Young Adults' Attitudes and Reasoning About Gender Roles in the Family Context

Although the roles of men and women in society and the workplace have undergone dramatic change, there has been comparatively less change in the family roles of men and women. This study investigated young adults' endorsements of and reasoning about gender roles in the context of the family. Participants (N = 224) indicated their level of agreement with six different family roles and provided open-ended reasons to support their views. Social cognitive domain theory was used as a framework to interpret their open-ended reasoning. Results showed that participants applied reasoning based on ideas of morality (fairness and well-being), social conventions, and personal choice in ways that varied by participants' gender, ethnic background (Asian or European Canadian), and the particular gender role to which they were responding. When supporting egalitarian role divisions, women were more likely to base their reasoning on morality, whereas men were more likely to rely on social conventions. In contrast, stereotypes and issues of well-being (regarding women's roles), and social conventions (regarding men's traditional roles) were used to support the maintenance of traditional role divisions. The results have implications for educators and policy makers and are discussed with a focus on how attitudes about family roles may be changed most effectively to increase egalitarian attitudes. Implications for the measurement of gender-role attitudes are also discussed.