1977
DOI: 10.1016/0092-6566(77)90025-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Support and opposition to the Women's Liberation Movement: Some personality and parental correlates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

1977
1977
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Low positive correlations were expected between the FWM and the three subscales of the PAQ, based on prior research (e.g., Belk & Snell, 1986) and to ensure that the FWM does not tap personal gender role 30-41) (n = 61-76) (n = 91-117 characteristics instead of subjective feelings about feminism. In addition, a low negative correlation was predicted between dogmatism (Troldahl & Powell, 1965) and the FWM, consistent with past findings that have documented a negative relationship between authoritarianism and profeminist attitudes (e.g., Pawlicki & Almquist, 1973;Whitehead & Tawes, 1976;Worell & Worell, 1977). Finally, a negligible relationship was expected between the FWM and the M-CSDS, which would suggest that the FWM is not susceptible to social desirability influences, and again consistent with prior research (e.g., Belk & Snell, 1986).…”
Section: Full Scalesupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Low positive correlations were expected between the FWM and the three subscales of the PAQ, based on prior research (e.g., Belk & Snell, 1986) and to ensure that the FWM does not tap personal gender role 30-41) (n = 61-76) (n = 91-117 characteristics instead of subjective feelings about feminism. In addition, a low negative correlation was predicted between dogmatism (Troldahl & Powell, 1965) and the FWM, consistent with past findings that have documented a negative relationship between authoritarianism and profeminist attitudes (e.g., Pawlicki & Almquist, 1973;Whitehead & Tawes, 1976;Worell & Worell, 1977). Finally, a negligible relationship was expected between the FWM and the M-CSDS, which would suggest that the FWM is not susceptible to social desirability influences, and again consistent with prior research (e.g., Belk & Snell, 1986).…”
Section: Full Scalesupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Thus, this study showedfeminism to be the third of four choices of terminology. Numerous scales exist to measure attitudes toward feminist-movement issues (Elmore, Brodsky, & Naffziger, 1975;Follingstad, Robinson, & Pugh, 1977;Gilbert, Warner, & Cable 1975;Goldberg, 1976;Goldschmidt, Gergen, Quigley, & Gergen, 1974;Hymer, 1972;Jacobson, Anderson, Berletich, & Berdahl, 1976;Kirkpatrick, 1936;Lieberman, Solow, Bond, & Reibstein, 1979;Peterson, 1975;Sarup, 1976;Singer, 1974;Smith, Ferree, & Miller, 1975;Worell & Worell, 1977;and Zatlin, 1972). All of these instruments, however, measure an individual's agreement or disagreement with the goals and issues of "feminism," the ideology.…”
Section: Berryman-fink and Verdereermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data demonstrate a very consistent pattern that those who are resistant to social change in the area of sex-role behavior are more rigid, express greater religiosity, are less trusting of people, more self-deprecating, and more likely to manifest feelings of powerlessness. WoreU and Worell (1977) point out that according to research on authoritarianism and dogmatism, resistance to change appears to be motivated by fear or anxiety. In the case of sex-role attitudes and behavior, the soiurce of the fear may stem from a rigid conceptual system in which "the new pattems of social behavior suggested by the women's movement present a degree of risk-taking and uncertainty to which the individual cannot easily accommodate" (p. 12).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%