Young Adults’ Attitudes and Reasoning About Gender Roles in the Family Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".