature of feminist and gender role attitudes change with the passage of time as we become successful in changing gender role attitudes. As feminists we hope to accomplish and document such changes. The continuously evolving nature of feminism represents one of the most challenging aspects of scale development in this area. The AWS is not viewed today as a measure of attitudes toward feminism, and some consider it outdated as a measure of gender role attitudes. Scales designed to measure feminist attitudes become themselves archival records of feminist attitudes of the era. Even as a scale is developed and tested, important new aspects of