A psychometric evaluation of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale with African Americans

LaVerne A. Berkel

Gender role attitudes have been extensively studied because of their importance in understanding and predicting people's beliefs about important issues such as violence against women (Check & Malamuth, 1983), health promoting behaviors (Senn, 2001), and domestic violence culpability (Willis, Hallinan, & Melby, 1996). Gender role attitudes, defined as beliefs about appropriate roles for men and women, are conceptualized on a continuum that ranges from traditional to egalitarian (King & King, 1990). Individuals with traditional gender role attitudes respond to others on the basis of stereotypical beliefs about their sex. Those with egalitarian gender role attitudes, on the other hand, respond to others independently of their sex (King, Beere, King, & Beere, 1981).

The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES; Beere, King, Beere, & King, 1984; King & King, 1990) has been used in several studies to assess gender role attitudes (e.g., Bernard, 1999; King & King, 1991; Pinsent, 2001; Temple & Osipow, 1997). The scale exists in four versions: (a) SRES-B, 95 items, (b) SRES-K, 95 items, (c) SRES-BB, 25-item form of the SRES B, and (d) SRES-KK, 25-item form of SRES-K. Psychometric properties that have been reported suggest that each of the four versions of the instrument is a reliable and valid measure of gender role attitudes for several groups of people (e.g., nurses, male and female college students, domestic violence offenders, and police officers). However, most of these published studies either relied primarily on European American samples (e.g., Brutus, Montei, Jex, King, & King, 1993; King, King, Carter, Surface, & Stepanski, 1994) or did not adequately describe the racial or ethnic composition of the sample group (e.g., King & King, 1985; Royse & Clawson, 1988). This practice of under utilizing ethnic minorities in research or inadequately describing the samples employed in research is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it violates the guidelines and recommendations set forth by NIMH (cited in Sue, 1999) on the inclusion of minorities in all research, and second, it drastically limits the generalizability of the findings of the research report to diverse groups (Nilsson et al., 2003).

Whereas several other scholars did not include minorities in their research or failed to report the racial composition of their samples, McGhee, Johnson, and Liverpool (2001) specifically assessed the psychometric properties of the SRES-BB with an African American sample to determine the appropriateness of the use of this instrument with African American research participants. As stated by McGhee and her colleagues, this type of examination is necessary because cultural influences may shape beliefs about men's and women's roles. Compared to European Americans, African Americans are usually more accepting of women who work outside of the home and view women's responsibilities as going beyond child rearing (Black, 1996; Hines & Boyd-Franklin, 1996). For example, West and Rose (2000) reported that the low income African American youth in their study did not endorse traditional gender roles for women; however, traditional roles for men were endorsed. In another study, Hill (2002) sought to learn what African American mothers and fathers were teaching their children about gender both didactically and by example. She found that both mothers and fathers consistently expressed verbal support for gender equality. However, although there was some evidence of support for equality on the job, often more traditional values were expected in the home. She also noted that there was frequently a gap between what parents ideally wanted their children to learn and what they demonstrated to their children through division of family labor in the home.

Other researchers have also assessed racial differences in gender role attitudes. For example, Lyson (1986) examined race and sex differences in the gender role attitudes of college students and found that "sex rather than race [was] the primary determinant of sex role attitudes" (p. 423); however, an examination of individual items revealed that, compared to the White students, the Black students in the study viewed motherhood as a more ideal role for women, but also believed that it was appropriate for mothers with school age children to work. Konrad and Harris (2002) used the Bem Sex-Role Inventory to examine differences between the gender role attitudes of African Americans and European Americans, and they reported that, in general, the African Americans held more traditional views than the European Americans. The results showed regional differences, however. For African Americans in the northeastern part of the United States, feminine attributes were seen as appropriate for women, but not for men. Conversely, masculine attributes were seen as appropriate for both men and women. For the African American women respondents in the south, masculine characteristics were seen as acceptable for men only. However, feminine attributes were seen as acceptable for both men and women.

Because attitudes toward gender roles can vary between and even within cultures, it is necessary for researchers to determine whether the instruments used to assess these attitudes are appropriate for different cultural groups. In the original development of the SRES (Beere et al., 1984; King et al., 1981), no race was reported for the participants in studies that established the scales' reliability and validity, which raises the question of whether the SRES scales are appropriate for use with diverse research populations. Indeed the instrument's developers later called for additional psychometric study of the instrument, noting that "the investigation of psychometric properties for specific minority or ethnic groups" (King & King, 1997, p.82) could prove quite useful. Although McGhee et al.'s study supports the use of the SRES-BB with an African American sample, other versions of the scale also need to be examined for their utility with diverse samples.

The primary purpose of the current study was to examine the psychometric properties of another of the SRES scales, the SRES-KK, with an African American sample. To investigate the scale's reliability, Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients were computed for scores on the SRES-KK for both men and women. To establish the construct validity of the SRES with this sample, men's and women's scores were compared; on the basis of previous research (e.g., Locke & Richman, 1999), it was expected that women would be more egalitarian than men in their views. A secondary purpose of this study was to investigate race differences in gender role attitudes. To do this, the scores of this African American sample were compared to those of a similar group of European Americans: on the basis of McGhee et al.'s (2001) findings, it was expected that no significant differences between the African American and European American samples would be found. This study is, in a way, a replication and extension of McGhee's investigation. Like McGhee's study, in the present study construct validity was established by comparing demographic differences in scores. However, to examine race differences, the data from the African American and European American samples were collected at the same time from students in the same university, as opposed to the method used by McGhee and her colleagues, which was to compare a group of African American students at one university at one point in time to normative data obtained from a group of European American students at another university at a different point in time.

METHOD

Participants

Data were collected from 171 African American (119 women, 52 men) students who were part of a larger study examining relationships among gender role attitudes, religious attitudes, and attitudes toward violence against women. The students were from a large, predominantly White university located in the Eastern region of the United States. Their ages ranged from 17 to 39 years (M = 22 years, SD = 4). Most of the respondents (n = 163, 95%) were single, heterosexual (n = 169, 99%), and affiliated with a specific religious denomination (n = 130, 76%), such as Catholic or Baptist; the number of religious services attended annually ranged from 0 to 356 (M = 29, SD = 40). Eighty-eight (51%) participants designated themselves as freshmen, sophomores, or juniors, 32 (18%) were seniors or beginning graduate students, and 35 (21%) were advanced graduate students. Sixteen students either omitted their academic class level or answered the item incorrectly.

The European American student comparison group (211 women, 105 men) discussed in another study (Berkel, Vandiver, & Bahner, in press) was also part of the larger study examining correlates to attitudes toward violence against women. They ranged in age from 17 to 49 years (M = 21 years, SD = 4). Most (n = 299, 95%) were single, heterosexual (n = 286, 91%), and affiliated with a specific religious denomination (n = 225, 71%). On average, they reported attending 21 religious services annually (Range = 0-104, SD = 28). Two hundred eighteen (69%) participants designated themselves as freshmen, sophomores, or juniors, 48 (15%) were seniors or beginning graduate students, and 22 (7%) were advanced graduate students.

Instruments

Demographic Sheet

A one-page demographic sheet was used to record personal information about the participants (age, marital status, race/ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, years of education, and religion) and their parents (educational level and occupation).

Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale Form KK (SRES-KK)

The SRES-KK, a shorter version of the 95-item SRES-K, is a 25-item instrument that measures beliefs about appropriate roles (equality vs. inequality) for men and women across five domains of adult life: (1) marital roles, (2) parental roles, (3) employment roles. (4) social-interpersonal-heterosexual roles, and (5) educational roles (King & King, 1990). The KK version contains the five items with the highest item-domain correlations from each of the five SRES-K domains. The SRES-KK uses a Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree); possible total scores range from 25 to 125. Higher scores reflect more egalitarian gender role attitudes. The SRES-KK is considered to be a good approximation of the long form: internal consistency estimates for the KK scores have ranged from .90 to .97 (King & King, 1990: Scandura, Tejeda, & Lankau, 1995), and a 3-week test-retest reliability for the KK scores was reported at .88 (King & King, 1990). Stith (1986) reported nonsignificant correlations between an alternate long form of the SRES and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). Honeck (1981) also reported that the SRES has a high correlation (.80) with the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (ATWS; Spence & Helmreich, 1972), but the SRES is preferred by many over the ATWS because the SRES contains items not only about women, but about men as well.

Procedure

All participants were recruited primarily from introductory sociology courses, counselor education courses, and courses in African American Studies. To obtain a sufficient number of African American students, several student organizations (e.g., Black Graduate Student Association. Black Caucus) were also contacted and asked for assistance in the distribution of the research packets. Each research packet contained a demographic questionnaire, a survey, and a consent form. As an incentive, students were eligible to enter a random drawing for a $50 cash prize.

RESULTS

The means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for scores on the SRES-KK are presented in Table I. Also included in Table I are the means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for scores on the SRES-KK obtained by the European American comparison group. The reliability coefficients for the African American students' scores ([greater than or equal to].84) suggest that the instrument is a reliable measure of gender role attitudes.

To assess construct validity, the men's scores were compared to the women's scores; it was expected that women would report more egalitarian attitudes than would men. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test this hypothesis. Because of unequal sample sizes in the groups, Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variance was conducted. The results of the Levene's test were significant: Levene (1, 164) = 28.87, p < .001. Because of the inequality of the variance, in comparing means between men and women, the Welch test, a robust test of equality of means was used instead of the F statistic. Statistically significant differences were found between men's and women's SRES scores, Welch (1, 63.94) = 22.11, p < .001, which supports the first hypothesis.

Because age, religious affiliation, and level of education have also been found to predict gender role attitudes (e.g., Brogun & Kutner, 1976), additional analyses were conducted. A one-way ANOVA to examine religious affiliation (scored dichotomously; 1 = affiliated with a particular religious group; 2 = not affiliated) was not significant, F(1, 161) = 1.93, p = .17. Another one-way ANOVA that examined three educational groups (1 = freshman, sophomores, and juniors, 2 = seniors and beginning advanced graduate students, 3 = advanced graduate students) was not significant, F(1, 148) = 1.07, p = .35. To examine the association between age and gender role egalitarianism scores, a correlation analysis was conducted, which also was not significant, r = .04, p > .05.

A secondary purpose of the study was to explore whether the African American students' scores on the SRES would differ from those of European American students. First, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if the two samples differed in age, religious attendance, or education level. No significant differences were found between the two groups on the number of services they attended annually, F(48, 460) = 1.05, p = .38; however, significant differences were found for both age, F(1, 476) = 11.80, p < .001, and years of education, F(1, 449) = 16.33, p < .001. On average, the African American students were about 1 year older and had more education. Because of these differences, both age and education level were included as covariates in a 2 (race) X 2 (sex) factorial ANOVA to examine whether race, sex, or the interaction of race and sex affected SRES-KK scores. A main effect for sex was found, F(1, 429) = 62.16, p < .001. No main effect for race, F(1, 428) = 2.84, p = .09, or interaction effect, F(1, 428) = 1.34, p = .25, was found, which supports the second hypothesis of the study.

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the SRES-KK with an African American sample. As in previous research, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients suggest that the SRES-KK is a reliable instrument. Construct validity was evidenced by the significant differences in scores for the men and women.

The gender differences reported on the SRES-KK are consistent with a large body of research that shows that women and girls are, in general, more egalitarian in their gender role attitudes than men and boys are (e.g., Brogan & Kutner, 1976; Falchikov, 1996; Larsen & Long, 1988; Swatos & McCauley, 1984). This finding, also reported by McGhee et al. (2001), is not surprising because women, who historically have had less social, political, and economic power (Collins, 1989), have more to gain from an egalitarian society than men do (Beere et al., 1984). Although African Americans in general value role flexibility in their community (Black, 1996), African American relationships are still affected by the male-female power differential prominent in our society (Hines & Boyd-Franklin, 1996), which leaves the men with more to lose than the women in an egalitarian society.

No significant differences were found between scores from the African American and European American samples, which suggests that very little difference in gender role attitudes existed between the two groups. In their validation of a multicultural masculinity scale in three ethnic groups, Doss and Hopkins (1998) also reported that the commonalities between the cultures were more striking than the differences. One possible explanation for the similarities in the African American and European American students' scores in the current sample is that, although there are cultural differences between the groups, there are also cultural commonalities, including the effects of a shared Western culture and the common experience of attending the same university (Doss & Hopkins, 1998). The similarities found between the African American and European American students also suggests that factors other than race can account for differences in gender role attitudes. Hill (2002) reported that the family structures and levels of education of the families in her study predicted the distribution of work and the endorsement of gender equality in the workplace and home. Regional differences can also account for differences in gender role attitudes. As stated earlier, Konrad and Harris (2002) reported regional differences among samples taken from different parts of the country on item endorsement on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory.

No significant differences were found on any of the other demographic variables. McGhee et al. (2001) also failed to find any significant differences in SRES-BB scores that were attributed to age, religiosity, or education level in her sample of African American college students. Other researchers who have found age, religion, or educational differences tended to use more heterogeneous samples that included noncollege populations from the community (e.g., Brogan & Kutner, 1976; Swatos & McCauley, 1984); this difference in sample characteristics may account for the conflicting findings.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

The results of this study demonstrate that the SRES-KK is a reliable and valid measure of gender role attitudes for African American college students who varied in age, religious affiliation, and educational attainment. Its future use with African Americans, therefore, is supported. The SRES-KK can be an effective tool for assessing the influence of gender role attitudes in areas such as couples' relationship dynamics (e.g., Bernard, 1999; Pinsent, 2001), dating aggression (e.g., West & Rose, 2000), occupation choice (e.g., Brabeck & Weisgerber, 1990), attitudes toward parenging (e.g., Groom, 1999), and psychological well being (e.g., L. Collins, 1998). Limitations of this research, which include the relatively small sample size and the inclusion of only college students, however diverse they may be, can be addressed by future research that utilizes the SRES-KK with community samples; this will enable the results of future investigations to be more generalizable to the broader African American community.

Table I. Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for
SRES-KK Scores by Race
                African Americans        European Americans
              Men     Women   Total   Men      Women   Total
Means         103.12  113.28  110.34  105.31   112.94  110.40
Standard dev   14.25    8.34   11.43   12.11     9.03   10.70
Alphas           .93     .84     .91     .91      .89     .90

REFERENCES

Beere, C., King, D., Beere, D., & King, L. (1984). The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes. Sex Roles, 10, 563-567.

Berkel, L. A., Vandiver, B. J., & Bahner, A. D. (in press). Gender role attitudes, religion, and spirituality as predictors of domestic violence attitudes in White college students. Journal of College Student Development.

Bernard, V. R. (1999). Perceptions of sex role egalitarianism and dyadic adjustment among African-American couples. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(11), 4291A.

Black, L. (1996). Families of African origin: An overview. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed., pp. 57-65). New York: Guilford.

Brabeck, M. M., & Weisgerber, K. (1990). College students' perceptions of men and women choosing teaching and management: The effects of gender and sex role egalitarianism. Sex Roles, 21, 841-857.

Brogan, D., & Kutner, N. (1976). Measuring sex-role orientation: A normative approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 31-40.

Brutus, S., Montei, M., Jex, S., King, L., & King, D. (1993). Sex role egalitarianism as a mediator of gender congruence bias in evaluation. Sex Roles, 29, 755-765.

Check, J. V. P., & Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 344-356.

Collins, L. H. (1998). Illustrating feminist theory: Power and psychopathology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 97-112.

Collins, P. H. (1989). The social construction of Black feminist thought. Signs, 14, 745-773.

Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.

Doss, B. D., & Hopkins, J. R. (1998). The Multicultural Masculinity Ideology Scale: Validation from three cultural perspectives. Sex Roles, 38, 719-741.

Falchikov, N. (1996). Adolescent attitudes to abuse of women: Are wives and nonmarried partners viewed differently? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 391-409.

Groom, P. D. (1999). Predictions of parenting attitudes and behaviors among adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(09), 5136B.

Hill, S. A. (2002). Teaching and doing gender in African American families. Sex Roles, 47, 493-506.

Hines, P. M., & Boyd-Franklin, N. (1996). African American families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed., pp. 66-84). New York: Guilford.

Honeck, S. M. (1981). An exploratory study of the Beere-King Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale, the MacDonald Sex Role Survey, and Spence and Helmreich's Attitudes Toward Women Scale. Unpublished master's thesis, Central Michigan University, Pleasant.

King, L. A., Beere, D. B. King, D. W., & Beere, C. A. (1981, April). A new measure of sex-role attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association. Detroit, MI.

King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1985). Sex-role egalitarianism: Biographical and personality correlates. Psychological Reports, 57, 787-792.

King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Abbreviated measures of sex role egalitarian attitudes. Sex Roles, 23, 659-673.

King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1991). Sex-role egalitarianism and androgyny: Discriminant evidence. Psychological Reports, 67, 1129-1130.

King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1997). Sex-role egalitarianism scale: Development, psychometric properties, and recommendations for future research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 71-87.

King, L. A., King, D. W., Carter, D. B., Surface, C. R., & Stepanski, K. (1994). Validity of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: Two replication studies. Sex Roles, 31, 339-348.

Konrad, A. M., & Harris, C. (2002). Desirability of the Bem Sex-Role inventory items for women and men: A comparison between African Americans and European Americans. Sex Roles, 47, 259-271.

Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19, 1-12.

Locke, L. M., & Richman, C. L. (1999). Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender issues. Sex Roles, 40, 227-247.

Lyson, T. A. (1986). Race and sex differences in sex role attitudes of southern college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 421-428.

McGhee, M. R., Johnson, N., & Liverpool, J. (2001). Assessing psychometric properties of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES) with African Americans. Sex Roles, 45, 859-866.

Nilsson, J. E., Berkel, L. A., Flores, L. Y., Love, K. M., Wendler, A. M., & Mecklenberg, E. C. (2003). An 11-year review of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice: A content and sample analysis with an emphasis on diversity. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 611-615.

Pinsent, C. (2001). Power exertion strategies in couples: A Q-methodological investigation of self- and partner-perceived frameworks. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02), 1144B.

Royse, D., & Clawson, D. (1988). Sex-role egalitarianism, feminism, and sexual identity. Psychological Reports, 63, 160-162.

Scandura, T. A., Tejeda, M. J., & Lankau, M. J. (1995). An examination of the validity of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES-KK) using confirmatory factor analysis procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 832-841.

Senn, D. J. (2001). The relationship between sex-role egalitarianism and health-promoting behaviors in men. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(07), 3826B.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 1-66.

Stith, S. M. (1986). Police officer response to marital violence predicted from the officers' attitudes, stress, and marital experience: A path analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54, 1070-1077.

Swatos, W. H., Jr., & McCauley, C. (1984). Working-class sex-role orientation. International Journal of Women's Studies, 7, 136-143.

Temple, R. D., & Osipow, S. H. (1997). The relationship between task-specific self-efficacy egalitarianism and career indecision for females. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 82-90.

West, C. M., & Rose, S. (2000). Dating aggression among low income African American youth: An examination of gender differences and antagonistic beliefs. Violence Against Women, 6, 470-494.

Willis, C. E., Hallinan, M. N., & Melby, J. (1996). Effects of sex role stereotyping among European American students on domestic violence culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 34, 475-491.

LaVerne A. Berkel (1)

(1) Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 224 Education Building, Kansas City, Missouri 64110; e-mail: berkell@umkc.edu.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group