Superficiality and the Dimensionality of Sexism

Abstract

Good measurement of sexism depends on a determination of the dimensionality of this attitude, as well as on reliability and validity. Separate scales would need to be constructed for each of several distinct dimensions. If only one dimension exists, however, the best scale would sample from many areas along this dimension. Four studies investigat ed the dimensionality of sexism and the nature of the dimensions to assure that none represents superficial responding. A single, general attitude seems justified by the results: (1) transparent, easily distinguished pairs yield the same score as easily confused pairs in a forced-choice instrument; (2) fe males score higher, as do whites and non-singles; (3) feminists have higher scores but equal variances; (4) in the four separate samples only one factor is replicated.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brannon, R. Measuring attitudes toward women (and otherwise): A methodological critique . In J. S. Sherman and F. Denmark (Eds.), The Future of Women: Issues in Psychology. New York: Psychological Dimensions, 1976.

Cattell, R.B. Validation and intensification of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1956, 12, 205-214.

Cattell, R.B. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1, 245-276.

Dempewolff, J. Feminism and its correlates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1972.

Dempewolff, J. Development and validation of a feminism scale. Psychological Reports, 1974, 34, 651-657.

Greenhouse, P. , & Rosenthal, E. Attitudes toward women's right to self-determination. Journal of Family Counseling, 1974, 2, 64-70.

Gump, J.R. Sex-role attitudes and psychological well-being. Journal of Social Issue, 1972, 28, 79-92.

Hough, K.S. , & Allen, B.P. Is the women's movement erasing the mark of oppression from the female psych ? Journal of Psychology, 1975, 89, 249-258.

Jöreskog, K.G. Some contributions to maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1967, 32, 443-482.

10.

Korth, B. , & Tucker, L.R. The distribution of chance congruence coefficients from simulated data. Psychometrika, 1975, 40, 361-372.

11.

Korth, B. , & Tucker, L.R. Procrustes matching by congruence coefficients. Psychometrika , 1976, 41, 531-535.

12.

Mosier, C.I. Determining a simple structure when loadings for certain tests are known. Psychometrika, 1939, 4, 149-162.

13.

Seiler, L.H. , & Hough, R.L. Empirical comparison of the Thurstone and Likert techniques. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude Measurement . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970.

14.

Smith, E.R. , Ferree, M.M. , & Miller, F.D. A short scale of attitudes toward feminism. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1975, 6, 51-56.

15.

Spence, J.T. , & Helmreich, R. The Attitude toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2, No. 66.

16.

Spence, J.T. , Helmreich, R. , & Stapp, J. A short version of the Attitude toward Women Scale (AWS. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 219-220.

17.

Thurstone, L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 1927, 34, 273-286.

18.

Tucker, L.R. Factor analysis of covariance matrix re-scaled for unit error of estimate variance, unique variances set proportional to error of estimate variances . Unpublished manuscript, 1971.