We question the validity of standard measures of gender ideology. When asked about “men” and “women” in general, respondents may imagine women (men) with lower (higher) labor market resources. Therefore, standard measures may conflate gender ideologies (injunctive norms) with stereotypical beliefs (descriptive norms). We test this hypothesis with an experiment in the German family panel pairfam: ∼1,200 respondents rated the appropriate division of housework in ∼3,700 hypothetical couples. By gradually adding information about labor market resources, we were able to override respondents’ stereotypical beliefs. We find that with more information, even “traditional” respondents support egalitarian housework arrangements. The main difference between “traditional” and “egalitarian” respondents is not in their ideologies (as previously thought), but in their interpretation of vague items. This leads us to conclude that standard measures overestimate traditional gender ideologies. Our study also illustrates how varying the amount of information can help identify respondents’ implicit beliefs.

Close

我们质疑性别意识形态标准衡量标准的有效性。当被问及一般的“男性”和“女性”时，受访者可能会想象女性（男性）拥有较低（较高）的劳动力市场资源。因此，标准措施可能会将性别意识形态（禁令性规范）与陈规定型观念（描述性规范）混为一谈。我们在德国家庭小组pairfam中进行了一项实验来检验这一假设：约1,200名受访者对约3,700对假设夫妇的家务分工进行了评价。通过逐步添加有关劳动力市场资源的信息，我们能够推翻受访者的刻板印象。我们发现，随着信息的增多，即使是“传统”受访者也支持平等的家务安排。 “传统”和“平等主义”受访者之间的主要区别不在于他们的意识形态（如之前所认为的），而在于他们对模糊项目的解释。这使我们得出结论，标准衡量标准高估了传统性别意识形态。我们的研究还说明了改变信息量如何帮助识别受访者的隐含信念。

 关闭