gender role differences in college students from one- and two-parent families

Sex Roles, Vol. 42, Nos. 1/2, 2000

Gender Role Differences in College Students fromOne- and Two-Parent Families

Michael Slavkin1,3 and Anne Dopkins Stright2

Indiana University

This study explores three aspects of gender roles: the person’s perceptionsof their own gender role, the person’s perceptions of socially idealized genderroles, and the fit between an individual’s gender role and their perception ofthe ideal person’s gender role. Because parent–child relationships and gendermodels and attitudes in one- and two-parent families may differ, the genderroles of college students raised in one- versus two-parent families may differ.Participants in one- and two-parent families were paired based on gender,age, race, and family of origin’s current income. Forty-five pairs resulted (30Caucasian, 12 African-American, and 3 Asian-American pairs). Twenty-oneof the pairs were lower middle class, 11 were middle class, and 13 were uppermiddle class. Differences in gender roles were found. Males and femalesraised in mother-headed one-parent families were more likely than malesand females raised in intact two-parent families to view their own genderrole in terms of traditionally masculine characteristics (independence, assert-iveness, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, etc.) and to report a low level of tradi-tionally feminine characteristics. In contrast, females in intact two-parentfamilies were more likely than females in mother-headed one-parent familiesto view themselves as androgenous. No differences in idealized gender roleswere found between students raised in one- versus two-parent families; stu-dents from both types of families perceived the ideal person as androgenous.

1School of Education & Human Services, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN 47712.2Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington,IN 47405.

3Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Slavkin, School ofEducation and Human Services, University of Southern Indiana, 8600 University Blvd.,Evansville, IN 47712; E-mail: [email protected].

23

0360-0025/00/0100-0023$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

24 Slavkin and Stright

INTRODUCTION

Gender roles are beliefs about the ways in which individual, familial,community, and societal roles are defined by gender. Traditional genderroles view masculinity as being independent, assertive, and aggressive,whereas femininity has been traditionally stereotyped as nurturing, sensi-tive, and emotional (Bem, 1974; Brody, 1997). A person who describesthemselves strongly in terms of stereotypical masculine characteristics andreports low levels of traditional feminine characteristics is considered tohave a masculine gender role. A person with a feminine gender role de-scribes high feminine and low masculine characteristics. Androgyny (Bem,1974) is the incorporation of both masculine and feminine characteristics.The androgenous individual defines his/her gender role as being masculineor feminine depending on the role that is needed. In contrast, persons withundifferentiated gender roles do not perceive themselves to be high ineither traditionally masculine or feminine characteristics. Using these fourgender-role categories, the current study explores three aspects of genderroles: the person’s perceptions of their own gender role (personal genderroles), the person’s perceptions of socially idealized gender roles (the idealperson’s gender role), and the fit between an individual’s personal role andtheir perception of the ideal person’s gender role.

Parenting and Gender Roles

Research and theory suggest that parenting is related to children’sgender-role development. One important aspect of parenting is the qualityof the relationship between the parent and child. Research suggests thatthe quality of the parent–child relationship is related to children’s gender-role development. For example, the quality of children’s attachment totheir parents (Haigler, Day, & Marshall, 1995) and parental warmth andinvolvement (Lamb, 1995; Levy, 1989) are related to the development ofthe child’s gender role. Other important aspects of parenting that mayinfluence children’s gender roles are parental gender models and attitudes.Learning theory and research (Lytton & Romney, 1991) suggest that chil-dren develop their gender roles by modeling their behavior and attitudesafter their same-sex parent. Parents’ gender-role attitudes are related totheir adult children’s gender-roles attitudes (Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham,1986). Parents’ nontraditional gender-role attitudes and models (mothersworking outside the home and fathers participation in housework) predicttheir adult children’s nontraditional gender-role attitudes (Booth & Amato,1994; Lamb, Pleck, & Levine, 1989).

Gender Role Differences in College Students 25

Parenting and Gender Roles in One- and Two-Parent Families

However, parent–child relationships, parental models, and parentalattitudes may differ in one- versus two-parent families, and these differencesbetween one- and two-parent families may affect the development of theirchildren’s gender roles.

Parent–Child Relationships and Gender Roles in One- andTwo-Parent Families

First, parent–child relationships may differ between one- and two-parent families. Children raised in one-parent homes may have a more equalor partnership-like relationship with their custodial parent than children intwo-parent families. Weiss (1979) theorized that two-parent families areorganized hierarchically, with the parents at the top of the hierarchy. Parentsin these families share responsibility for decision making and running thehousehold and serve as each other’s support. In contrast, based on inter-views with more than 200 one- and two-parent families, Weiss (1979, 1984)found that because one-parent families lack an echelon structure (a partner-ship at the top of the family hierarchy), children in one-parent familieswere more likely than children in two-parent families to share with theparent the responsibility for running the household. These children alsowere more likely than children in two-parent families to be responsible forcaring for themselves (for example, making their own breakfasts, packingtheir own lunches, and being on their own after school). He found thatchildren in one-parent families were more likely to serve as confidants andprovide support to their parent. More recent research has found that chil-dren in one-parent families are more likely than children in two-parentfamilies to have more autonomy, less supervision, more influence in familydecision making (Hetherington, 1993; Steinberg, 1987), and more assignedchores (Barber & Lyons, 1995).

Mothers in one-parent families may expect their children to play someof the traditional roles of the father, whereas fathers in one-parent familiesmay expect their children to play some of the traditional roles of the mother.Based on Weiss’s theory and research, males and females raised in mother-headed one-parent families may be more likely to adopt a masculine genderrole than males and females in two-parent families. Children in mother-headed one-parent families may be more likely to perceive themselves interms of traditionally masculine characteristics, such as independence andassertiveness, and less likely to perceive themselves in terms of traditionallyfeminine characteristics, such as dependence and submission, because chil-


dren in these families may be more likely than children in two-parentfamilies to be expected by their parent to play the role of the male in thehousehold and to develop these traditionally masculine characteristics. Incontrast, males and females in father-headed one-parent families may bemore likely to adopt a more feminine gender role, describing themselvesas nurturing and sensitive, because fathers in these families may expecttheir children to play the female role and may encourage the developmentof these characteristics.

Parent Gender Models and Attitudes in One- and Two-Parent Families

Other aspects of parenting that may affect gender roles are parentalmodels and attitudes. Because children are more likely to model theirbehavior after the same-sex parent (Bandura, 1986), then children growingup in one-parent families without a same-sex parent may develop differentgender roles than children growing up with same-sex parents. Early theoriz-ing suggested that males in mother-headed one-parent families may developless masculine and more feminine gender roles (feminine or undifferenti-ated gender roles) than males in two-parent families because males inmother-headed one-parent families lack a male role model within the imme-diate family system (Biller, 1993).

However, Kurdek and Siesky (1980) found no evidence of ‘‘feminiza-tion’’ of preadolescent and adolescent males in mother-headed one-parentfamilies. Instead, these males were more likely to be androgenous. Therehas been little research on female children in father-headed one-parentfamilies because such families are relatively rare (14% of fathers areawarded custody) (Hetherington, & Stanley-Hagen, 1997). Children rearedin one-parent homes with a same-sex parent may be more likely thanchildren raised in two-parent families to be androgenous because childrenin one-parent families have parental models and attitudes that are nottraditional. Mothers in mother-headed one-parent families are more likelythan mothers in two-parent families to work outside the home, and fathersin father-headed one-parent families are more likely than fathers in two-parent families to play an important role in childrearing and running thehousehold. Research suggests that children whose fathers are highly in-volved in child care and model less traditional gender roles will have lessstereotyped views (Lamb, 1995 review). Males in father-headed one-parentfamilies would be expected to be more androgenous than males in two-parent families because their same-sex parent is modeling both masculineand feminine roles. Females in mother-headed one-parent families may bemore likely to be androgenous than females in two-parent families because


mothers in one-parent families adopt more androgenous gender roles(Kurdek & Siesky, 1980), less traditional gender-role behaviors (Leaper,Leve, Strasser, & Schwartz, 1995), and have less traditional gender roleattitudes (Leve & Fagot, 1997) than mothers in two-parent families. Re-search with young children suggests that mothers working outside the homemay be related to increased gender role flexibility in their daughters (Levy,1989). However, Kiecolt and Acock (1988) did not find that living in amother-headed one-parent family after divorce predicted less traditionalgender roles.

Children raised in two-parent families may be likely to adopt thetraditional gender role of the same-sex parent (Kurdek & Siesky, 1980).A second possibility is that they may perceive themselves as high in bothmasculine and feminine characteristics because they are exposed to bothmasculine and feminine models.

Gender-Role Values in One- and Two-Parent Families

The second question that the study examines is whether individuals’values about gender roles differ between one- and two-parent families. Inaddition to assessing the individual’s perception of his/her own gender role,the study assesses what gender role the person values or considers ideal.Participants are asked to describe the ideal person using the traditionalmasculine and feminine descriptors. Analyses then examine whether per-sons growing up in one- versus two-parent families differ in their descrip-tions of the gender role of the ideal person.

The gender role a person values may differ between one- and two-parent families because of the possible parenting differences describedpreviously. Another possibility is that a person’s gender role values maybe influenced by other forces such as the values of the culture. There maybe no differences between individuals raised in one- or two-parent familiesbecause males and females from both types of families may value androg-yny, a widely valued gender role in today’s culture (Lamb, 1995).

Finally, the study explores whether there is an interaction betweenfamily type and differences between personal and ideal gender roles. Theremay be differences between an individual’s own gender role and what theybelieve is the ideal gender role in single- versus two-parent families. Theindividual’s own gender roles and their perception of the ideal person’sgender role may be affected differentially by the family and societal forces.The individual’s own gender role may be more likely to be affected by thefamily than the person’s values or ideals for gender roles.

The current study explores each of these questions by comparing the


gender roles of college students raised in one- and two-parent families.Because gender roles may be affected by race (Kiecolt & Acock, 1988),age (Powell & Steelman, 1982), income (Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham,1986), and gender (Booth & Amato, 1994), each of these variables arecontrolled by matching the participants.

METHOD

Participants

Participants in the current study were 108 female and 61 male studentsenrolled in undergraduate psychology courses at a university and a commu-nity college in the Midwest. Students completed questionnaires as fulfill-ment of optional course credits. Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 56years of age, with the median age falling at 19 years. The students wereasked to report the structure of their family of origin. Of the 169 studentssampled in this study, 108 were from two-parent intact families, whereas45 were from one-parent families. The remaining students were fromblended two-parent families (the result of divorce and remarriage), andwere removed from later analyses. Two students did not define their familystatus, and also were removed from further analyses. The students in one-parent families were on average approximately 8 years old when theirparents divorced. They had lived in a one-parent household for an averageof 12 years, with a range of 6 to 17 years. Of the participants sampled, 124were Caucasian, 31 were African-American, 12 were Asian-American, and2 were Hispanic-American. Participants’ family of origin’s current yearlyincomes ranged from $10,000 to $50,000, with a median income of $34,000.

Before examining differences in gender roles between participantsfrom one- and two-parent families, the variables gender, age, race, andincome were controlled by matching the participants. Participants in one-and two-parent families were paired based on gender, age, race, and familyof origin’s current income. Forty-five pairs resulted (32 female pairs, 13male pairs; 30 Caucasian pairs, 12 African-American pairs, and 3 Asian-American pairs). The pairs were divided between 38 17–22 year olds and7 23–40 year olds, with a median age of 20 years. The pairs were matchedfor three levels of income: 21 lower middle class ($10,000–30,000), 11 middleclass ($31,000–60,000), and 13 upper middle class pairs ($61,000–120,000).The remaining participants were not used in the analyses. Of the 45 one-parent families, 37 were headed by mothers and 8 were headed by fathers.


Procedure and Measures

Questionnaires were administered to the participants in a group by theresearcher in a classroom setting. First, participants completed a form of theBem Sex-Role Inventory (Bem, 1981) used to assess how the individual de-scribes their own gender role. Participants described their gender roles byrating on a scale from 1 (never or almost never true) to 7 (always or almostalways true) how similar they were to the descriptors used. Twenty of theadjectives are characteristics that are traditional stereotypes of males, suchas ambitious, self-reliant, independent, and assertive. An additional 20 itemsare characteristics that are traditional stereotypes of females, such as affec-tionate, gentle, understanding, or sensitive to the needs of others. The re-maining 20 items are gender-neutral items. Then, the students completed thesame questionnaire again, but this time they were asked to rate the itemsbased on their perception of the ideal person rather than for themselves.Ratings of the ideal person were done after the ratings of the participant’sgender role so as not to influence the ratings of the student’s own genderrole.

Finally, participants completed a short questionnaire on the structureof their family of origin (one-parent or intact two-parent), their family oforigin’s current income, and their gender and race. Participants were askedto define the structure of their family of origin with the following question:‘‘How would you be most likely to describe the structure of your childhoodfamily?’’ (intact two parent; blended two parent, divorce and remarriage;mother-headed one parent; and father-headed one parent). Most of thestudents took 30 min to complete the three questionnaires.

A masculinity subscale score was calculated for the gender role ques-tionnaire by averaging the ratings for the 20 masculine items, and a feminin-ity subscale score was calculated using the same method. Internal consis-tency for the masculinity and femininity subscales was good; Cronbach’salphas were .84 and .87, respectively. Each student was assigned to oneof four categories: masculine, feminine, androgenous, or undifferentiated.Participants whose masculinity subscale score was above the median andwhose femininity subscale score was below the median were assigned tothe masculinity group. Participants whose masculinity subscale score wasbelow the median and whose femininity subscale score was above themedian were assigned to the femininity group. Participants whose masculin-ity and femininity scores were above the median were considered androg-enous. Participants whose masculinity and femininity scores were belowthe median were undifferentiated. The same technique then was used toassign participants to the four categories for their scores on the ideal per-son’s gender role questionnaire.


RESULTS

Because males and females may be affected differently by growing upin a one- or two-parent family, analyses were conducted separately formales and females. Also, because growing up in a female-headed one-parent household versus a male-headed one-parent household may havedifferent effects on children’s gender roles, analyses were done separatelyfor female- versus male-headed one-parent families.

Gender Role Beliefs of Males in Mother-Headed One-Parent versusIntact Two-Parent Families

The central question of the study was whether individuals reared inone-parent families hold different gender-role beliefs than individualsreared in intact two-parent families. Table I presents frequencies, propor-tions, and standard deviations for males in mother-headed one-parent fami-lies versus two-parent intact families for each gender-role category. Mostmales (67%) in mother-headed one-parent families described themselves

Table I. Gender Role Category Frequencies, Propor-tions, and (Standard Deviations) for Males inMother-Headed One-Parent versus Intact Two-Par-

ent Families (12 pairs)

1 Parent 2 Parent(n � 12) (n � 12)

MasculinePersonal role 8 2

.667 (.49) .167 (.39)Ideal role 1 4

.083 (.29) .333 (.49)Feminine

Personal role 1 0.083 (.29) .000 (.00)

Ideal role 0 1.000 (.00) .083 (.29)

AndrogenousPersonal role 3 5

.250 (.45) .417 (.52)Ideal role 10 7

.833 (.39) .583 (.52)Undifferentiated

Personal role 0 5.000 (.00) .417 (.52)

Ideal role 1 0.083 (.29) .000 (.00)


using stereotypical masculine characteristics. In contrast, most males inmother-headed one-parent families described the ideal person as andro-genous (83%). There were no clearly dominant categories for personal orideal gender roles for males in two-parent families.

Differences between the proportions of males in one- versus two-parent families and between personal versus ideal gender role types foreach of the four gender categories were calculated using three mixed-modelANOVAs. The between-participants factor was type of family (mother-headed one parent versus two parent) and the within-participants factor wasthe two gender-role types (personal versus the ideal person’s gender role).

Traditional Masculine Gender Role

The first ANOVA tested differences in the proportion of males choos-ing the masculine gender role category for the above factors. The interactionbetween family type (one versus two parent) and gender-role type (personalversus ideal gender role) was significant (F(1,22) � 16.20, p � 0.001). Fourfollow-up contrasts indicated that males in one-parent families were morelikely than males in two-parent families to describe themselves in tradition-ally masculine terms (t(1,22) � 2.76, p � 0.011). There were no differencesbetween the proportions of males in the two types of families describingthe ideal person as masculine. However, males in one-parent families weremore likely to describe themselves in traditionally masculine terms thanthey were to describe the ideal person as such; 67% described themselvesas masculine, versus 8% who described the ideal person as masculine (t(1,11) � 3.92, p � 0.002). There were no differences between the proportionsof males in two-parent families who described themselves versus the idealperson as masculine.

Cross-Gender Feminine Gender Role

The second ANOVA was not significant; there were no differencesbetween the proportions of males choosing the feminine role in one- versustwo-parent families or between personal and ideal gender roles. Very fewmales chose the feminine category for either their own gender role or theideal person’s gender role.

Androgenous Gender Role

The third ANOVA tested differences in the proportion of males choos-ing the androgenous gender role category (high in masculine and feminine


traits). The between participants effect was not significant (one- versus two-parent families) and the interaction was not significant. However, therewas a significant effect for gender-role type (personal versus ideal), (F(1,22) � 8.65, p � 0.008). Regardless of family type, males were more likelyto describe the ideal person as androgenous than they were to describethemselves as such.

Gender Role Beliefs of Females in Mother-Headed One-Parent versusIntact Two-Parent Families

Table II presents frequencies, proportions, and standard deviationsfor females in mother-headed one-parent families versus two-parent intactfamilies for each gender-role category. Most females in two-parent familiesdescribed themselves (64%) and the ideal person (76%) as androgenous.Females in mother-headed one-parent families were likely to describe them-selves in traditionally masculine terms (44%), whereas they typically de-scribed the ideal person as androgenous (72%).

Differences between the proportions of females in mother-headed one-

Table II. Gender-Role Category Frequencies, Pro-portions, and (Standard Deviations) for Females inMother-Headed One-Parent versus Intact Two-Par-

ent Families (25 pairs)

1 Parent 2 Parent(n � 25) (n � 25)

MasculinePersonal role 11 0

.440 (.51) .000 (.00)Ideal role 2 5

.080 (.28) .200 (.41)Feminine

Personal role 6 5.240 (.44) .200 (.41)

Ideal role 1 1.040 (.20) .040 (.20)

AndrogenousPersonal role 5 16

.200 (.41) .640 (.49)Ideal role 18 19

.720 (.46) .760 (.44)Undifferentiated

Personal role 3 4.120 (.33) .160 (.37)

Ideal role 4 0.160 (.37) .000 (.00)


versus two-parent families and between personal versus ideal gender roletypes for each of the four gender categories were calculated using threemixed-model ANOVAs. The between-participants factor was type of family(mother-headed one parent versus two parent), and the within-participantsfactor was the two gender role types (personal versus ideal).

Traditional Feminine Gender Role

The first ANOVA tested differences in the proportion of femaleschoosing the feminine gender role category for their personal versus theideal person’s gender role in one- versus two-parent families. The between-participants effect was not significant (one- versus two-parent families) andthe interaction was not significant. There was a significant effect for genderrole type (personal versus ideal), (F(1,48) � 6.85, p � 0.012). Females weremore likely to describe themselves as feminine than they were to describethe ideal person as such.

Cross-Sex Masculine Gender Role

The second ANOVA tested differences in the proportion of partici-pants choosing the masculine gender-role category for the above factors.The interaction between family type (one versus two parent) and gendertype (personal versus ideal gender role) was significant (F(1,48) � 13.67,p � 0.001). Four follow-up comparisons indicated that females in one-parent families were more likely than females in two-parent families todescribe themselves in traditional masculine terms (t(1,48) � 4.34, p �0.000). There were no differences in the proportion of females describingthe ideal person as masculine between the two types of families. However,females in one-parent families were more likely to describe themselves intraditionally masculine terms than they were to describe the ideal personas such; 44% described themselves as masculine versus 8% who describedthe ideal person as masculine (t(1,24) � 2.82, p � 0.009). There were nodifferences in the proportion of females in two-parent families who de-scribed themselves versus the ideal person as masculine.

Androgenous Gender Role

The third ANOVA tested differences in the proportions of femaleschoosing the androgenous gender role category (high in masculine andfeminine traits). The interaction between family type (one versus two par-


ent) and gender type (personal versus ideal gender role) was significant(F(1,48) � 4.60, p � 0.037). Four follow-up comparisons indicated thatfemales in two-parent families were more likely to describe their owngender role as androgenous than were females in one-parent families (t(1,48) � �3.45, p � 0.001). There were no differences in the proportions offemales describing the ideal person as androgenous between the two familytypes. Females in one-parent families were more likely to describe the idealperson as androgenous (72%) than they were to describe themselves assuch (20%) (t(1,24) � �3.98, p � 0.001). There were no differences forfemales in two-parent families between the proportion choosing androgynyfor their own gender role versus the ideal person’s gender role.

Students Raised in Father-Headed One-Parent Families

Finally, only eight participants (seven females and one male) in the cur-rent sample were raised in father-headed one-parent families. Like the chil-dren raised in mother-headed one-parent families and two-parent families,most students raised in father-headed one-parent families (six out of eightparticipants) described the ideal person as androgenous. However, unlikethe participants raised in mother-headed one-parent families, six out of eightindividuals raised in father-headed one-parent families (one male, five fe-males) described themselves using traditionally feminine characteristics.

DISCUSSION

Gender Role Beliefs in Mother-Headed Single-Parent, Father-HeadedSingle-Parent, and Intact Two-Parent Families

Males and females in mother-headed one-parent families were morelikely than males and females in two-parent families to adopt traditionallymasculine gender roles. They were more likely to describe themselvesin terms of stereotypical masculine characteristics such as independence,assertiveness, etc. than were males and females in two-parent families.These results support theory and research (Weiss, 1979) that suggests thatparents who lack the support of a partner may encourage their children tofulfill some of the roles of the missing parent. Because they lack supportfrom a male partner, mothers in one-parent families may encourage tradi-tional masculine characteristics in their children such as independence,assertiveness, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.

Although the small sample of students raised in father-headed one-parent families makes statistical analyses inappropriate, this small sample


suggests that the effects of being raised in a father-headed one-parentversus a mother-headed one-parent family may be similar. Six of eightindividuals (five females and one male) raised in father-headed one-parentfamilies described themselves using traditionally feminine characteristics.Like mothers in one-parent families, fathers in one-parent families mayencourage their children to take on the roles of the missing parent.

In contrast, females in two-parent families were more likely than fe-males in mother-headed one-parent families to describe themselves stronglyin terms of both masculine and feminine characteristics or as androgenous.Although females in mother-headed one-parent families also describedthemselves in strongly masculine terms, females in two-parent families mayhave added feminine characteristics to their personal gender role becausetheir mothers were more likely to model these characteristics than weremothers in one-parent families (Kurdek & Siesky, 1980). Although Kurdekand Siesky (1980) found that individuals in two-parent families were lesslikely to be androgenous than individuals in one-parent families, they didnot control for the possible effects of gender, age, race, and income. Eachof these variables may affect the development of gender roles and conse-quently confound the analyses of differences between one- and two-par-ent families.

Ideal Gender Role Beliefs in Mother-Headed One-Parent, Father-Headed One-Parent, and Intact Two-Parent Families

The majority of males and females raised in all three types of familiesvalued an androgenous gender role: 76% in mother-headed one-parentfamilies, 75% in father-headed one-parent families, and 67% in two-parentfamilies described the ideal person as androgenous. There were no differ-ences between the proportions of students in one- versus two-parent fami-lies who described the ideal person as androgenous. Although the smallsample size makes the failure to find significant differences between one-and two-parent families inconclusive, it is possible that family structure isnot related to a person’s conception of the ideal person’s gender role. Malesand females raised in all three types of families may value an androgenousgender role because androgyny is currently the valued gender role for malesand females in our society (Lamb, 1995).

Differences Among Personal and Ideal Person Gender Role Beliefs inMother-Headed One-Parent, Father-Headed One-Parent, and Intact

Two-Parent Families

The final question focused on whether there were differences betweenindividuals’ perceptions of their own gender roles and their ideal gender


roles. Males and females in mother-headed one-parent families were morelikely to describe themselves in terms of masculine characteristics than todescribe the ideal person this way. Instead, females in mother-headed one-parent families were more likely to describe the ideal person as androgenousthan to describe themselves this way. In contrast, there were no differencesfor males and females raised in two-parent families between their personaland their ideal person’s gender roles.

These interactions between family type and the difference betweenpersonal and ideal gender roles suggests that the gender roles of individualsraised in one-parent families (traditional male or female roles, depending onthe sex of the parent) differ from the gender roles they value (androgyny),whereas the gender roles of individuals in two-parent families (andro-genous) are the same as the roles they value (androgyny). Possibly if parentsin one-parent families are depending on their children as equal partnersthis may result in the child developing a masculine or feminine gender roleinstead of the androgenous gender role that the child values.

In conclusion, the use of matching in the current study to control forpossible confounding variables such as age, income, and race made theresults more readily interpretable. However, the small sample size thatresulted from the matching procedure reduced the power of the statisticalanalyses, making it difficult to find significance. Consequently, this studyis an exploratory step toward examining the relations between family char-acteristics and an individual’s gender roles. A major weakness of the currentstudy is that the processes that underlie the differences in gender rolesbetween one- and two-parent families were not studied. An importantdirection for future research is to explore via observational and longitudinalmethodologies the relationships between parents and children in thesethree types of families, including the responsibilities given the child by theparent, the hierarchy of the family, the role of the child as a confidant, theparent’s gender-role modeling, and the relations between these aspects ofparent–child interactions and the child’s development of gender roles.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barber, B. L., & Lyons, J. M. (1995, April). Chores in divorced and remarried families: Aburden or an opportunity to contribute? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Sampler Set (Manual, Test Booklet, Scoring Key).Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.


Biller, H. B. (1993). Fathers and families. Westport, CT: Auburn House.Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (1994). Parental gender role nontraditionalism and offspring

outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 865–877.Brody, L. R. (1997). Gender and emotion: Beyond stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues,

53, 369–394.Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L., & Dunham, C. C. (1986). Attitude similarity in three-generation

families: Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence. American SociologicalReview, 51, 685–698.

Haigler, V. F., Day, H. D., & Marshall, D. D. (1995). Parental attachment and gender-roleidentity. Sex Roles, 33, 203–220.

Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce andRemarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 39–56.

Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagen, M. M. (1997). The effects of divorce on fathers andtheir children. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development, 3rd ed.(pp. 191–211).

Kiecolt, K. J., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The long-term effects of family structure on gender-role attitudes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 709–717.

Kurdek, L. A., & Siesky, A. E. (1980). Sex-role self concepts of single divorced parents andtheir children. Journal of Divorce, 3, 249–261.

Lamb, M. E. (1995). Paternal influences on child development. In M. van Dongen, G. Frink-ing, & M. Jacobs (Eds.), Changing fatherhood: A multidisciplinary perspective. Amster-dam: Thesis.

Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., & Levine, J. A. (1985). The role of the father in child development:The effects of increased paternal involvement. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.),Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 229–266). New York: Plenum.

Leaper, C., Leve, L., Strasser, T., & Schwartz, R. (1995). Mother–child communication se-quences: Play activity, child gender, and marital status effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,41, 307–327.

Leve, L. D., & Fagot, B. I. (1997). Gender-role socialization and discipline processes in one-and two-parent families. Sex Roles, 36, 1–21.

Levy, G. D. (1989). Relations among aspects of children’s social environments, gender schema-tization, gender role knowledge, and flexibility. Sex Roles, 21, 803–823.

Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: Ameta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267–296.

Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C. (1982). Testing an undertested comparison: Maternal effectson sons’ and daughters’ attitudes toward women in the labor force. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 44, 349–355.

Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents toantisocial peer pressure. Child Development, 58, 269–275.

Weiss, R. S. (1979). Growing up a little faster: The experience of growing up in a one-parenthousehold. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 97–111.

Weiss, R. S. (1984). The impact of marital dissolution on income and consumption in single-parent households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 115–127.

gender role differences in college students from one- and two-parent families

Documents