The subjective meaning of gender: how survey designs affect perceptions of femininity and masculinity

被引:9
作者
Markstedt, Elias [1 ]
Wangnerud, Lena [2 ]
Solevid, Maria [2 ]
Djerf-Pierre, Monika [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Gothenburg, Dept Polit Sci, Gothenburg, Sweden
[2] Univ Gothenburg, Polit Sci, Gothenburg, Sweden
[3] Univ Gothenburg, Journalism Media & Commun, Gothenburg, Sweden
来源
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF POLITICS AND GENDER | 2021年 / 4卷 / 01期
关键词
self-categorising; gender scales; social identity; experiment; sequencing; IDENTITY THEORY; EFFECT SIZES; SEX; WOMEN; MEN;
D O I
10.1332/251510820X15978605298709
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
The rationale for this study is that self-categorising rating scales are becoming increasingly popular in large-scale survey research moving beyond binary ways of measuring gender. We are referring here to the use of rating scales that are similar to graded scales capturing left-right or liberal-conservative political ideology, that is, scales that do not include predefinitions of the core concepts (femininity/masculinity, as compared to left/right or liberal/conservative). Yet, previous studies including such non-binary gender measures have paid little attention to potential effects of survey designs. Using an experimental set-up, we are able to show that sequencing of gender measurements influences the answers received. Men were especially affected by our treatments and rated themselves as significantly 'less masculine' when prompted to reason about the meaning of gender prior to self-categorisation on scales measuring degrees of femininity and masculinity. Moreover, self-categorising seems to trigger more biological understandings of gender than anticipated in theory.
引用
收藏
页码:51 / 70
页数:20
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2018, Women and Men in Albania, 2018
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2015, Journal of Experimental Political Science, DOI [10.1017/XPS.2015.19, DOI 10.1017/XPS.2015.19]
[3]  
Baker Reg., 2013, Report of the AAPOR Task Force on Non-Probability Sampling
[4]   Beyond small, medium, or large: points of consideration when interpreting effect sizes [J].
Bakker, Arthur ;
Cai, Jinfa ;
English, Lyn ;
Kaiser, Gabriele ;
Mesa, Vilma ;
Van Dooren, Wim .
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES IN MATHEMATICS, 2019, 102 (01) :1-8
[5]  
Bern S.L., 1987, SEX GENDER, P251
[6]   Sex isn't Gender: Reforming Concepts and Measurements in the Study of Public Opinion [J].
Bittner, Amanda ;
Goodyear-Grant, Elizabeth .
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2017, 39 (04) :1019-1041
[7]   Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974-1998 [J].
Bolzendahl, CI ;
Myers, DJ .
SOCIAL FORCES, 2004, 83 (02) :759-789
[8]   Gender, gendered personality traits and radical right populist voting [J].
Coffe, Hilde .
POLITICS, 2019, 39 (02) :170-185
[9]  
Cohen J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysis For The Behavioral Sciences, DOI [10.4324/9780203771587, DOI 10.4324/9780203771587]
[10]   Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples [J].
Coppock, Alexander ;
Leeper, Thomas J. ;
Mullinix, Kevin J. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2018, 115 (49) :12441-12446