The End of the Gender Revolution? Gender Role Attitudes from 1977 to 2008

Cotter, David A.; Hermsen, Joan M.; Vanneman, Reeve

doi:10.1086/658853

Cited by 519 publications

(588 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

541

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The questions that comprise the gender-roles scale (Cotter et al 2011) were pretty good, scoring around 0.65, as did the four-item scale itself. The question asking people to rank five attributes that might be desirable for a child to have did poorly on the whole, mainly because people unreliably placed hard work relative to the others.…”

Section: Not-fixed Civil Liberties Trust and Confidence Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Smith (1997) developed a "misanthropy" scale from items about how helpful, fair, and trustworthy people are perceived to be. Finally, four gender-typing items are often used to make a scale (Cotter, Hermsen, and Vanneman 2011). The GSS vocabulary quiz has ten words, though the scale may work better with only seven of them (Malhotra and Krosnick 2007).…”

Section: Coding Scales and Other Measurement Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability of the Core Items in the General Social Survey: Estimates from the Three-Wave Panels, 2006–2014

Hout¹,

Hastings²

2016

SocScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Not-fixed Civil Liberties Trust and Confidence Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coding Scales and Other Measurement Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of the Core Items in the General Social Survey: Estimates from the Three-Wave Panels, 2006–2014

Hout¹,

Hastings²

2016

SocScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Whereas ideologies of male primacy-and vertical inequalities-tend to weaken in affluent Western democracies, beliefs in categorical gender difference are easily reconciled with the liberal individualistic ideals that permeate these cultures (Charles and Grusky 2004;Cotter et al 2011;Levanon and Grusky 2016;Knight and Brinton 2017;Chatillon et al 2018). Under these "postmaterialist" gender regimes, horizontal forms of gender segregation, such as professional women's underrepresentation in STEM fields, retain legitimacy because they are easily understood as the outcome of free choices by equal but innately different men and women.…”

Section: Micro-macro Interactions: Cultural Stereotypes Into Aspirationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) occupations are strongholds of gender segregation in the contemporary United States. While many Americans regard this segregation as natural and inevitable, closer examination reveals a great deal of variability in the gendering of STEM fields across time, space, and demographic groups. This article assesses how different theoretical accounts accord with the available evidence on the gender composition of scientific and technical fields. We find most support for accounts that allow for a dynamic interplay between individual-level traits and the broader sociocultural environments in which they develop. The existing evidence suggests, in particular, that Western cultural stereotypes about the nature of STEM work and STEM workers and about the intrinsic qualities of men and women can be powerful drivers of individual aptitudes, aspirations, and affinities. We offer an illustrative catalog of stereotypes that support women's STEM-avoidance and men's STEM-affinity, and we conclude with some thoughts on policy implications.Keywords: gender; STEM; segregation; stereotypes; culture; work; occupations; science; inequality For more than three decades, American educators, policy makers, activists, and business leaders have engaged in research and policy initiatives to increase the presence of women and other underrepresented groups in scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) occupations and fields of study. These efforts have been motivated by interests in broadening opportunities in lucrative, high-status occupations and in ameliorating acute STEM labor shortages that are believed to threaten national prosperity, private profits and the public welfare.Despite wide-ranging research and policy efforts, STEM occupations remain strongholds of gender segregation in the contemporary United States. Women made up nearly half of the US labor market in 2015, but only 28% of all scientific and technical workers. Within STEM, gender segregation is also very strong, with women comprising 48% of life scientists and 60% of social scientists, but only 28% of physical scientists and 15% of engineers (NSF 2018, Appendices 3-12). 1 While some fields have integrated over time, others have become more segregated. Women's share of US bachelor's degrees in computer science, for instance, declined from 28% to 18% between (NSF 2018.While many Americans understand men's dominance of scientific and technical work as natural and universal, the gender typing of STEM fields varies a great deal across space, time, and socio-demographic groups. Recent comparative studies have shown that scientific degree recipients are disproportionately female in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Romania, and Georgia, for example, and that the gender gap in children's STEM aspirations is larger in more affluent societies (Charles 2011a(Charles , 2017 1 Even within engineering women and men tend to do different work: about 10% of mechanical and electrical engineers are women, compared to 20...

show abstract

“…However, gender role attitudes are slowly becoming more egalitarian (Cotter, Hermsen, and Vanneman 2011), dual-earner families are becoming the norm (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011), and the number of families in which the wife is the primary earner is increasing (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011). These trends have several consequences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

All tied up: Tied staying and tied migration within the United States, 1997 to 2007

Cooke¹

2013

DemRes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDThe family migration literature presumes that women are cast into the role of the tied migrant. However, clearly identifying tied migrants is a difficult empirical task, since it requires the identification of a counterfactual: who moved but did not want to? OBJECTIVESThis research develops a unique methodology to directly identify both tied migrants and tied stayers in order to investigate their frequency and determinants. METHODSUsing data from the 1997 through 2009 U.S. Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), propensity score matching is used to match married individuals with comparable single individuals to create counterfactual migration behaviors: who moved but would not have moved had they been single (tied migrants) and who did not move but would have moved had they been single (tied stayers). RESULTSTied migration is relatively rare and not limited just to women: rates of tied migration are similar for men and women. However, tied staying is both more common than tied migration and equally experienced by men and women. Consistent with the body of empirical evidence, an analysis of the determinants of tied migration and tied staying demonstrates that family migration decisions are imbued with gender. CONCLUSIONSAdditional research is warranted to validate the unique methodology developed in this paper and to confirm its results. One line of future research should be to examine the effects of tied staying, along with tied migration, on well-being, union stability, employment, and earnings.

show abstract

The End of the Gender Revolution? Gender Role Attitudes from 1977 to 2008

Cited by 519 publications

References 34 publications

Reliability of the Core Items in the General Social Survey: Estimates from the Three-Wave Panels, 2006–2014

Reliability of the Core Items in the General Social Survey: Estimates from the Three-Wave Panels, 2006–2014

Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM

All tied up: Tied staying and tied migration within the United States, 1997 to 2007

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About