Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Because of the importance of gender role attitudes (GRA) for both academic and social outcomes, it is crucial to understand how GRA is constructed and changes over time. A systematic literature review was conducted to look into the relationship between youngsters’ GRA and individual, home, and school characteristics. Thirty-five international studies were identified through searches in different databases. The review reveals that the studies mostly apply a deterministic view to studying the construction of GRA, focusing predominantly on parent–child transmission. Effects of the school environment and individuals’ own life experiences are under-studied. Also, data are mostly cross-sectional and leave little room for investigating evolutions of GRA over time. Suggestions for future research are formulated focusing on (a) a life-course approach that considers GRA as situated, experience-related, and therefore changing over time and (b) an intersectionality-informed approach investigating GRA at the intersects of multiple diversity dimensions.

Keywords

gender role attitudes intersectionality life-course predictor systematic literature review youngsters

Introduction

Gender role attitudes (GRA) have been identified as important predictors of scholastic outcomes. Traditional GRA is found to negatively affect academic participation (Vella, 1994) and academic achievement through its influence on students’ sense of school belonging (Huyge, Van Maele, & Van Houtte, 2015) and students’ expectations for academic success (Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Davis & Pearce, 2007; McDaniel, 2010).

GRA have also been identified as predictors for decision processes and behavior (Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Vespa, 2009) such as beliefs about violent and criminal behavior (Ben-David & Schneider, 2005; Flood & Pease, 2009) and expectations for, and participation in, future life activities (Corrigall & Konrad, 2007; Davis & Pearce, 2007; Kaufman, 2005) like post-secondary education (Corrigall & Konrad, 2007; Crocket & Beal, 2012; Davis & Pearce, 2007), labor-market participation, and career choices (Corrigall & Konrad, 2007; Cunningham, 2008b; Kaufman, 2005; Tiklin, Croxford, Ducklin, & Frame, 2005; Vella, 1994). Because of the importance of GRA to both academic and social outcomes, it is important to understand how GRA is constructed and changes over time. GRA construction is interesting especially in adolescence, when career exploration and initial career decision making are central (e.g., Rogers & Creed, 2011; Swanson & D’Archiardi, 2005). Gaining insights into the construction process of GRA can provide us with leads for (educational) interventions to alter GRA, which might positively influence youngsters’ scholastic outcomes and future labor-market participation.

Theoretical Framework

The Sex Versus Gender Debate

Two paradigms with regard to differences between men and women evolved in the 20th century (Kessler & McKenna, 1978). A biological deterministic view considers differences between boys and girls as innate biological or evolutionary. A sociological approach considers these differences as socially and culturally shaped (Archer & Lloyd, 2002; Carrigan, Connell, & Lee, 1985; Eurydice Network, 2010; Kessler & McKenna, 1978). This debate is also visible in the use of terminology (Unger, 1979), with sex mostly referring to biological components and gender referring to social, psychological, and cultural components (Archer & Lloyd, 2002; Beere, 1990; Kessler & McKenna, 1978; Lindsey, 2011; Unger, 1979).

Many scholars have critiqued the sex–gender distinction and argue that both gender and sex are culturally constructed and multi-faceted (see, for example, Butler, 1990). The terminology used by scholars depends on theoretical roots and disciplinary differences, and up until now, no consensus has been established as to which term is preferably used.

In this study, we use gender-related terminology (e.g., GRA) that is congruent with recent literature and in line with Ungers’s (1979) reasoning, “Biologically determinist models of sex differences make it less likely that environmental sources of such differences will be explored” (p. 1085).

Theorizing GRA

Roles can be defined as the behavior that is expected from a person holding a particular status or position within a specific context (Kessler & McKenna, 1978; Lindsey, 2011). A gender role, therefore, can be described as the expected behavior toward an individual, based on the individual’s sex (Boehnke, 2011; Kessler & McKenna, 1978; Lindsey, 2011) and includes different components such as interests, skills, activities, and clothing (Kessler & McKenna, 1978). Individuals’ attitudes or views on the appropriate roles for men and women are labeled with different terms such as gender role attitudes, sex role attitudes, and gender ideology (Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Legge & Misra, 1998; McHugh & Frieze, 1997). We use the term GRA because this is recently the most dominant discourse.

GRA are mostly set out on an axis with two extremes: egalitarian and traditional. Individuals with a traditional view support a gendered division of family labor, regarding women as homemakers and responsible for parenting and men as the wage earner. Egalitarian GRA include a more equal view on participation in both paid labor and domesticities (Davis & Pearce, 2007; Katz-Wise, Priess, & Hyde, 2010; Legge & Misra, 1998).

Because GRA is a latent concept, it is not easily measurable (McHugh & Frieze, 1997; Vespa, 2009) and a variety of operationalizations is used. Caution is needed when comparing studies (Beere, 1990; McHugh & Frieze, 1997). Davis and Greenstein (2009) identified six recurring dimensions in GRA conceptualizations: (a) belief in separate spheres based on gender, (b) primacy of the breadwinner role, (c) motherhood and the feminine self, (d) working women and relationship quality, (e) household utility, and (f) male-privilege acceptance.

Construction of GRA

Diverse developmental theories have revealed different mechanisms influencing the development of gender-related concepts, including the acquisition of GRA (Maccoby, 2000). Three perspectives have been especially important: (a) cognitive-developmental theory (Kohlberg, 1966; Kohlberg & Ullian, 1974), (b) social-learning theory (Bandura, 1969, 1971), and (c) life-course perspective (Elder, 1998; Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2008).

An attempt to reconcile these three perspectives was postulated by Bussey and Bandura’s (1999) social-cognitive theory on gender construction (Lindsey, 2011). Bussey and Bandura (1999) stressed the triadic and reciprocal relationship between personal (e.g., cognition and biological), behavioral, and environmental aspects. This triadic relationship is subject to the situation, time, and activities in which the development of GRA takes place.

This theoretical framework integrates (a) intrapsychic cognitive mechanisms that are influential in the acquisition of GRA such as cognitive capabilities, structures, and organization processes (Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Kohlberg, 1966; Kohlberg & Ullian, 1974) and (b) social components of GRA development like modeling, observational, and vicarious learning processes and reinforcement (Bandura, 1969; Bussey & Bandura, 1999). The social environment is defined by several actors such as parents, peers, non-familial adults, and teachers (Bandura, 1969, Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Maccoby, 2000). Different actors can serve simultaneously as a role model (Bandura, 1969).

Bussey and Bandura (1999) noted as follows:

Through cognitive processing of direct and vicarious experiences, children come to categorize themselves as girls or boys, gain substantial knowledge of gender attributes and roles, and extract rules as to what types of behavior are considered appropriate for their gender. (p. 696)

In line with (c) life-course perspective, human development over its life span and within its social, cultural, and historical context is central. Life experiences and transitions that influence individuals and groups of people (e.g., cohorts) through time are also looked into (Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Elder, 1998; Elder et al., 2008; Vespa, 2009).

Research Focus

Research on GRA development in adults has demonstrated that adults’ GRA shift as a result of changes in life situations, such as the transition to parenthood (Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004; Katz-Wise et al., 2010; Vespa, 2009) and work experiences (Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004; Vespa, 2009). Similarly, changes in youngsters’ GRA could be triggered by changes in life situations such as pubertal development, increasing importance of peers, and exposure to new school environments. During childhood and emerging adulthood exploration of different life situations (e.g., college and first working experience; Arnett, 2000, 2007), career exploration and initial career decision making (e.g., Rogers & Creed, 2011; Swanson & D’Archiardi, 2005) are central.

The gender-intensification hypothesis states that in adolescence, an acceleration of socialization in traditional GRA takes place (Clemans, DeRose, Graber, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010; Galambos, 2009; Hill & Lynch, 1983; Pettitt, 2004). Peers (Galambos, 2009; Hill & Lynch, 1983; Pettitt, 2004; Priess & Lindberg, 2011), parents (Galambos, 2009; Hill & Lynch, 1983; Priess & Lindberg, 2011), and schools (Galambos, 2009; Hill & Lynch, 1983) are mostly named as critical social agents in this process. Empirical evidence for the gender-intensification hypothesis is scarce and at times conflicting (e.g., Galambos, 2009; Priess & Lindberg, 2011; Priess, Lindberg, & Hyde, 2009).

Previous research on youngsters’ GRA has, however, focused primarily on parent–child transmission of GRA. Less attention was paid to the role of secondary social agents such as school, teachers, and peers. As youngsters grow older, their exposure—socialization, schooling, and personal experiences—becomes more important (Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004; Davis, 2007; Galambos, 2009; Vespa, 2009). The few studies investigating the relationship with schooling show that schooling has an important role in gender socialization (e.g., Blumberg, 2015; Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004; Council of Europe, 2014; Cunningham, Beutel, Barber, & Thornton, 2005; Delamont, 2012; Shu, 2004; Stromquist, 2007). Because empirical evidence concerning predictors of GRA is scattered, it is needed to synthesize the results of multiple studies to get an insight into the possible simultaneous effects of multiple spheres of influence.

Bearing this in mind, a systematic literature review was performed involving articles that focus on the construction and evolution of GRA of school-aged youngsters up to emerging adulthood (late teens up to mid- to late 20s; Arnett, 2000, 2007), their family, and their school (including peers and teachers).

The following research question is put forward:

Research Question: What is the relationship between school-aged youngsters’ GRA and individual, home, and school characteristics?

Method

Preliminary Search of Review Studies

A systematic review approach was applied, which implies that the authors searched literature in a transparent and systematic way (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). The research started with an exploration of already existing reviews that focus on the influences on GRA. The following databases were used to detect existing review articles: The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-center), education database, Web of Knowledge, Campbell Systematic Reviews, Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, European Sociological Review, ERIC (via EBSCOhost [Elton Bryson Stephens Company host]; see https://www.ebscohost.com), Education Full Text (H. W. Wilson, via ESBCO), and Sociological abstracts. In this search, the selected type of document was “review,” and the following keywords were used: GRA, sex role attitudes, gender ideology, gender attitudes, gender role ideology, sex role ideology, and sex attitudes. We were able to identify eight reviews (Azuma & Suzuki, 1991; Banks, 1995; Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Gibbons, Hamby, & Dennis, 1997; Glover, 1992; Jugovic, 2010; Kane, 2000; McHugh & Frieze, 1997). Most reviews were conducted in the 1990s and do not use a systematic approach (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). They focus mainly on the conceptualization and measurement of GRA (Jugovic, 2010; McHugh & Frieze, 1997) or cross-cultural differences (e.g., Gibbons et al., 1997; Kane, 2000). Two out of eight reviews were not fully available in English (Azuma & Suzuki, 1991; Jugovic, 2010). Although it should be acknowledged that the review of Davis and Greenstein (2009) is valuable when focusing on different socializing levels, no review was found that includes predictors of GRA on multiple levels (individual, family, school) using a systematic review approach on school-aged youngsters’ taking into consideration articles from different countries.

Search Strategy Systematic Review

The following databases were used in detecting articles: Web of Knowledge, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and ERIC (latter two via ProQuest). Research was limited to English peer-reviewed articles: peer-reviewing ensures the appropriate academic level. All publication years were included.

The first data search was performed in July 2014. Table 1 gives an overview of the search strings that were used. Within-database duplicates were detected, and the following numbers of unique records per database were identified: Web of Knowledge: 112, PsycInfo: 257, ERIC: 103, and Sociological Abstracts: 95. In total, this resulted in 567 records. After the elimination of between-database duplicates, 185 unique records remained. Figure 1 gives a visual overview of the search phases (Liberati et al., 2009).

Table 1.

Search Strings Used in Detecting Articles.

	Search 1: July 2014			Search 2: November 2014
	Individual	Home	School	School: Teacher	School: Peer
Title =	(“Sex role attitudes”, “Gender role attitudes”, “Gender Ideology”, “Gender attitudes”, “Gender role ideology”, “Sex role ideology”, “Sex attitudes”, “Sex rol”, “ Gender traditional”, “Gender egalitar*”, “Gender-role ideology”, “Gender beliefs”)
Title =	(Offspring, Child, Family, Student, Pupil, Youngster, Boy, Girl, Teen, Youth, Adolescent, Daughter, Son)(Psych*)	(Parent*, Guardian, Mother, Father)	(Educat, School, “Secondary School”, “Secondary Education”, “High School”, “Middle School”)	(Teach, Educat, Instruct, Lectur, Faculty, Professor)	(Peer, Adolesc, Teen, Colleagues, Mate, Classmate, Friend, Companion, Fellow, “Fellow Student”, *Mate
Subject/all fields^a	(Construction, Transmission, Evolution, Development, Creation, Influence)

Note. Terms within brackets are combined with Boolean operator “OR.” Titles and subject/all fields are combined with Boolean operator “AND.” Asterisks are used to indicate wildcard characters. For example, Instruct* finds instruction and instructor.

If there was no possibility to select “subject” in searching in the particular database, “all fields” was used.

Figure 1.

Flow-diagram first data search phase July 2014.

The second search was performed in November 2014 and focused on detecting more articles related to the school environment, including peers and teachers within school. The search strings are also included in Table 1. A flowchart of this second search can be found in Figure 2. In total, 274 records were identified through searching Web of Knowledge (85), PsycInfo (96), ERIC (51), and Sociological abstracts (42). This resulted in 185 unique records.

Figure 2.

Flow-diagram second data search phase November 2014.

Furthermore, the researchers applied snowballing techniques on the collected literature.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The articles were selected in three separate selection phases. First, in the database research phase, the following inclusion criteria were applied: (a) peer-reviewed articles and (b) fully available in English. In selection phase 2, both title and abstract of the unique records were screened for relevance. Articles were included if the focus was on the construction of school-going youngsters’ GRA, including variables related to individual, family, and school level. Articles that discussed only the measurement of GRA or the influence of GRA on other variables (e.g., behavior) were eliminated. In the third phase, full articles were read and, in total, 28 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic research. The snowballing technique offered another eight articles, which resulted in 36 articles that were quality-appraised.

Quality Appraisal

The quality appraisal tools for quantitative research articles designed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were used. The quality appraisal checklist for (a) quantitative intervention studies and (b) quantitative studies reporting correlations and association were used. Although there were quality differences between the articles, only one article was excluded in this research phase because it provided insufficient information to interpret and discuss in depth the results at the same level as the other articles. The reader should bear in mind that several studies did not meet external validity requirements, which implies that the results are not generalizable to populations other than the studied target group. After this final selection step, 35 articles were included for this review and analyzed in depth.

Describing the Sample

Table 2 gives an overview of the 35 included articles in the review. The studies cover different study areas in 10, mostly western, countries. Furthermore, it should be noted that Kulik’s (2000a, 2000b, 2002a, 2002b) contributions determine the high presence of Israeli studies. Data were collected between 1960 and 2013. All the included articles were published after 1980: 1980s (12), 1990s (7), 2000s (12), and 2010s (4).

Table 2.

Overview of 35 Included Articles.

ID	First author	Term used in title	Era	Informant(s)	Sample	Country	Region
1	Ahrens (1996)	GRA	n.r.	Senior high school students (G)	409 female seniors enrolled in an all-female private high school	USA	n.r.
2	Antill (2003)	GRA	n.r.	Two oldest children between 8 and 12 year (B + G), M, F	191 two-parent families and their two oldest children, mainly Anglo-Australian families	AU	Sydney
3	Blee (1987)	SRA	60s-80s	Daughters aged 14-19 year in 1967 (G), M	Subsample of national sample (NLS of Labor Market Experiences): 583 White and 147 Black married mothers and daughters living together	USA	National
4	Burt (2002)	GRA	90s	Oldest child within sample age (11-15 year, [B + G]), M, F	Subsample of national sample (BHPS): 602 families and their oldest child within age range	UK	National
5	Carlson (2011)	GI	80s-90s	18-23 year (B + G)	Subsample of national sample (NSFH): 837 Parent–child dyads from (a) single-parent families (269), (b) stepfamilies (167), and (c) two-parent biological families (401)	USA	National
6	Chatterjee(1989)	SRA	n.r.	Undergraduate students (M age = 22 year, G)	286 female, mostly White, undergraduate students of a local community college divided into two groups: (a) 151 students from non-traditional programs and (b) 135 students from traditional programs (nursing and nursing assistantship)	USA	n.r.
7	Crouter (2007)	GAT	n.r.	Firstborn (4th and 5th grade) and second born (1-4 year younger, B + G), M, F	402 youths in 201 European American mostly working- and middle-class families	USA	n.r.
8	Davis (2007)	GI	90s-2000s	3 age groups according to life-course transition: 14-17 year, 18-21 year, and 22-25 year (B + G)	2,004 adolescent children (C-NLSY79) of a nationally representative sample of women (NLSY79) who were born during 1957-1964 and resided in the United States in 1978	USA	National
9	Davis (2010)	GI	90s-2000s	14-15 year (B + G), M, F	Subsample of national sample: 206 adolescents (biological) (C-NLSY79) and one or both parents (NLSY79)	USA	National
10	Erarslan (2013)	GRA	2010	High school seniors (G)	295 female high school seniors from 2 co-education and 2 single-sex education high schools	TR	Istanbul
11	Ex (1998)	GRA	n.r.	15-17 year (secondary education) and 20-22 year (lower vocational or university, G), M	165 girls and their mothers, mostly White and from two-parent families.	NL	Nijmegen
12	Fan (2000)	GRA	70s-80s	14-22 year in 1979 (B + G)	8,822 youth respondents, representative sample (NLSY) with oversampling of Blacks and Hispanics	USA	National
13	Galambos (1990)	SRA	70s	6th-8th grade (B + G)	200 early adolescents born in 1967 and 1968 selected out of original EAS, drawn from 2 primarily White middle to upper-middle-class midwestern suburban school districts	USA	Midwestern suburb areas
14	Kiecolt (1988)	GRA	70s-80s	18+ year (B + G)	17,426 respondents of national sample (subsample of GSS) that lived at age 16 with (a) both parents, (b) mother, or (c) mother and stepfather and are Black or White. Interviewed about family situation at age of 16.	USA	National
15	Kucinskas (2010)	GE	2000s	18-25 year (B + G)	766 Saudi Arabian and 724 Egyptian youngsters (ICPSR 23461)	SAEG	Jeddah, Riyadh, Damman/KhobarAlexandria, El-Menya, Caïro
16	Kulik (2000a)	GRI	90s	9th-grade students, 14-15 year (B + G)	166 adolescents from two cities in different regions of Israel	IL	2 cities in north and 2 in south
17	Kulik (2000b)	GRI	90s	13-17 year (B + G, equally divided), M, F	134 two-parent families and their adolescent child	IL	3 areas: north, south, central
18	Kulik (2002a)	GRI	90s	13-17 year (B + G, equally divided), M, F	134 two-parent families and their adolescent child	IL	n.r.
19	Kulik (2002b)	GRI	90s	13-17 year (B + G, equally divided), M, F	134 two-parent families and their adolescent child	IL	n.r.
20	Marks (2009)	GRA	n.r.	First- and second-born siblings (a) middle childhood and (b) adolescents (B + G), M, F	358 White, married, working, middle-class families from two cohorts with two siblings.	USA	Northeastern
21	Mensch (2003)	GRA	90s	16-19 year (B + G), M, F	660 unmarried adolescents and their responsible adult, subsampled out of nationally representative sample (ASCE)	EG	National
22	Meyer (1980)	SRA	n.r.	7 and 11 year (G), M	150 girls and mothers from working-class, rural, and predominantly White communities	USA	Ohio
23	Nelson (1990)	SRA	80s	Early adolescents (Grade 5 through 8, B + G), M, F	285 early adolescents living at home and their parents (subsample of national sample (MEAS))	USA	Michigan
24	Richmond-Abbott (1984)	SRA	n.r.	Third-grade children and older (most children between 8 and 14 year, B + G)	163 children of 134 single-parent mothers that were listed as being divorced in Washtenaw County between January 1970 and January 1980, that before were at least 1 year married and have a minimum one child in third grade or older.	USA	Michigan
25	Rollins (1982)	SRA	n.r.	10-14 year (elementary and junior high school, G), M	75 mother–daughter dyads, equally distributed in three groups: (a) traditional, (b) dual-work, and (c) dual-career families	USA	East Tennessee
26	Rollins(1999)	GRA	n.r.	25-29 year (G), M	40 mother–daughter dyads, follow-up study of respondents interviewed in 1982	USA	East Tennessee
27	Sagara (1998)	GRA	n.r.	10-12 year (B + G), M, F	434 public school children and their parents from rural areas in Japan (214) and Korea (220)	JPKR	TokyoSeoul
28	Smith (1980)	SRA	70s	Freshman university students (G)	74 daughters and their mothers from medium-sized urban universities enrolled in 5 introductory sociology classes.	USA	Southwest
29	Stephan (1985)	SRA	70s	Eighth- to 12th-grade students (B + G)	327 Black, White and Mexican American students from middle-class families divided into two groups: (a) dual-career families (123) and (b) traditional families (204)	USA	Southwest
30	Streitmatter (1984)	ATSR	80s	Fourth- to 9th-grade students (B + G)	2,149 students from predominantly White, middle-class backgrounds	USA	North Carolina
31	Tallichet (1986)	GRA	70s-80s	Second-year high school students in 1970 (G)	294 students from White background who resided outside the central cities of metropolitan areas in Pennsylvania during their childhood	USA	Pennsylvania
32	Erden (2009)	GRA	n.r.	University students (G)	133 pre-service teachers: (a) enrolled in gender equity course (experimental group, n = 33), (b) not enrolled in gender equity course (control group, n = 100)	TR	Ankara
33	Thornton (1983)	SRA	80s	18 year (1st, 2nd, or 4th born, B + G), M	916 families selected by probability sample of birth records in 1961 of 1st, 2nd, and 4th born White children in Detroit metropolitan area	USA	Detroit
34	Williams (1992)	SRA	70s-80s	14-16 year (B + G)	32 teenagers from White, middle-class families, divided into three groups according to paternal involvement when child was 3-5 years old: (a) families with father as primary caregiver (12), (b) intermediate families (10), and (c) families with mother as primary caregiver (10)	USA	n.r.
35	Zulich (1986)	SRA	80s	Ninth- to 12th-grade students (B + G), T	913 students and 183 teachers	USA	Midwest

Notes: ATS = attitudes toward sex roles; GI = gender ideology; GRA = gender role attitudes; GRI= gender role ideology; n.r. = not reported; SRA = sex role attitudes; Informants; B = boys; F = father; G = girls; M = mother; T = teacher.

Secondary data abbreviations: (C)-NLSY79 = (Children) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979; ASCE = Adolescence and Social Change in Egypt; BHPS = British Household Panel Survey; EAS = Early Adolescence Study; GSS = General Social Surveys; ICPSR 23461 = Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research study: Youth, Emotional Energy, and Political Violence: The Cases of Egypt and Saudi Arabia Survey 2005; MEAS = Michigan Early Adolescent Survey; NLS = National Longitudinal Surveys; NLSY = National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; NSFH = National Survey of Families and Household.

Table 3 provides an overview of the studied variables. Twenty-four studies focused on both boys (B) and girls (G), with 11 studies performing separate analysis for boys and girls. Eleven studies focused solely on girls, none on boys only. All but one of the studies including data on parents (30) contained information about the mother (M, n = 29) and 19 studies included data of the respondents’ father (F). Only five studies included school-related variables (other than the years of schooling or school grade/year), with only one related to peers (Chatterjee & McCarrey, 1989) and another one focusing on teachers (Zulich, 1986).

Table 3.

Overview of Predictors.

Predictor	Number of studies	Study ID	Significant	Not significant
Youngster
Sex	21	4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35	20	1
Gender identity	1	16	1	—
Age	12	2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23, 30, 35	10	2
Physical maturity/pubertal onset	2	13, 23	1	1
Ethnicity/race	5	3, 8, 9, 12, 14	3	2
Religiosity	5	8, 9, 12, 15, 17	2	3
Ability	1	1	1	—
Agency	1	1	1	—
Self-esteem	1	8	1	—
Employment	4	3, 8, 12, 31	4	—
Job satisfaction	1	31	—	1
Number of women in current job	1	31	—	1
Income	1	31	1	—
Education(al) grade	14	3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 27, 30, 31, 34	12	2
Socioeconomic status	1	21	1	—
Family
Family structure
Child is married	4	5, 8, 12, 31	4	—
Child becomes parent	2	8, 12	2	—
Child lives with parent(s)	1	5	1	—
Family composition	3	5, 9, 14	2	1
Number of siblings	2	9, 19	—	2
Birth order	2	7, 27	2	—
Sex constellation of siblings	2	7, 20	2	—
Child’s performance of household tasks	1	2	1	—
Parents
Education	1	12	1	—
Household income	4	3, 10, 15, 20	2	2
Marriage	2	19, 28	—	2
Performance of household tasks	2	2, 20	2	—
Parenting style	2	11, 27	2	—
Time spent with child	3	20, 23, 24	3	—
Parental closeness with child	1	23	1	—
Relationship quality with child	1	5	1	—
Family conflict	1	20	1	—
Child socialization: response to same and cross-sex interests and behavior	1	2	1	—
Average of mothers’ and fathers’ GRA	1	7	1	—
Interaction mothers’ and fathers’ GRA	1	9	1	—
Biological parent ideology change	1	5	1	—
Mother
Age	4	2, 24, 28, 33	1	3
Education	15	1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35	11	4
Employment	16	1, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35	11	5
Occupational prestige	1	1	1	—
Duration employment	1	23	—	1
Satisfaction with (non)-employment	1	22	1	—
Birthplace	2	17, 19	—	2
Income	1	24	—	1
Religiosity	4	2, 19, 24, 33	2	2
Political party/beliefs	2	2, 24	2	—
GRA	18	2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33	18	—
Father
Age	1	2	1	—
Education	9	1, 2, 8, 19, 20, 21, 24, 33, 35	6	3
Employment	3	1, 24, 35	1	2
Occupational prestige	1	1	—	1
Attitudes toward maternal employment	1	23	1	—
Birthplace	2	17, 19	—	2
Religiosity	2	2, 19	1	1
Involvement in child rearing	1	34	1	—
Political party/beliefs	1	2	—	1
GRA	9	2, 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 20, 23, 27	9	—
School
Educational program	1	6	1	—
Gender equity course	1	32	1	—
School structure	1	30	1	—
Single sex school	1	10	1	—
Schools neighborhood SES	1	10	1	—
Model teacher	1	35	—	1
Current teacher	1	35	1	—
Grade point average	1	35	—	1
Perceived peer attitudes	1	6	1	—
Other
Time	4	8, 12, 26, 31	4	—
State/country	2	15, 27	2	—
Urban/rural	2	15, 21	2	—

Note. Significant = significant correlation with GRA or predictor of GRA of the youngster; Youngster = child of school-going age (primary, secondary, or higher education). Parents = Either both parents or not further specified. GRA = gender role attitude; SES = socioeconomic status.

Although there was no restriction on the research methodology, all included articles use a quantitative approach. The majority of studies collected own data and 11 used secondary data. Most of the research is cross-sectional and nine studies describe longitudinal data. Only one study reports an experimental design (Erden, 2009).

The majority of the studies (22) researched differences between respondents. Furthermore, different forms of regression analysis (16) and correlational analysis (11) are strongly represented. The use of other statistical techniques such as loglinear analysis (2) and structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis (5) is limited.

Although all included studies focus on GRA, different terminology was used (see Table 2). Moreover, only eight studies explicitly define this concept. A detailed analysis of the measurement scales shows that the implicit definitions match the definition presented in “Theorizing GRA” section.

The measurement of GRA is diverse: some authors used a self-developed tool (12), while others relied on available measurement tools used in national surveys or other accessible data sources (11 studies). Furthermore, established scales were used integrally or in combination with other scales, whereof the short version of the Attitudes Toward Woman Scale (ATW) developed by Spence and colleagues (Spence & Helmreich, 1972; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973) was cited the most. Measurement tools were diverse in amount of included items and the roles being questioned.

Narrative Analysis

Due to heterogeneity in research contexts, respondents, and methods of analysis, we opt for a narrative analysis. This narrative approach to systematic review focuses on synthesizing and summarizing articles narratively as opposed to meta-analysis (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). In synthesizing the results of the studies, we use the terminology originally used by the authors as much as possible. We do so to illustrate the theoretical traditions in which the studies have been performed, which adds to understanding the results.

Results

An overview of all variables examined within the included studies (N = 72) can be found in Table 3. We structure this presentation of results in a framework built on three topics: the relationship between youngsters’ GRA and characteristics related to (a) the individual level, (b) the home environment, and (c) the school environment.

The Individual Level

The majority of predictors that have been studied at the individual level relate to socio-demographic identity markers.

Traditionalism and egalitarianism

Evolutions in GRA in Western society can be noted (Cotter, Hermsen, & Vanneman, 2011; Cunningham, 2008a; Pew Research Center, 2010; Thornton & Freedman, 1979; Valentova, 2012) in two ways. First, four American longitudinal articles show that respondents have become more egalitarian over time (Davis & Wills, 2010; Fan & Marini, 2000; Rollins & White, 1982; Tallichet & Willits, 1986). Second, several studies report youngsters having more egalitarian views compared with their parents (Burt & Scott, 2002; Carlson & Knoester, 2011; Ex & Janssens, 1998; Thornton, Alwin, & Camburn, 1983). Kulik (2000b, 2002a, 2002b) in Israel questioned this cohort-effect. The author found Israeli mothers to be the most egalitarian, followed by their children and the fathers, respectively, who hold the most traditional gender role ideology. Kulik (2002a) argued that this is probably due to the fact that children adopt the attitudes of both mother (more egalitarian) and father (less egalitarian) and are therefore, situated in between both parents GRA.

Several U.S. studies and one Dutch and one Israeli study argue that respondents are generally positioned on the egalitarian-side of the axe (Crouter, Whiteman, McHale, & Osgood, 2007; Ex & Janssens, 1998; Kulik, 2002b; Nelson & Keith, 1990; Richmond-Abbott, 1984; Rollins & White, 1982). This is in contrast with some studies performed in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Korea that indicate that respondents are traditional minded (Kucinskas, 2010; Mensch, Ibrahim, Lee, & El-Gibaly, 2003; Sagara & Kang, 1998).

One finding that is recurrent in western and non-western countries is that male respondents are generally more traditional minded than their female counterparts (Burt & Scott, 2002; Carlson & Knoester, 2011; Crouter et al., 2007; Davis & Wills, 2010; Fan & Marini, 2000; Kucinskas, 2010; Kulik, 2000a; Marks, Bun, & McHale, 2009; Mensch et al., 2003; Nelson & Keith, 1990; Richmond-Abbott, 1984; Sagara & Kang, 1998; Stephan & Corder, 1985; Streitmatter, Santa-Cruz, & Ellis-Schwabe, 1984). Three longitudinal U.S. studies conclude that the difference between boys and girls narrows over time (Davis, 2007; Fan & Marini, 2000; Tallichet & Willits, 1986), although this is contested by another U.S. study of Galambos, Almeida, and Petersen (1990), who found boys becoming less egalitarian and girls more egalitarian over time. We should note that the studies have been performed in different time frames and comparing results of studies performed up to 30 years apart could be problematic (see Brooks & Bolzendahl, 2004). Also, we compared methodologies and study designs of the different longitudinal studies and found no clear-cut explanation for Galambos et al.’s divergent findings except for the lower age of the sampled youngsters (middle school vs. high school and older).

Race, nationality, and religion

Kiecolt and Acock (1988) found small effects of race on GRA in the 1970s and 1980s U.S. population, indicating that Black women hold more traditional views toward gender stereotypes compared with White women. Black men demonstrate less egalitarian views than White men, but only with regard to the support of women in politics. Fan and Marini (2000) found Black American respondents in the 1970s and 1980s to demonstrate more egalitarian GRA compared with White American and Hispanic American respondents, with the latter being most traditional. This divergence might be linked to the specific roles that have been inquired into. Although Fan and Marini (2000) focused solely on vocational roles (female employment), Kiecolt and Acock (1988) also questioned political roles and the support for gender stereotypes. Fan and Marini’s findings are in line with a review on racial and ethnic variations in GRA in adults’ GRA (Kane, 2000). Kane (2000) found African Americans to be particularly more egalitarian toward female employment. More recent U.S. studies found no relationship between race and GRA in youngsters (e.g., Carlson & Knoester, 2011; Davis, 2007; Davis & Wills, 2010). This supports the convergence-hypothesis of Kane (2000), arguing that racial and cultural differences in GRA in the United States might be declining over time.

Race was only included in U.S. studies. Sagara and Kang (1998) and Kucinskas (2010), in Japanese/Korean and Saudi Arabian/Egyptian adolescents, respectively, focused on nationality differences in GRA. These studies indicate that Korean youngsters express more traditional views than Japanese, and Saudi Arabian youngsters express more traditional views than Egyptian.

Religiosity was examined in five studies, and the concept was operationalized in an equally diverse way, ranging from religious service attendance (e.g., Davis, 2007; Davis & Wills, 2010; Fan & Marini, 2000; Kucinskas, 2010) to praying behavior (Kucinskas, 2010), religious affiliation (Davis, 2007; Davis & Wills, 2010; Fan & Marini, 2000), and self-reported religiosity (Kucinskas, 2010; Kulik, 2000b). Three U.S. studies (Davis, 2007; Davis & Wills, 2010; Fan & Marini, 2000) focus mainly on Christian respondents (both Protestant and Catholic) although they also include “other religions” and “not being religious.” These studies argue that religiosity is not of importance in the construction of youngsters’ GRA. Kucinskas (2010), however, demonstrated that the Islamic religion has a clear relationship with GRA in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Praying 5 times a day was not significant in predicting gender egalitarianism, but self-identified religiosity was a significant positive predictor for female Egyptian youth’s egalitarian GRA. Religious orthodoxy and weekly mosque attendance, in contrast, are negative predictors for gender egalitarianism but only for male respondents, both in the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian sample. Kulik (2000b) also found, in Israel, that moderate or orthodox Jews express a more traditional gender ideology toward roles inside and outside the home. These results seem to indicate that self-identifying as religious is not per se related to traditional GRA, rather the religion, degree of religiosity, and religious activities performed seem of importance.

Situated in Home Environment

Intergenerational transmission

Thirty out of 35 studies included parental variables. Most of these studies found congruence in GRA between children and parents, indicating that offspring of parents with traditional views hold more traditional views themselves (Antill, Cunningham, & Cotton, 2003; Blee & Tickamyer, 1987; Carlson & Knoester, 2011; Crouter et al., 2007; Davis, 2007; Ex & Janssens, 1998; Meyer, 1980; Sagara & Kang, 1998). A few studies contest this parent–child congruence. Marks and colleagues (2009) found three family patterns: traditional congruence, egalitarian congruence, and “divergence” with more traditional parents and less traditional sibling (68 out of 358 families). The authors state, “The emergence of a divergent pattern suggests that, whereas social-learning processes explain children’s GRA development in some families, different mechanisms may be at work in other families” (Marks and colleagues, 2009, p. 12). Parent–child congruence is not definite, but depends on different aspects. Thus, a more complex process of intergenerational transmission of GRA is suggested. We will discuss the intervening aspects at play in intergenerational transmission in the following paragraphs.

Mother versus father

Different researchers show mixed results on the importance of maternal versus paternal influences. Antill and colleagues (2003) found that fathers’ GRA did not predict either boys’ or girls’ attitudes. Carlson and Knoester (2011), Rollins and White (1982), and Thornton and colleagues (1983) stated that youngsters show a greater similarity to their mother. Davis and Wills (2010), however, nuanced these findings and argued that parental gender interacts with socialization of GRA in the family. Davis and Wills (2010) explained their findings: “The most egalitarian adolescents are those with egalitarian fathers, and among those adolescents mothers’ ideology has no influence. In contrast, when fathers hold a more traditional gender ideology, mothers’ ideology has a strong, positive effect on adolescents’ gender ideology” (p. 507).

Same sex hypothesis

Social learning theory would suggest greater same-sex congruence due to same-sex modeling, but several studies do not support this same-sex hypothesis (e.g., Antill et al., 2003; Burt & Scott, 2002; Thornton et al., 1983) or found mixed results. Kulik (2002a), for example, found a same-sex effect for Israeli fathers and sons but not for mothers and their daughters. Sagara and Kang (1998) supported the same-sex hypothesis regarding Japanese students, but no support was found for Korean students.

It is suggested that same-sex congruence between parent and child interacts with the quality of parent–child relationships (Carlson & Knoester, 2011; Nelson & Keith, 1990). Carlson and Knoester (2011) identified two factors mediating parental socialization effects: relationship quality and age difference between parent and child. Carlson and Knoester (2011) argued that the smaller the age difference and the better the relationship quality, the higher the similarity in gender ideology between parent and child.

Family structure

Family structure is another factor indicated as mediating the parent–child congruence. Carlson and Knoester (2011) found father–child congruence to differ according to family structure: children and their fathers show more similarity toward GRA in a two-parent biological or a single-parent family structure than in a stepfamily family structure. These results were not found for mother–child congruence.

Two studies that adopt very fine-grained operationalization of family structure are the studies of Carlson and Knoester (2011) and Kiecolt and Acock (1988). Carlson and Knoester (2011) distinguished between living in a two-parent biological family, biological single-parent family, or stepfamily. A double influence was found: Family structure influences parent’s gender ideology and also influences the attitudinal similarity between parent and child (as discussed above). Kiecolt and Acock (1988) identified four categories: (a) living with the mother only because of the death of the father, (b) living with the mother only because of divorce, (c) living the with mother and stepfather because of the death of the father, and (d) living with the mother and stepfather because of divorced parents. The results show family structure to be a direct and significant predictor for GRA, but dependent on the roles and family type that are examined. In researching the rejection of traditional gender roles, for example, no type of family structure was a significant predictor for GRA. However, boys living with a widowed mother have more egalitarian views toward working women. Likewise, boys’ and girls’ egalitarian views toward women in politics could be partly explained by the fact that they were living with their divorced mother and, for girls only, by living in a family with a mother and stepfather after parental divorce. Thus, family structure seems to be of importance for youngsters’ GRA through the type of roles being questioned.

Parents’ socioeconomic status (SES)

Most information included in the reviews on parental level were related to the SES, including variables such as education of mother (15 studies), father (9), or both parents (1); family income (4); maternal employment (16); paternal employment (3); and a few other variables associated with employment such as occupational prestige (1), duration of employment (1), and satisfaction with employment status (1).

First, most studies found a positive relationship between the offspring’s egalitarian views and both mothers’ education (Antill et al., 2003; Davis, 2007; Ex & Janssens, 1998; Fan & Marini, 2000; Kiecolt & Acock, 1988; Kulik, 2002a; Marks et al., 2009; Richmond-Abbott, 1984; Tallichet & Willits, 1986) and fathers’ education (Antill et al., 2003; Fan & Marini, 2000; Kulik, 2002a; Marks et al., 2009; Mensch et al., 2003; Richmond-Abbott, 1984; Thornton et al., 1983): Parents with higher educational levels have more egalitarian offspring. Ex and Janssens (1998) stated that the influence of maternal education on her child’s GRA acts through its influence on other variables such as parental GRA and employment. Not all studies concur that parental education influences youngsters’ GRA (Ahrens & O’Brien, 1996; Blee & Tickamyer, 1987; Mensch et al., 2003; Zulich, 1986). Antill and colleagues (2003) found that only opposite-sex parents’ education is a significant predictor for the offspring’s views.

Second, studies have investigated the effects of parental employment departing from the division of responsibilities inside and outside the home, which have been changing over time (Hansen, 1991; Pew Research Center, 2010). It is hypothesized that balancing paid work and household work became central (Hansen, 1991), resulting in predominantly a de-traditionalization of GRA (Valentova, 2012). Not surprisingly, these changes are reflected in empirical evidence: No less than 16 studies included maternal employment, demonstrating a positive relation with the offspring’s egalitarian GRA (Davis, 2007; Ex & Janssens, 1998; Fan & Marini, 2000; Kiecolt & Acock, 1988; Kulik, 2002a; Nelson & Keith, 1990). Different authors add that the influence of maternal employment differs depending on the timing of employment (more effect during childhood or adolescence; Blee & Tickamyer, 1987; Kiecolt & Acock, 1988; Thornton et al., 1983). An important nuance to these findings is made by Rollins and White (1982) who found that the mother’s employment effects differ according to the reason why mothers work. They found differences between traditional families (mother unemployed), dual-work families (mother employed for economic reasons), and dual-career families (mother choosing for a professional career). Children in dual-career families report more egalitarian sex role attitudes than traditional and dual-work families. The latter two do not significantly differ from each other. Thus, not the employment of the mother as such seems to be of importance, but the timing of the employment and the reasons behind the employment are. A few earlier studies did not find any positive relationship between maternal employment and the offspring’s egalitarian GRA (Meyer, 1980; Smith & Self, 1980; Tallichet & Willits, 1986; Zulich, 1986). These differences in findings between studies performed in the 1980s and the years after might be related to cohort replacement processes (Brooks & Bolzendahl, 2004) and different operationalizations of the concept (dual-work vs. dual-career families), as discussed by Rollins and White (1982).

Third, the results regarding family income influencing GRA were rather mixed. Blee and Tickamyer (1987) and Kucinskas (2010) found family income to be insignificant in predicting sex role attitudes (Blee & Tickamyer, 1987) and gender egalitarianism (Kucinskas, 2010). Erarslan and Rankin (2013), however, found family income to be a positive significant predictor for GRA toward work life and social life, but not for gender roles related to family life. Marks and colleagues (2009) found “traditional families” (parent and child traditional) and “divergent families” (parents traditional, child egalitarian) to be characterized by a lower family income. “Although the attitudes of parents in this group may have been grounded in socioeconomic factors, it appears that those of their children were not” (Marks et al., 2009, p. 12).

Situated in School Environment

Burt and Scott (2002) stated that although there is evidence for parent–child socialization of GRA, there is a greater similarity within generations (boys–girls) than between the two generations (parent–child). Kulik (2000b) confirmed this. The environment in which children interact on a daily basis with peers is the school environment. Therefore, we will discuss evidence on the relationship between GRA and the school environment.

Schooling: Liberalizing or traditionalizing?

Schooling was taken into account in 14 studies by means of including educational grade or number of completed school years. Twelve studies used age as a proxy for school progression. Only seven out of 12 studies included both youngsters’ age and schooling and thus were able to differentiate between the effect of both interacting predictors (Carlson & Knoester, 2011; Davis, 2007; Davis & Wills, 2010; Ex & Janssens, 1998; Kiecolt & Acock, 1988; Kucinskas, 2010; Streitmatter et al., 1984). Studies that only discuss age or school progression cannot exclude that the age effect is in fact a schooling effect and not the other way round. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the results of studies including both variables.

Three groups of research outcomes can be identified with regard to the effect of schooling.

The first group shows that pupils in lower school grades (fourth-fifth grade) in North Carolina (USA) display more egalitarian views when compared with higher grades (ninth grade; Streitmatter et al., 1984). The mean scores by grade show a consistent and gradual increase to more traditional perceptions on sex roles.

The second group indicates more egalitarian views in students who have received more schooling. Carlson and Knoester (2011), for example, found in a national U.S. study on 18- to 23-year-olds that compared with students who droped-out, students attending high school, having a high school degree, or a degree higher than high school have more egalitarian views. In researching this, they controlled, for example, parental gender ideology and students’ sex and age. Davis (2007) found greater levels of education to be correlated with more egalitarian ideologies but only from college-age on (age 18 and older). Ex and Janssen’s (1998) study in Nijmegen (the Netherlands) found a main effect of education on girls’ attitudes about motherhood: Those students in lower education (secondary education) were more traditional than those in university. Moreover, an interaction effect between education and age was found, indicating younger respondents (15-17) were more traditional than older respondents (20-22), and this is especially true for those younger respondents with lower education. In a study of Kiecolt and Acock (1988, USA), the years of education significantly predict non-traditional GRA for both male and female respondents aged 18 and older. This was controlled for age and confirmed for all three subscales (Women in Politics, Married Women Working, and Rejecting Traditional Gender Roles). Kucinskas (respondents’ age = 18-25) found that having at least some university education was predicting gender egalitarianism for Egyptian men, but for neither Egyptian women nor Saudi Arabian respondents.

The third group found educational attainment to be no significant predictor for GRA in 14- to 15-year-old students within the United States (Davis & Wills, 2010).

Thus, we can conclude that studies do not fully agree on the effect of education. The results seem to indicate that schooling generally is positively related with egalitarian GRA (e.g., Carlson & Knoester, 2011), especially higher educational studies (e.g., Davis, 2007; Ex & Janssens, 1998). The findings of Kucinskas (2010), however, suggested the relationship between schooling and gender egalitarianism to vary among groups. Mensch and colleagues (2003) added to this that education as such does not enhance egalitarian views but the effects are conditional and depend on the present views within schools.

School structure

With the exception of the continuation of schooling, only few school-related variables were detected within the 35 included articles (Chatterjee & McCarrey, 1989; Erarslan & Rankin, 2013; Erden, 2009; Streitmatter et al., 1984; Zulich, 1986). Furthermore, most studies including school-related variables focused on a limited number of variables. Therefore, most variables are only discussed in one study, which makes it impossible to compare results of the different studies.

The work of Erarslan and Rankin (2013) in Istanbul showed that going to a school located in a high-SES neighborhood is a positive predictor for female students’ egalitarian attitudes toward social life and family life. Attending a single-sex school is only predictive for girls’ GRA toward family life: Girls going to a single-sex school have more egalitarian views toward family life compared with girls in co-education. Both predictors were not significant for the students’ attitudes toward work life and balancing work and home responsibilities.

Erden (2009), the only experimental study, found that a course on gender equity within further education (Ankara, Turkey) had a significant influence on GRA. Although the attitudes of the students in the same program who did not follow the gender equity course remain the same over time, the students of the experimental group report more egalitarian GRA after following the semester-long gender equity course compared with the beginning of the course. However, it should be noted that students were not randomly assigned to experiment or control groups and, therefore, selection bias is probably present. Also, only short-term effects are examined. Nonetheless, this result is promising as it demonstrates the possibility to alter students’ GRA.

Relational school aspects

Regarding teachers’ influence on students’ GRA, Zulich (1986) found that ninth- to 12th-grade students’ current class teacher’s sex role attitudes significantly and positively predict students’ sex role attitudes, indicating students’ and current teacher attitudes to be in line. This was not the case for the GRA of other teachers identified as role models by students themselves.

The GRA of peers as perceived by their fellow students were found to be of importance. Chatterjee and McCarrey (1989) argued that female undergraduate students in more traditional female training programs (cf. nursing) have more traditional inferred sex role attitudes than their peers—that is, they perceive their peers as having traditional views—and are more traditional themselves compared with students in non-traditional programs (cf. trades, technology). The authors stress the congruence between the perception of peers’ attitudes and the individuals’ own attitudes. Although not focusing on the school environment, Richmond-Abbott (1984) stated that the respondents reported peers to be of most influence on their views on sex roles.

Discussion

Relational Aspects

Most variables related to the individual and home environment were structural aspects such as SES and family structure. Relational aspects like time spent with a child, parenting style, family conflict, parental closeness with a child, relationship quality between parent and child, and father’s involvement in child rearing were studied far less.

This focus on structural aspects also applies to the school-related variables: most studies study educational program, school structure, co- versus single-sex education, and SES of the school’s neighborhood. Only a few relational aspects were taken into account such as perceived peer attitudes (Chatterjee & McCarrey, 1989) and the teacher–student relationship with the current teacher and role model teacher (Zulich, 1986), but these studies are limited and out-dated.

The limited studies including relational factors confirm that relational aspects are important in studying GRA. Relationship quality with parents, for example, was identified as an important determinant in researching parent–child congruence. Future research needs to focus on relational aspects and its interaction with structural predictors.

Non-Nuclear Families

As society has been changing, traditional family patterns have given way to different family arrangements (Eurostat, 2010; Pew Research Center, 2010). Changing family compositions are furthermore associated with changing gender roles and GRA (Pew Research Center, 2010). Nonetheless, most research focuses on the so-called nuclear, two-parent families: only five studies focus on diverse family compositions. Furthermore, only three studies included family structure in their research and family structure has been operationalized in different ways. We can conclude that although little attention was given to the diversity of family arrangements, family structure has been identified as an important variable, both directly and indirectly influencing the youngsters’ GRA.

Boys and Fathers

While 11 studies focused solely on girls, none of the reviewed studies focused solely on boys. Furthermore, it should be noted that only 11 out of 24 studies performed separate analysis for boys and girls. The other 13 studies performed analysis on all youngsters together, which limits comparison between boys and girls. The same can be said for parents: While data concerning mothers were widely available (29), data on fathers were less forthcoming (19). The lack of male respondents was also discussed by different researchers as a limitation and recommendation for future research (e.g., Erden, 2009; Ex & Janssens, 1998). Our review shows that we cannot simply assume that the same explanatory mechanisms are in play for boys and girls alike. Differentiating between both can provide detailed information on the differential construction of GRA in boys and girls.

Boys, in this regard, have been under-addressed in previous research. Boys express—in general—more traditional GRA than girls, and traditional GRA are, in turn, related to negative social and scholastic outcomes (Huyge et al., 2015). This places boys at greater risk for academic underachievement and understanding GRA construction in boys could help increase boys’ sense of school belonging (Huyge et al., 2015) and reduce their engagement in violent and criminal behavior (e.g., Ben-David & Schneider, 2005; Flood & Pease, 2009).

Life-Course Perspective

With most studies focusing on parent to child transmission of GRA, a rather deterministic view has been preserved, neglecting the dynamic nature of GRA. We identify two dimensions in this deterministic view: (a) a content dimension (rigid focus on parent–child transmission of GRA not taking into account other socializing agents) and (b) a methodological dimension (mostly applying cross-sectional methods not taking into account changes over time). The deterministic view contrasts strongly with life-course perspective and social-cognitive theory, both stressing the continuous development of GRA and taking into account one’s own life experiences and situational aspects in the construction of GRA. Other socializing agents to which boys and girls are exposed to (e.g., Galambos, 2009)—both in the home environment (e.g., siblings) and other environments like school (e.g., peers and teachers)—were under-studied. However, the need to take into account these agents has been acknowledged by different researchers in discussing their results (Burt & Scott, 2002; Carlson & Knoester, 2011; Galambos et al., 1990; Kiecolt & Acock, 1988; Nelson & Keith, 1990; Smith & Self, 1980). Davis (2007) concluded clearly with the following statement:

The findings offer little support that adolescent social and background characteristics are deterministic of young adult gender ideology. After initial effect in adolescence, background characteristics bear little relationship with ideology trajectories. . . . What is more important over time is the lived experience of young adults in the construction and reconstruction of gender ideology. (p. 1035)

This is supported by research of Crouter and colleagues (2007), Fan and Marini (2000), and Tallichet and Willits (1986), who all found that individual variation in GRA can be attributed to variation in respondents’ own life experiences. The importance of exposure to life experiences and situational aspects was already established in research on adult GRA (e.g., Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004; Vespa, 2009). Likewise, further research into the dynamics of youngsters’ GRA needs to step away from a deterministic point of view and take into account multiple socializing agents and the individuals’ own life experiences.

Another way in which the life-course perspective is not fully met is the largely cross-sectional nature of most articles (25 out of 35 articles). The studies are not able to do causality statements and are limited to description and prediction of GRA at one time point rather than providing us with robust insights into evolutions in GRA. Studies are mostly limited to correlational analysis, comparing groups and predicting GRA. Different researchers identify this as a weakness and advise longitudinal future research (Ahrens & O’Brien, 1996; Burt & Scott, 2002; Davis & Wills, 2010; Erarslan & Rankin, 2013; Marks et al., 2009; Nelson & Keith, 1990; Zulich, 1986). The results of the few longitudinal studies focusing on these developmental aspects and change of GRA over time support the above described importance of the individuals’ own life experiences (Crouter et al., 2007; Fan & Marini, 2000; Tallichet & Willits, 1986) and schooling (Davis, 2007; Fan & Marini, 2000; Tallichet & Willits, 1986; Williams, Radin, & Allegro, 1992). Therefore, the use of longitudinal data in analyzing GRA is recommended.

An Intersectional-Informed Approach

When considering the researched samples, we notice rather homogeneous groups. As argued earlier, most of the studies focus on female respondents and rather traditional family compositions. Besides this, different researchers also note that their sample is rather homogeneous with regard to ethnicity and SES focusing mostly on White, middle-class families (Ahrens & O’Brien, 1996; Crouter et al., 2007; Galambos et al., 1990; Marks et al., 2009; Meyer, 1980; Williams et al., 1992). These findings are in line with the USA-review study performed by Kane (2000) on GRA in adults, indicating racial and ethnic variation in GRA received poor attention.

Different studies make a plea for moving away from a universal study approach to the construction of GRA, underlining the diversity in attitudes and variables explaining GRA and promoting research into this diversity (Crouter et al., 2007; Fan & Marini, 2000; Kucinskas, 2010; Nelson & Keith, 1990; Sagara & Kang, 1998).

Also, when diversity is taken into account, a rather one-dimensional approach is used, placing one group opposed to another on one diversity axe such as sex (women/men; Antill et al., 2003; Burt & Scott, 2002) or race (Blee & Tickamyer, 1987). Due to the situatedness of GRA in social, cultural, and historical contexts (Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Elder, 1998), it seems valuable to apply an intersectional-informed approach (Collins, 1998; Crenshaw, 1991) when studying GRA. The intersectional-informed approach acknowledges the human being as irreducible to a single characteristic, but as a nest of multiple, interacting characteristics (Hankivsky, 2012, 2014). Therefore, the intersectional-informed approach opts for research at the intersects of multiple diversity dimensions such as sex, ethnicity, culture, age, geography, and class (Hankivsky, 2014) as opposed to examining GRA on each distinctive axe. Some research has already focused on intersections of diversity axes (e.g., Sagara & Kang, 1998), comparing GRA predictors of four different groups based on both nationality and sex: Japanese boys, Japanese girls, Korean boys, and Korean girls. In line with Vespa (2009) and Kane (2000), we argue for an intersectionality-informed approach in researching GRA, accounting for heterogeneity both between and within groups.

Inconsistency in Measuring GRA

We have noticed that although all studies measure attitudes toward appropriate roles for men and women, many different scales are used to grasp this concept. We noticed that many researchers develop their own scale (e.g., Erarslan & Rankin, 2013; Erden, 2009; Kulik, 2000a; Tallichet & Willits, 1986). These scales differ, for example, in the amount of items, the target group of the scale (e.g., whether the scale was developed specifically for youngsters), and the subroles being interrogated (e.g., marital and familial roles, vocational roles, societal roles). Beere (1990) already advised in the early 90s that greater consistency in measuring GRA should be achieved to improve study comparison. We would like to put this back on the agenda, even though greater consistency should not be at the cost of instrument development and modification to target specific groups and contexts.

Limitations

This study focused solely on youngsters’ GRA. During the search, we used a somewhat artificial demarcation of child and emerging adulthood to distinguish youngsters from adults. We acknowledge that the transition from emerging adulthood into adulthood does not take place on a fixed age and therefore can differ between individuals. Furthermore, we would like to stress that also in adulthood, GRA is not fixed and changes in GRA occur (e.g., Vespa, 2009). This dynamic nature of GRA throughout the entire life span is emphasized in the life-course approach, and it is confirmed for youngsters in the results of our systematic review.

Second, the search was limited to texts fully available in English. This explains—at least in part—the underrepresentation of studies in non-Western countries. To better investigate the effects of cultural differences in the construction and predictors of GRA, a review of literature in other languages may be needed.

Conclusion

This article applied a systematic approach in bringing together articles that focus on the construction of youngsters’ GRA within different countries. This review confirms the complex relationship between individual, home, and school characteristics and school-aged youngsters’ GRA. Moreover, this article provides an overview of the current state of the art and denotes currently under-researched topics such as the quality of parent–child relationships, non-nuclear family structures, boys and fathers, and changes in GRA over time. Also, it identifies promising approaches to researching youngsters’ GRA, such as an intersectionality-informed approach and a life-course perspective. This review will hopefully be able to guide future research on youngsters’ GRA.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders (FWO;Grant FWOTM773).

Author Biographies

Myriam Halimi is a PhD fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) employed at the educational sciences department,Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Myriam is a member of the Centre of Expertise on Gender,Diversity,and Intersectionality (RHEA).

Els Consuegra is a post-doctoral researcher in the field of gender and educational sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and a member of the RHEA. Els is a guest professor at the Department of Educational Studies at the Universiteit Gent.

Katrien Struyven is assistant professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Working in Brussels,the multicultural capital of Europe,diversity as a theme has gained importance in her research on teaching and assessment.

Nadine Engels is vice-dean of the Faculty of Psychology and Education at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and program director of teacher education. Her main research expertise is in the fields of professional development and diversity in education.

References

*Ahrens

J. A.

O’Brien

K. M.

(1996). Predicting gender-role attitudes in adolescents females: Ability, agency, and parental factors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 409-417.

*Antill

J. K.

Cunningham

J. D.

Cotton

(2003). Gender-role attitudes in middle childhood: In what ways do parents influence their children? Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 148-153.

Archer

Lloyd

B. B.

(2002). Sex and gender (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Arnett

J. J.

(2007). Emerging adulthood: What is it and what is it good for? Child Development Perspectives, 1, 68-73.

Azuma

Suzuki

(1991). Review of research on sex role. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 62, 270-276.

Bandura

(1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In Goslin

D. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213-262). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Bandura

(1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Banks

J. A.

(1995). Multicultural education: Its effects on students’ racial and gender role attitudes. In Banks

J. A.

McGee Banks

(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 617-627). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

10.

Beere

(1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

11.

Ben-David

Schneider

(2005). Rape perceptions, gender role attitudes, and victim-perpetrator acquaintance. Sex Roles, 53, 385-399.

12.

*Blee

K. M.

Tickamyer

A. R.

(1987). Black-White differences in mother-to-daughter transmission of sex-role attitudes. The Sociological Quarterly, 28, 205-222.

13.

Blumberg

R. L.

(2015). Eliminating gender bias in textbooks: Pushing for policy reforms that promote gender equity in education (Background paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015). Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

14.

Boehnke

(2011). Gender role attitudes around the globe: Egalitarian vs. traditional views. Asian Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 57-74.

15.

Bolzendahl

C. I.

Myers

D. J.

(2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974-1998. Social Forces, 83, 759-789.

16.

Brooks

Bolzendahl

(2004). The transformation of US gender role attitudes: Cohort replacement, social-structural change, and ideological learning. Social Science Research, 33, 106-133.

17.

*Burt

K. B.

Scott

(2002). Parent and adolescent gender role attitudes in 1990s Great Britain. Sex Roles, 46, 239-245.

18.

Bussey

Bandura

(1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713.

19.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

*Carlson

D. L.

Knoester

(2011). Family structure and the intergenerational transmission of gender ideology. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 709-734.

21.

Carrigan

Connell

Lee

(1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society, 14, 551-604.

22.

*Chatterjee

McCarrey

(1989). Sex role attitudes of self and those inferred of peers, performance, and career opportunities as reported by women in nontraditional vs. traditional training programs. Sex Roles, 21, 653-669.

23.

Clemans

K. H.

DeRose

L. M.

Graber

J. A.

Brooks-Gunn

(2010). Gender in adolescence: Applying a person-in-context approach to gender identity and roles. In Chrisler

J. C.

McCreary

D. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology, Volume 1: Gender research in general and experimental psychology. New York, NY: Springer.

24.

Collins

P. H.

(1998). Fighting words: Black women and the search for justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

25.

Corrigall

E. A.

Konrad

A. M.

(2007). Gender role attitudes and careers: A Longitudinal Study. Sex Roles, 56, 847-855.

26.

Cotter

Hermsen

J. M.

Vanneman

(2011). The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 259-289.

27.

Council of Europe. (2014, October). Combating gender stereotypes in and through education. Report of the 2nd Conference of the Council of Europe National Focal Points on Gender Equality, Council of Europe Publishing, Cedex (Strasbourg), France.

28.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

29.

Crocket

L. J.

Beal

S. J.

(2012). The life course in the making: Gender and the development of adolescents’ expected timing of adult role transitions. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1727-1738.

30.

*Crouter

A. C.

Whiteman

S. D.

McHale

S. M.

Osgood

W. D.

(2007). Development of gender attitude traditionality across middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 78, 911-926.

31.

Cunningham

(2008a). Changing attitudes toward the male breadwinner, female homemaker family model: Influences of women’s employment and education over the lifecourse. Social Forces, 87, 199-323.

32.

Cunningham

(2008b). Influences of gender ideology and housework allocation of women’s employment over the life course. Social Sciences Research, 37, 254-267.

33.

Cunningham

Beutel

A. M.

Barber

J. S.

Thornton

(2005). Reciprocal relationships between attitudes about gender and social contexts during young adulthood. Social Science Research, 34, 862-892.

34.

*Davis

S. N.

(2007). Gender ideology construction from adolescence to young adulthood. Social Science Research, 36, 1021-1041.

35.

Davis

S. N.

Greenstein

T. N.

(2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87-105.

36.

Davis

S. N.

Pearce

L. D.

(2007). Adolescent’s work-family gender ideologies and educational expectations. Sociological Perspectives, 50, 249-271.

37.

*Davis

S. N.

Wills

J. B.

(2010). Adolescent gender ideology socialization: Direct and moderating effect of fathers’ beliefs. Sociological Spectrum, 30, 580-604.

38.

Delamont

(2012). Sex role and the school. London, England: Routledge.

39.

Elder

G. H.

(1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1-12.

40.

Elder

G. H.

Johnson

M. K.

Crosnoe

(2008). The emergence and development of life course theory. In Mortimer

J. T.

Shanahan

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

41.

*Erarslan

A. B.

Rankin

(2013). Gender role attitudes of female students in single-sex and coeducational high schools in Istanbul. Sex Roles, 69, 455-468.

42.

*Erden

F. T.

(2009). A course on gender equity in education: Does it affect gender role attitudes of preservice teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 409-414.

43.

Eurostat. (2010). Household structure in the EU. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

44.

Eurydice Network. (2010). Gender differences in educational outcomes: Study on the measures taken and the current situation in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

45.

*Ex

C. T.

Janssens

J. M.

(1998). Maternal influences on daughters’ gender role attitudes. Sex Roles, 38, 171-185.

46.

*Fan

P.-L.

Marini

M. M.

(2000). Influences on gender-role attitudes during the transition to adulthood. Social Science Research, 29, 258-283.

47.

Flood

Pease

(2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 125-142.

48.

Galambos

N. L.

(2009). Gender and gender role development in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 233-262). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

49.

*Galambos

N. L.

Almeida

D. M.

Petersen

A. C.

(1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex role attitudes in early adolescence: Exploring gender intensification. Child Development, 61, 1905-1914.

50.

Gibbons

J. L.

Hamby

B. A.

Dennis

W. D.

(1997). Researching gender-role ideologies internationally and cross-culturally. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 151-170.

51.

Glover

(1992). Review article: Women and working lives: Divisions and change. Work, Employment and Society, 6, 489-498.

52.

Hankivsky

(2012). Women’s health, men’s health, and gender and health: Implications of intersectionality. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 1712-1720.

53.

Hankivsky

(2014). Intersectionality 101. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy.

54.

Hansen

G. L.

(1991). Balancing work and family: A literature and resource review. Family Relations, 40, 348-353.

55.

Hill

J. P.

Lynch

M. E.

(1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. In Brooks-Gunn

Petersen

A. C.

(Eds.), Girls at puberty: Biological and psychosocial perspectives (pp. 201-228). New York, NY: Springer Science Business Media.

56.

Huyge

Van Maele

Van Houtte

(2015). Does students’ machismo fit in school? Clarifying the implications of traditional gender role ideology for school belonging. Gender and Education, 27, 1-18.

57.

Jugovic

(2010). What is measured under the concept of gender roles? The review and evaluation of gender role scales and attitudes toward gender roles scales. Contemporary Psychology, 13, 113-135.

58.

Kane

E. W.

(2000). Racial and ethnic variations in gender-related attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 419-439.

59.

Katz-Wise

S. L.

Priess

H. A.

Hyde

J. S.

(2010). Gender-role attitudes and behavior across the transition to parenthood. Development Psychology, 46, 18-28.

60.

Kaufman

(2005). Gender role attitudes and college students’ work and family expectations. Gender Issues, 22(2), 58-71.

61.

Kessler

S. J.

McKenna

(1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. New York, NY: John Wiley.

62.

*Kiecolt

J. K.

Acock

A. C.

(1988). The long-term effects of family structure on gender-role attitudes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 709-717.

63.

Kohlberg

(1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In Maccoby

E. E.

(Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82-172). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

64.

Kohlberg

Ullian

D. Z.

(1974). Stages in the development of psychosexual concepts and attitudes. In Friedman

R. C.

Richart

R. M.

Vande Wiede

R. L.

(Eds.), Sex differences in behavior (pp. 209-222). New York, NY: John Wiley.

65.

*Kucinskas

(2010). A research note on Islam and gender egalitarianism: An examination of Egyptian and Saudi Arabian youth attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 761-770.

66.

*Kulik

(2000a). Gender identity, sex typing of occupations, and gender role ideology among adolescents: Are they related? International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 22, 43-56.

67.

*Kulik

(2000b). Intrafamiliar congruence in gender-role ideology: Husband-wife versus parents-offspring. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31, 91-106.

68.

*Kulik

(2002a). The impact of social background on gender-role ideology: Parents’ versus children’s attitudes. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 53-73.

69.

*Kulik

(2002b). Like-sex versus opposite-sex effects in transmission of gender role ideology from parents to adolescents in Israel. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 451-457.

70.

Legge

J. S.

Misra

(1998). Examining the concept of gender role ideology: Women in traditional Jewish worship. Contemporary Jewry, 19, 95-119.

71.

Liberati

Altman

D. G.

Tetzlaff

Mulrow

Gøtzsche

P. C.

Ioannidis

J. P.

… Moher

(2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1-28.

72.

Lindsey

L. L.

(2011). Gender roles: A sociological perspective (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

73.

Maccoby

E. E.

(2000). Perspectives on gender development. International Journal on Behavioral Development, 24, 398-406.

74.

*Marks

Bun

L. C.

McHale

S. M.

(2009). Family patterns of gender role attitudes. Sex Roles, 61, 221-234.

75.

McDaniel

(2010). Cross-national gender gaps in educational expectations: The influence of national-level gender ideology and educational systems. Comparative Educational Review, 54, 27-50.

76.

McHugh

M. C.

Frieze

I. H.

(1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1-16.

77.

*Mensch

B. S.

Ibrahim

B. L.

Lee

S. M.

El-Gibaly

(2003). Gender-role attitudes among Egyptian adolescents. Studies in Family Planning, 34, 8-18.

78.

*Meyer

(1980). The development of girls’ sex-role attitudes. Child Development, 51, 508-514.

79.

*Nelson

Keith

(1990). Comparisons of female and male early adolescent sex role attitude and behavior development. Adolescence, 15, 183-204.

80.

Petticrew

Roberts

(2006). Systematic review in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

81.

Pettitt

L. M.

(2004). Gender intensification of peer socialization during puberty. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 106, 23-34.

82.

Pew Research Center. (2010). The decline of marriage and rise of new families. Washington, DC: Author.

83.

Priess

H. A.

Lindberg

S. M.

(2011). Gender intensification. In Levesque

R. J. R.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 1135-1142). New York, NY: Springer.

84.

Priess

H. A.

Lindberg

S. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(2009). Adolescent gender-role identity and mental health: Gender intensification revised. Child Development, 80, 1531-1544.

85.

*Richmond-Abbott

(1984). Sex-role attitudes of mothers and children in divorced, single-parent families. Journal of Divorce, 8, 61-81.

86.

Rogers

M. E.

Creed

P. A.

(2011). A longitudinal examination of adolescent career planning and exploration using a social cognitive career theory framework. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 163-172.

87.

*Rollins

White

P. N.

(1982). The relationship between mothers’ and daughters’ sex-role attitudes and self-concepts in three types of family environment. Sex Roles, 8, 1141-1155.

88.

*Rollins

White

P. N.

(1999). Gender role attitudes of american mothers and daughters over time. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 173-179.

89.

*Sagara

Kang

R. H.

(1998). Parents’ effects on children’s gender-role attitudes: A comparison between Japan and Korea. Psychologia, 41, 189-198.

90.

Shu

(2004). Education and gender egalitarianism: The case of China. Sociology of Education, 77, 311-336.

91.

*Smith

D. M.

Self

G. D.

(1980). The congruence between mothers’ and daughters’ sex-role attitudes: A research note. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 105-109.

92.

Spence

Helmreich

(1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66-67.

93.

Spence

Helmreich

Stapp

(1973). Attitudes Toward Women Scale. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219-220.

94.

*Stephan

C. W.

Corder

(1985). The effects of dual-career families on adolescents’ sex-role attitudes, work and family plans, and choices of important others. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47, 921-929.

95.

*Streitmatter

J. L.

Santa-Cruz

R. M.

Ellis-Schwabe

(1984). Early adolescent attitudes toward sex roles. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 231-238.

96.

Stromquist

N. P.

(2007). The gender socialization process in schools: A cross-national comparison. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001555/155587e.pdf

97.

Swanson

J. L.

D’Archiardi

(2005). Beyond interest, needs/values, and abilities: Assessing other important career constructs over the life span. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 353-381). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

98.

*Tallichet

S. E.

Willits

F. K.

(1986). Gender-role attitude change of young women: Influential factors from a panel study. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 219-227.

99.

*Thornton

Alwin

D. F.

Camburn

(1983). Causes and consequences of sex-role attitudes and attitude change. American Sociological Review, 48, 211-227.

100.

Thornton

Freedman

(1979). Changes in the sex role attitudes of women, 1962-1977: Evidence from a panel study. American Sociological Review, 44, 831-842.

101.

Tiklin

Croxford

Ducklin

Frame

(2005). Gender and attitudes to work and family roles: The view of young people at the millennium. Gender and Education, 17, 129-142.

102.

Unger

R. K.

(1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34, 1085-1094.

103.

Valentova

(2012, January). Gender role attitudes in Luxembourg between 1999 and 2008. Retrieved from http://www.statistiques.public.lu/catalogue-publications/working-papers-CEPS/2012/02-2012.pdf

104.

Vella

(1994). Gender roles and human capital investment: The relationship between traditional attitudes and female labour market performance. Economica, 61, 191-211.

105.

Vespa

(2009). Gender ideology construction: A life course and intersectional approach. Gender & Society, 23, 262-287.

106.

*Williams

Radin

Allegro

(1992). Sex role attitudes of adolescents reared primarily by their fathers: An 11-year follow-up. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 457-476.

107.

*Zulich

(1986). Sex role attitudes among high school students and their teachers. Free Inquiry of Creative Sociology, 14, 207-211.

The Relationship Between Youngsters’ Gender Role Attitudes and Individual,Home,and School Characteristics

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

The Sex Versus Gender Debate

Theorizing GRA

Construction of GRA

Research Focus

Method

Preliminary Search of Review Studies

Search Strategy Systematic Review

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Quality Appraisal

Describing the Sample

Narrative Analysis

Results

The Individual Level

Traditionalism and egalitarianism

Race, nationality, and religion

Situated in Home Environment

Intergenerational transmission

Mother versus father

Same sex hypothesis

Family structure

Parents’ socioeconomic status (SES)

Situated in School Environment

Schooling: Liberalizing or traditionalizing?

School structure

Relational school aspects

Discussion

Relational Aspects

Non-Nuclear Families

Boys and Fathers

Life-Course Perspective

An Intersectional-Informed Approach

Inconsistency in Measuring GRA

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biographies

References