Changes in Attitudes Toward Women's Roles: Predicting Gender-Role Traditionalism Among College Students

P1: ZBU

Sex Roles [sers] pp752-sers-460546 February 6, 2003 2:30 Style file version June 3rd, 2002

Sex Roles, Vol. 48, Nos. 3/4, February 2003 ( C© 2003)

Changes in Attitudes Toward Women’s Roles: PredictingGender-Role Traditionalism Among College Students

Alyssa N. Bryant1,2

National college student data derived from the 1996 Cooperative Institutional Research Pro-gram Freshman Survey and the 2000 College Student Survey were used to assess longitu-dinal changes in gender-role traditionalism across 4 years of college. Applying the Input–Environment–Outcome model to blocked stepwise regression analyses, the predictive valueof students’ precollege characteristics and predispositions, and various college environmentsand experiences, were assessed for men and women. Findings indicated that students’ levelsof traditionalism declined during college. Although men and women tended to change sim-ilarly on this dimension, women held more egalitarian views than did men at college entryand 4 years later. Regression results pointed to the relevance of peers, academic engagement,women’s studies courses, and diversity experiences for students’ gender-role attitudes 4 yearsafter college entry.

KEY WORDS: college students; attitudes; traditionalism.

Since the onset of the women’s movement in the1960s, attitudes toward women have become increas-ingly egalitarian over time (Astin, Parrott, Korn, &Sax, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). This pat-tern is reflected across cohorts of college students.According to national trends data, entering freshmanhave become less traditional over the last 30 yearsin terms of their attitudes toward women’s roles andthe rights of women in the workplace; the most note-worthy changes took place between 1967 and 1973.However, since the early 1990s, there have been fewchanges in students’ attitudes toward women (Astinet al., 1997). A study of female cohorts at a single in-stitution mirrored these findings. The greatest gainsin egalitarianism were witnessed between 1961 and

1Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School ofEducation and Information Studies, University of California, LosAngeles, California.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Higher Edu-cation Research Institute, University of California – Los Angeles,3005 Moore Hall, Mailbox 951521, Los Angeles, California 90095-1521; e-mail: [email protected].

1972, with a slower rate of change from 1972 to 1978,and inconsistencies in the trend toward egalitarianismbetween 1978 and 1984 (Weeks & Botkin, 1987). Per-haps a reflection of these leveling-off effects acrosstime, women in college, though supportive of femi-nist principles in general, are hesitant to identify asfeminists (Renzetti, 1987).

What are the implications of these trends? Sta-bility in attitudes toward women has replaced therapid changes that took place decades ago, leavingus to wonder about the stance of college studentsin the present era. Beyond changes across cohorts,which reflect trends in societal attitudes, understand-ing changes within cohorts is also relevant to assess-ing attitudes toward women. Studies of single co-horts tell us how individuals change over time andpoint to aspects of the environment that may pre-cipitate such changes. This study was designed toexplore views on the roles of married women in alarge cohort of students, representing 127 collegesand universities across the nation, surveyed as fresh-men in 1996 and followed up in 2000. Changes overtime were assessed, as were the individual predisposi-tions and college experiences that predicted students’

131 0360-0025/03/0200-0131/0 C© 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: ZBU


132 Bryant

attitudes toward women’s roles 4 years after collegeentry.

Changes During College

In general, the college experience tends to lib-eralize students’ gender-role attitudes on a varietyof dimensions, including attitudes toward women’soccupational and educational opportunities, roles,and responsibilities in marriage and child rearing(Astin, 1993a; Etaugh, 1977; Etaugh & Spandikow,1981; Funk & Willits, 1987; Lottes & Kuriloff, 1994;Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Renzetti, 1987). In fact,increases in egalitarianism are greatest among indi-viduals who complete college; those who drop out ordo not attend college change to a lesser extent (Funk& Willits, 1987). Corbett, Rudoni, and Frankland(1981) produced contradictory findings in their longi-tudinal study of college students, which showed thatstudents did not become more progressive over time.However, these results are largely overshadowed bythe bulk of literature that suggests the opposite.

Student Predispositions and Input Characteristics

To gauge the effects of the college environ-ment on students’ gender-role attitudes, it is nec-essary to control for the characteristics and predis-positions that students bring with them to college.Many studies have documented the relationship be-tween these “input” variables and gender-role atti-tudes or changes in gender-role attitudes over time.Etaugh and Spandikow (1981) found that studentswho changed in a liberal direction with respect togender-roles attitudes were more likely than “tra-ditional changers” to have a living and educatedmother, have a father with lower job status, believethat women understood them the best, be Catholic,and be never-married. One study suggested studentswho enter college with high levels of sexism evidencegreater change toward egalitarianism during collegethan do other students (Corbett et al., 1981).

Additional characteristics and background vari-ables positively related to egalitarianism among col-lege students include being older than the traditionalcollege age (Bers, 1980; Etaugh & Spiller, 1989),having an employed mother (Etaugh, 1975), hav-ing a liberal political orientation (Lottes & Kuriloff,1992), having no church affiliation (Etaugh, 1975),and growing up in a large community (Etaugh, 1975).Another oft-cited finding is that women tend to be

more liberal with respect to gender-role attitudes thando men (Baker & Annis, 1980; Etaugh, 1975; Etaugh& Spiller, 1989; McHale, 1994). In fact, as Pascarellaand Terenzini (1991) pointed out, even though bothgroups become more egalitarian over time, womenexhibit less sexism than do men at college entry, dur-ing college, and upon graduation, given controls forbackground characteristics.

The relationship between race/ethnicity andgender-role attitudes is only sparsely documentedin the literature. Etaugh (1975) pointed to evidencethat suggests that White students are more egalitar-ian than Blacks, whereas Lyson (1986) found thatBlacks held somewhat contradictorily the beliefs thata woman’s real fulfillment in life comes from mother-hood and that it is appropriate for women with chil-dren to work outside the home. According to anotherstudy, Mexican/Chicano/Chicana students are less tra-ditional with respect to attitudes about women thanare students from other racial/ethnic groups (McHale,1994). Other studies showed college students in Japanto be more traditional than their American counter-parts (Morinaga, Frieze, & Ferligoj, 1993; Thomas &Chambliss, 1998).

The Impact of College Environmentsand Experiences

Even after controlling for student input charac-teristics, the college environment appears to impactgender-role attitudes in a myriad of ways. With theexception of McHale (1994), no researcher has ad-dressed the effects of attending different types of in-stitutions on students’ attitudes toward women (i.e.,between-college effects). More is known in termsof how specific within-college factors affect gender-role attitudes. Majoring in the humanities, arts, orsocial sciences increases students’ level of egalitar-ianism, whereas majoring in business, engineering,or education has the opposite effect (Astin, 1993a;Etaugh, 1975; McHale, 1994). Renzetti (1987) foundthat women majoring in female-dominated fields(i.e., foreign language, education, sociology, psychol-ogy, and English) expressed feminist attitudes moreso than women majoring in male-dominated fields(i.e., physics, chemistry, economics, computer science,and accounting/finance). Living on campus also hasa tendency to minimize gender-role traditionalism(Buckner, 1981; McHale, 1994).

Other college variables positively associatedwith egalitarian gender-role attitudes include stu-dents’ college GPA, working for pay during college,

P1: ZBU


Gender-Role Traditionalism Among College Students 133

studying and doing homework, socializing with per-sons from different racial or ethnic backgrounds, dis-cussing racial or ethnic issues, and political liberal-ism among the faculty (Astin, 1993a; Etaugh, 1975;McHale, 1994). Conversely, attending religious ser-vices and playing intercollegiate football or basketballare negatively associated with egalitarianism (Astin,1993a). Studies of the effects of belonging to frater-nities and sororities have produced conflicting results(Lottes & Kuriloff, 1994; Rhoads, 1995).

Much of the literature on students’ attitudes to-ward women during the college years emphasizesthe impact of women’s studies courses. In fact, manyauthors have documented the positive effects ofwomen’s studies course work on male and female stu-dents’ commitment to egalitarian ideals and feminism(Bargad & Hyde, 1991; Harris, Melaas, & Rodacker,1999; Lovejoy, 1998; Stake & Rose, 1994; Steiger,1981). It is interesting that a few researchers foundthat women’s studies courses either failed to changemen’s antiliberationist attitudes or actually decreasedmale students’ feminist attitudes and amplified theirassumptions about gender differences (Geffner &McClure, 1990; Thomsen, Basu, & Reinitz, 1995;Vedovato & Vaughter, 1980). According to Pascarellaand Terenzini (1991), much of the research on the im-pact of women’s studies failed to control for the factthat students self-select their environments, and thosewith egalitarian inclinations may be more likely to en-roll in such course work.

In this study I sought to remedy some of theweaknesses of past research. Many of the studiescited are rather dated and limited by their relianceon single-campus samples. The data for this studywere recently collected and based on a nationallongitudinal sample of college students. Further-more, inclusion of students from multiple campusesenabled comparisons between different types ofcolleges. Finally, unlike many past investigations thatassessed the impact of various college experiences ongender-role attitudes, I employed rigorous controlsfor students’ precollege attitudes and predispositionsto shed light on the effects of college independent ofstudent background characteristics.

The two research questions that framed this studywere as follows: (1) How do students’ attitudes to-ward the roles of married women change over 4 yearsof college? Do these changes differ for women andmen? (2) What precollege characteristics and collegeexperiences predict attitudes toward married womenafter 4 years of college? Are the predictors similar formale and female students?

On the basis of past research, I tested five pre-dictions. First, I predicted that both men and womenwould become more egalitarian in their gender-roleattitudes during college and that women would evi-dence less conventionality than men in their attitudestoward married women at both points in time. Mysecond prediction was that precollege attitudes andbackground characteristics including political liberal-ism, being older, and having educated parents wouldbe negatively associated with gender-role traditional-ism, but that religious affiliation and the goal to raisea family would be positively associated with conven-tional views after 4 years of college. Third, I expectedto find racial/ethnic variations in gender-role tradi-tionalism. My fourth prediction was that universities,public institutions, women’s colleges, colleges with ahigh percentage of female faculty, and predominatelyBlack colleges would encourage egalitarian gender-role attitudes in their students, but that 2-year collegesand religious institutions would have the opposite ef-fect. Fifth, I predicted that college experiences such asmajoring in the arts, English, humanities, or social sci-ences; living on campus; socializing with peers (partic-ularly female peers); undergoing leadership training;engaging in curricular and cocurricular ethnic diver-sity experiences; and taking women’s studies coursework would promote egalitarianism, as would aca-demic dedication, political involvement, interactionswith faculty, and volunteer activities. Further, I an-ticipated that religious influences, marriage, athleticparticipation, and fraternity or sorority membershipwould enhance gender-role traditionalism.

METHOD

Sample

Data for this study were drawn from the 1996Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP)Freshman Survey and the 2000 College Student Sur-vey (CSS), designed and administered by the UCLAHigher Education Research Institute (HERI). Thesesurveys assess many facets of the college experience,including academic success, curricular and cocurricu-lar experiences, peer and faculty interactions, satisfac-tion with college, and attitudes and values. To gener-ate longitudinal data, the CIRP Freshman Survey wasadministered to a large national sample of 1st-yearcollege students in Fall 1996; some of these studentsreceived the CSS follow-up survey 4 years later. Intotal, 14,973 students (9,585 women and 5,388 men)

P1: ZBU


134 Bryant

Table I. Sample Demographics

Variable %

GenderFemale 64.0Male 36.0

Race/ethnicitya

White 84.0Asian American 6.1Black/African American 4.9Latino/Latina 4.9American Indian 1.3

Estimated parental income≤ $24,999 10.9$25,000–49,999 24.0$50,000–74,999 26.3$75,000–99,999 14.3≥$100,000 24.7

Type of institution attendedPublic 10.7Private 89.3

Catholic 36.2Protestant 29.0Independent 23.8Other religious 0.3

aPercentages add to more than 100% because students arepermitted to indicate more than one racial/ethnic category.

from 127 colleges and universities responded to bothsurveys and comprised the sample for this study. Ta-ble I describes the demographic characteristics of re-spondents. A notable limitation of the sample is thatwomen, White students, and individuals from high-income families are overrepresented, as are studentsfrom private institutions.

Research Design

The Input–Environment–Outcome (I-E-O)model (Astin, 1993b) served as the framework forthis study. This model examines the relationshipbetween college experiences (“the environment”)and student “outcomes” after accounting for stu-dents’ precollege characteristics (“inputs”). Studentinput characteristics are inevitably related to collegeoutcomes. For example, an individual’s SAT scoreis often highly correlated with scores on other stan-dardized tests typically taken at the end of college(e.g., the Graduate Record Examination or GRE).This relationship makes it difficult to ascertain thetrue impact of college on tests such as the GRE: Doesthe college environment affect GRE? Or are GREscores simply a reflection of student performance onthe SAT? Furthermore, input characteristics, such as

SAT score, may be indicative of experiences studentsgravitate toward during college. For the purposesof this example, high scorers on SAT may seekout environments in college (e.g., test preparationcourses) that will serve to improve subsequent scoreson the GRE. In summary, input characteristics candirectly and indirectly (through college environ-ments) affect student outcomes. To remedy thisdilemma, the I-E-O model controls for the effects ofinput variables (student background characteristicsand precollege propensities) on outcomes, such thatwe can assess with greater confidence the impact ofcollege environments on various student outcomemeasures.

The first stage of the analysis involved measur-ing change in students’ attitudes toward the roles ofwomen over 4 years of college. Using crosstabula-tions, change was assessed for the entire sample andthen separately for men and women. Next, blockedstepwise regression was employed to examine theinfluence of student inputs and college environ-ments/experiences on the outcome measure: students’views on the roles of married women. Regressionswere run separately by gender to compare the effectsof independent variables on the outcome measure bygroup. To prevent the loss of participants, missing datawere replaced with means (calculated by gender) forindependent variables that were missing fewer than10% of their cases.

Variables

The dependent variable for this study was the ex-tent of students’ agreement with the statement “theactivities of married women are best confined to homeand family” 4 years after college entry. Respondentscould “agree strongly,” “agree somewhat,” “disagreesomewhat,” or “disagree strongly” with this item. Theoutcome variable was coded in the direction of tra-ditionalism, as agreement was indicative of conven-tional attitudes toward women’s roles. Six blocks ofvariables were entered chronologically in accord withthe I-E-O framework. Precollege inputs were enteredinto the regression first, followed by college environ-ments and experiences. All variables and their codingschemes are described in the Appendix.

The first block, which was force-entered intothe regression, contained a single variable: students’agreement/disagreement with the “activities of mar-ried women” statement at the point of college entry.This item was a direct pretest of the outcome variable

P1: ZBU



and controlled for students’ precollege tendencies toagree or disagree.

The second block of variables included back-ground characteristics and demographic information:age, race/ethnicity, religious preference, born-againChristian status, parents’ levels of education, politicalorientation at college entry, and the importance to thestudent of raising a family in the future. The third andlast block of input variables—high school activities,experiences, and expectations about college—servedto control for students’ propensities to participate inthese activities or have these experiences before com-ing to college. Put differently, in the event that a par-ticular college environment variable significantly pre-dicted the outcome, accounting for the same activity(or expectation) at the precollege level made strongerthe case that the observed relationship was legitimate.These variables, all of which were posttested 4 yearsafter beginning college, included attending religiousservices, socializing with friends, socializing with an-other racial/ethnic group, participating in organizeddemonstrations, discussing politics, performing vol-unteer work, hours per week spent studying or doinghomework, high school GPA, expecting to get mar-ried while in college, expecting to play varsity or in-tercollegiate athletics in college, and expecting to joina fraternity or sorority in college.

The fourth block was composed of variablesthat could not be classified as either inputs or envi-ronments. They were inputs in the sense that theywere measured at the time of college entry, butbecause they continued to impact students duringcollege, they could also be described as environ-ments. Included in this block of predictors, hence-forth referred to as “bridge” variables, were 16 aca-demic majors (i.e., agriculture, biological science,business, education, engineering, English, health pro-fessional, history/political science, humanities, finearts, math/statistics, physical science, social science,other technical, other nontechnical, and undecided)and students’ place of residence (on or off campus).

Table II. Changes in Attitudes Toward the Roles of Women by Sex, 1996–2000

View: Activities of married Men (%) Women (%)women are best confined

to home and family 1996 2000 Change 1996 2000 Change

Agree strongly 7.9 5.7 −2.2 5.7 3.1 −2.6Agree somewhat 18.3 16.7 −1.6 8.8 7.4 −1.4Disagree somewhat 31.7 27.4 −4.3 14.4 13.2 −1.2Disagree strongly 42.1 50.3 +8.2 71.1 76.3 +5.2

Note. N = 4,991 for men; N = 9,015 for women.

The fifth block consisted of institutional charac-teristics including type (university, 4-year college, 2-year college, and women’s college), control (publicor private), and religious affiliation (Jewish, Protes-tant, or Catholic). In addition, the predominantrace (Black or White) of the institution and thepercentage of women faculty were counted amongthe variables in this block. It is interesting thatfew studies have addressed the impact of institu-tional characteristics on gender-role traditionalism,and thus this block was considered exploratory innature.

College environments/experiences made up thelast block of variables. A variety of measures were in-cluded: attending religious services; number of closefriends from the same religious organization; numberof close friends of the same sex; hours per week spentsocializing with friends; getting married; participat-ing in leadership training; taking a women’s studiescourse; attending a racial/cultural awareness work-shop; participating in a racial/ethnic student organiza-tion; having a roommate of a different race or ethnic-ity; socializing with someone of a different race/ethnicgroup; having faculty who provide intellectual chal-lenge and stimulation; hours per week spent talkingwith faculty outside of class; participating in orga-nized demonstrations; discussing politics; participat-ing in intercollegiate football, basketball, or anothersport; joining a social fraternity or sorority; perform-ing volunteer work; hours per week studying or doinghomework; and college GPA.

RESULTS

Change Over Time

Table II provides an overview of changes inwomen’s and men’s attitudes toward women’s rolesbetween 1996 and 2000. How did women’s changesin egalitarianism over time compare to men’s?

P1: ZBU


136 Bryant

Consistent with my first prediction, absolute changeswere fairly similar across gender: the percentage ofstudents who “disagreed strongly” increased, whereasthe other categories showed slight declines. Clearly,students’ attitudes became more liberal over time.Although these changes were comparable across gen-ders, there were large differences between men andwomen at both points in time. As predicted, menwere more conventional than women with respect to

Table III. Summary of Regressions: Predicting Attitudes Toward Women’s Roles for Women (N = 8,124) and Men (N = 4,427)

Women Men

Variable Simple r Final β Final b Simple r Final β Final b

Input: PretestPretest: Married women best at home .22∗ .18∗ .16∗ .30∗ .25∗ .24∗Inputs: DemographicsRace: White −.03∗ −.03∗ −.06∗Religion: Muslim .08∗ .07∗ .85∗Religion: None −.08∗ −.03 −.09Father’s level of education −.06∗ −.01 −.01Mother’s level of education −.06∗ −.02 −.01Born-again Christian .09∗ .02 .04Political orientation: Liberal −.10∗ −.04∗ −.04∗ −.13∗ −.07∗ −.08∗Goal: Raise a family .05∗ .01 .01Inputs: High school variablesHours per week spent socializing with friends .04∗ .03 .01Participated in organized demonstrations .07∗ .04∗ .04∗ .07∗ .03 .04Discussed politics −.06∗ −.01 −.01 −.07∗ .00 .00High school GPA −.08∗ −.04∗ −.02∗ −.10∗ −.03 −.02Bridge variablesMajor: Education .07∗ .03 .06Major: English −.05∗ −.02 −.12Major: Health .03 .02 .04Major: Humanities −.05∗ −.04∗ −.22∗Residence: On Campus −.06∗ −.03∗ −.08∗Institutional CharacteristicsInstitutional race: Black .04∗ .03 .24College environments and experiencesAttended religious service .08∗ .03 .03No. of close friends from same religion .11∗ .06∗ .07∗ .08∗ .05∗ .08∗No. of close friends of same sex .11∗ .08∗ .13∗Hours per week spent socializing with friends −.04∗ −.03 −.01Got married .05∗ .02 .12Participated in leadership training −.07∗ −.04∗ −.09∗Took a women’s studies course −.08∗ −.03∗ −.06∗ −.07∗ −.04∗ −.12∗Took an ethnic studies course −.07∗ −.03∗ −.05∗Attended racial/cultural awareness workshop −.07∗ −.04∗ −.07∗ −.08∗ −.04∗ −.09∗Socialized with someone of a different racial/ethnic group −.04∗ −.02 −.03Faculty provided intellectual challenge and stimulation −.08∗ −.05∗ −.06∗ −.14∗ −.08∗ −.13∗Hours per week spent talking with faculty outside of class .00 .04∗ .03∗ −.01 .05∗ .04∗Participated in organized demonstrations .02 .03∗ .05∗ .05∗ .06∗ .12∗Discussed politics −.09∗ −.04∗ −.05∗ −.10∗ −.05∗ −.07∗Participated in intercollegiate football/basketball .04∗ .02 .08Hours per week spent studying/doing homework −.05∗ −.02 −.01 −.13∗ −.08∗ −.05∗College GPA −.08∗ −.04∗ −.04∗

Note. Although blocks were entered into the regression in the order shown, the variables within each block entered each regressionin a different order for women and men. Thus, the above list does not reflect the actual order of entry for individual variables.Coefficients are shown if the variable entered the regression equation for that group.∗ p < 0.1.

attitudes toward gender roles, even though they,too, become more egalitarian during college. In fact,22.4% of men were “agreers,” or traditionalists, in2000, relative to 10.5% of the women.

Regression Analyses

Results of the stepwise regressions are summa-rized by gender in Table III. For each variable that

P1: ZBU



entered the regression equation, the table shows thesimple correlation with the dependent variable, thefinal β Coefficient (i.e., the standardized regressioncoefficient), and the final b coefficient. β Coefficientstell us the relative predictive power of a variable com-pared to other variables in the regression equation,whereas b coefficients allow us to compare the impor-tance of a given variable for men and women. Theexplanatory power of the regression model provedrather modest. For women, inputs explained approx-imately 7% of the variance in attitudes toward theroles of married women, and environmental vari-ables explained an additional 2% (for an overall R2

of .09). In comparison, the final R2 value for menwas .16, with 12% of the variance in the dependentvariable attributable to inputs and 4% to the collegeenvironment.

Some variables, although they retained their sig-nificance after controlling for inputs, lost significancelater in the regression. This is not an unusual phe-nomenon and is a reflection of the association be-tween variables. When two independent variables arecorrelated, entering one into the regression equationreduces the observed relationship between the otherindependent variable and the outcome. For this rea-son, it should not be assumed that nonsignificant fi-nal Betas undermine the importance of a given vari-able (Astin, 1993b). β Changes at each step in theregression provide rich information about the rela-tionships between independent variables. Space lim-itations prevent detailed analysis of β changes, al-though readers may contact the author to obtain thisinformation. The following paragraphs detail the as-sociations between independent and dependent vari-ables as revealed by the analyses. The results are sum-marized according to the predictions about precollegeinput variables, race, institutional characteristics, andthe college environments/experiences discussed ear-lier in the Introduction.

As is usually the case with studies framed by theI-E-O model, the pretest of student attitudes towardthe roles of married women entered the regression asthe strongest predictor of the outcome view for bothgenders. Political orientation was the only other inputcharacteristic that maintained significance (p < .01)after all blocks entered the regression for womenand men. As predicted, students who were politi-cally liberal tended to hold more egalitarian attitudestoward gender roles than politically conservative stu-dents. I also anticipated that religiousness wouldpredict traditionalism. The regression revealed oneexample of the association between religion and

conservative gender-role attitudes in the expecteddirection: Being Muslim predicted traditionalismamong the men. However, because only 0.6%(N = 33) of the male students were classified asMuslim, this finding should be interpreted cautiously,as it reflects the perspectives held by only a few con-servative individuals. Age, parents’ levels of educa-tion, and wanting to raise a family were not signifi-cantly related to gender-role traditionalism, contraryto expectations. There was one indication that mythird prediction regarding racial differences had somemerit. That is, for women, being White predicted egal-itarianism. At the same time, we must bear in mindthat each racial/ethnic variable is really a measure ofthat racial/ethnic category versus all others. Put differ-ently, the White racial/ethnic variable differentiatesbetween students who marked “White” and all otherstudents. The finding that White women were moreegalitarian than non-White women should thereforebe understood in the context of a less-than-adequaterepresentation of Women of Color. Improvingthe representation of such students might reveal aricher depiction of their gender-role attitudes and sug-gest that the observed relationship between being aWhite woman and egalitarianism does not hold.

In contrast with my fourth prediction regard-ing institutional characteristics and their effect onstudents, none of the institutional characteristics in-cluded in this study were shown to predict gender-role traditionalism, with the exception (for men only)of attending a predominately Black institution. Andeven then, the β coefficient for this variable was notsignificant at the final step. It is worthy of note that thisvariable was positively associated with traditionalism,contrary to prediction 4. Why were institutional char-acteristics excluded from the regression equation? Itmay be that institutional qualities were too distal fromstudents’ daily experiences to produce substantial ef-fects. That is, the experiences students faced firsthandhad greater influence on their gender-role ideologiesthan did the characteristics of the institutions theyattended.

Turning to college environments, a variety of ex-periences students encountered during college wereassociated with their attitudes toward women’s roles,in accordance with prediction 5. Of the 16 major vari-ables, plan to major in the humanities remained sig-nificant and was negatively associated with tradition-alism in the regression equation for men, althoughnone of the major variables were significantly predic-tive of the outcome measure for women. Although myexpectations regarding the humanities were fulfilled,

P1: ZBU


138 Bryant

the regression did not identify arts, English, or so-cial sciences as having significant, predictive value. Asexpected, living on campus (for women) was nega-tively associated with conventional views, which high-lights the liberalizing effect of college for women wholived away from home.

Interactions with certain peer groups appearedto have a significant impact. As predicted, for bothwomen and men, religious influence, particularly hav-ing close friends from the same religious organization,was related to greater traditionalism. Students who in-dicated that “most” or “all” of their close friends werefrom the same religious organization were primarilyBaptist, Roman Catholic, or “other” Christian, all ofwhich tend to be fairly conservative faith traditions.Thus, close relationships with these conservative reli-gious peers enhanced gender-role traditionalism. At-tending religious services entered the equation forwomen with aβ in the expected direction, though sub-sequently became insignificant. Another peer effectwas found for men with many close friends of the samesex. This finding makes sense in light of men’s tenden-cies to endorse conventional gender roles; traditionalbeliefs were reinforced for men who affiliated withprimarily male peer groups. Although I had expectedthat socializing with friends would be negatively re-lated to traditionalism, the variable “hours per weekspent socializing with friends” entered the regressiononly for women and eventually lost significance.

The regression results posited negative re-lationships between some curricular/cocurricularexperiences and gender-role traditionalism. Aspredicted, leadership training was negatively relatedto traditionalism for men, as was taking an ethnicstudies course for women. Also in line with predic-tion 5, taking women’s studies courses and attendingracial/ethnic awareness workshops predicted egal-itarianism for both genders. Perhaps these diverseenvironments encouraged students to ponder thedamaging implications of inequality for marginalizedgroups and to apply their raised consciousness tothe structuring of gender roles. Other variables thatshowed negative associations with the traditionalismoutcome included discussing politics, hours per weekspent studying and doing homework (for men), andcollege GPA (for women), which points to a rela-tionship between intellectual/political engagementand egalitarianism. Despite controls for participatingin organized demonstrations during high school, thisvariable, measured at the college level, entered theregression as a positive predictor of traditionalismfor both genders, contrary to predictions regarding

the liberalizing effects of political involvement.Perhaps the organized demonstrations these studentsengaged in were associated with conservative en-deavors and thus explained the positive relationshipobserved between demonstrating and the dependentvariable.

Prediction 5 suggested that interacting with fac-ulty would increase egalitarianism among studentsduring college. As indicated by final β coefficients,men and women who described faculty as “provid-ing intellectual stimulation and challenge” were morelikely to endorse egalitarian attitudes. It was surpris-ing that the opposite was true for talking with facultyoutside of class. However, an examination of changesin the β coefficients revealed that the relationship be-tween talking with faculty outside of class and tra-ditionalism became stronger (and positive) for menand women after the intellectual stimulation variableentered the regression equation. Because interactingwith faculty outside of class and having faculty whoprovided intellectual stimulation were positively cor-related with one another, the true effect of interactingwith faculty outside of class on traditionalism couldnot be observed until controlling for its counterpart,intellectual stimulation. Thus, the unique implicationof faculty interactions outside of class, when account-ing for intellectual stimulation, was increased tradi-tionalism among students in the sample.

Some of the expected associations specified inprediction 5 between certain environmental variablesand gender-role traditionalism did not materialize orwere insignificant, namely, volunteering, getting mar-ried, athletic participation, and belonging to a frater-nity or sorority.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the results of this study highlight thetendency for students to become less conventional intheir gender-role attitudes after 4 years of college andconfirm findings from earlier studies (Astin, 1993a;Etaugh, 1977; Etaugh & Spandikow, 1981; Funk &Willits, 1987; Lottes & Kuriloff, 1994; Pascarella &Terenzini, 1991; Renzetti, 1987). In accordance withprediction 1 and previous research (Baker & Annis,1980; Etaugh, 1975; Etaugh & Spiller, 1989; McHale,1994), men and women changed similarly during col-lege, but women were less traditional in their viewsabout married women’s roles when they began col-lege as well as 4 years later.

As suggested by prediction 2 and Lottes andKuriloff (1992), students’ political liberalism at

P1: ZBU



college entry was negatively associated with gender-role traditionalism. At the same time, being Muslim(for men) was positively related to traditionalism. Re-garding the third prediction, only one racial/ethnicvariable surfaced as a significant predictor: comparedto all other racial/ethic groups, being White was neg-atively associated with traditionalism for women, afinding that parallels the results of Etaugh (1975) butcontradicts the results of McHale (1994).

In general, institutional characteristics were notrelevant to understanding students’ gender-role tra-ditionalism after 4 years of college, contrary to pre-diction 4. Perhaps as suggested earlier, the effectsof such characteristics were virtually nonexistent be-cause of their remoteness from students’ daily lives.In terms of environmental variables (prediction 5),majoring in the humanities (men only), living oncampus (women only), receiving leadership training(men only), encountering diversity, taking women’sstudies courses, and academic dedication (i.e., hoursper week spent studying/doing homework and col-lege GPA) were negatively associated with traditionalgender-role attitudes. Conversely, interacting with re-ligious peers and peers of the same sex (men only)was related to greater gender-role traditionalism. Fi-nally, political engagement/activism and interactingwith faculty had mixed effects on the traditionalismoutcome.

The strengths of this work are its reliance on arecent, national sample of college students, the useof longitudinal data, and stringent controls for stu-dent predispositions in the regression analyses. Com-pared to past studies of small samples of studentsfrom single institutions, the results of this study arebased on a more generalizable—though not perfectlyrepresentative—sample of students from multiplecampuses, which allows for cross-institution compar-isons. Controlling for precollege attitudes and otherstudent background characteristics measured at col-lege entry assured greater confidence in the reportingof college effects. The limitations of this study pro-vide direction for future research. First, the dependentvariable—attitudes toward married women’s roles—was rather skewed, and this lack of variance mayhave contributed to the production of small β coeffi-cients. Future research might include dependent vari-ables that are wider in scope; perhaps several itemscould be combined into one to assess student atti-tudes toward women’s roles more generally. Second,although 1st-year student attitudes toward womenwere controlled before environmental blocks wereentered into the regression equations, it was some-

what unclear whether changes in students’ posttestattitudes occurred prior to or following their involve-ment in various activities, as posttest attitudes to-ward women and college experiences were assessedat the same point in time. For example, did women’sstudies course work impact students’ attitudes, or didstudents develop these attitudes sometime betweenentering college and enrolling in women’s studies?To remedy this problem in the future, researchersought to assess students at more than two pointsin time to make causal statements more convinc-ing. Third, women, White students, individuals fromhigh-income families, and students attending pri-vate institutions were overrepresented in the sample.Although nonresponse of certain groups is often achallenge in survey research, it is imperative that fu-ture studies that draw on survey data specifically tar-get and perhaps oversample students who are unlikelyto respond.

The value of this study lies in its attention tocharacteristics of the college environment that impactgender-role traditionalism among college students.This information is useful for practitioners interestedin encouraging students to exercise greater flexibilityin their perceptions of gender roles. Some of the rela-tionships between college environments/experiencesand gender-role attitudes posited in this study aredocumented in the literature, particularly with re-spect to majoring in humanities (Etaugh, 1975), liv-ing on campus (Buckner, 1981; McHale, 1994), tak-ing women’s studies courses (Bargad & Hyde, 1991;Harris, Melaas, & Rodacker, 1999; Lovejoy, 1998;Stake & Rose, 1994; Steiger, 1981), academic dedica-tion (Astin, 1993a; Etaugh, 1975; McHale, 1994), andreligious involvement (Astin, 1993a). Given that therelationship between diversity course work/activitiesand gender-role attitudes has rarely been consideredin the past (Astin, 1993a), this study sheds further lighton the implications of diversity experiences for stu-dents’ gender-role ideologies. Also, the results of thisstudy confirm that women’s studies course work pro-motes egalitarianism for both women and men, con-trary to the findings of Geffner and McClure (1990),Thomsen, Basu, and Beinitz (1995), and Vedovatoand Vaughter (1980). Perhaps college programs canbe structured so as to include these beneficial experi-ences for students. Doing so might serve to balance thetraditionalizing effects of interacting with religiouspeers or (for men) of affiliating with a primarily malepeer group.

The impact of political engagement/activismand interacting with faculty on gender-role attitudes

P1: ZBU


140 Bryant

was somewhat unclear. Discussing politics predicteddecreased traditionalism, whereas participating inorganized demonstrations had the opposite effect.For what causes were students demonstrating? Howwere such causes linked to traditional gender-role at-titudes? Regarding relationships with professors, stu-dents became less traditional when faculty providedintellectual stimulation, but more so when they inter-acted with faculty outside of class. What was the na-ture of these out-of-class conversations, and why didstudents come away from them more conventionalin their perceptions of gender roles? The complexeffects of political engagement and faculty interac-tions on students’ gender-role ideologies warrant fur-ther investigation.

APPENDIX

Variable Definitions and Coding Schemes

Variable Coding scheme

DependentView: The activities of married women are best confined to 4-point scale: 1 (disagree strongly) to 4 (agree strongly)

home and familyIndependentBlock 1: Pretest

Pretest view: The activities of married women are best confined 4-point scale: 1 (disagree strongly) to 4 (agree strongly)to home and family

Block 2: Demographic inputsAge 10-point scale: 1 (16 or younger) to 10 (55 or older)Race/ethnicity: White All dichotomous variables: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Race/ethnicity: BlackRace/ethnicity: American IndianRace/ethnicity: Asian AmericanRace/ethnicity: Latino/LatinaRace/ethnicity: OtherReligion: Protestant Christian All dichotomous variables: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Religion: Roman CatholicReligion: JewishReligion: MuslimReligion: Other religionReligion: NoneMother’s level of education 8-point scale: 1 (grammar school or less) to 8 (graduate degree)Father’s level of education 8-point scale: 1 (grammar school or less) to 8 (graduate degree)Born-again Christian Dichotomous variable: 1 (no), 2 (yes)Political orientation: Liberal 5-point scale: 1 (far right) to 5 (far left)Goal: Raise a family 4-point scale: 1 (not important) to 4 (essential)

Block 3: High school activities and experiencesHigh school activity: Attended religious service 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Hours per week: Socializing with friends 8-point scale: 1 (none) to 8 (over 20)Expectation: Get married while in college 4-point scale: 1 (no chance) to 4 (very good chance)High school activity: Socialized with another racial/ethnic group 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Participated in organized demonstrations 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Discussed politics 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)

In short, we have seen that college does indeedliberalize gender-role attitudes with respect to stu-dents’ perceptions of the activities deemed appropri-ate for married women. A variety of student char-acteristics and college experiences are relevant topredicting students’ gender-role traditionalism after4 years of college. This study has shown that institu-tional variation (e.g., public vs. private, religious vs.secular) has little, if any, effect on gender-role atti-tudes whereas aspects of students’ day-to-day inter-actions inside and outside of class may be especiallyinfluential. Specific environments and activities thatenhance consciousness in college have promising im-plications for challenging and changing traditionalismamong students.

P1: ZBU



(Appendix Continued)

Variable Coding scheme

Expectation: Play varsity/intercollegiate athletics 4-point scale: 1 (no chance) to 4 (very good chance)Expectation: Join a social fraternity, sorority, or club 4-point scale: 1 (no chance) to 4 (very good chance)High school activity: Performed volunteer work 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Hours per week: Studying/homework 8-point scale: 1 (none) to 8 (over 20)High school GPA 6-point scale: 1 [C- or less (below 1.75)] to 6 [A (3.75-4.0)]

Block 4: Bridge variablesPlanned major: Agriculture All dichotomous variables: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Planned major: Biological SciencePlanned major: BusinessPlanned major: EducationPlanned major: EngineeringPlanned major: EnglishPlanned major: Health ProfessionalPlanned major: History/Political SciencePlanned major: HumanitiesPlanned major: Fine ArtsPlanned major: Math/StatisticsPlanned major: Physical SciencePlanned major: Social SciencePlanned major: Other TechnicalPlanned major: Other Non-technicalPlanned major: UndecidedResidence: On campus Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)

Block 5: Institutional characteristicsInstitutional type: University All dichotomous variables: 1 (no), 2 (yes)Institutional type: 4-yearInstitutional type: 2-yearInstitutional control: PrivateInstitutional affiliation: CatholicInstitutional affiliation: ProtestantInstitutional affiliation: JewishWomen’s collegeInstitutional race: BlackPercent of women faculty Continuous variable: 10–67%

Block 6: College environments and experiencesAttended religious service 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)No. of close friends from same religion 4-point scale: 1 (none) to 4 (all)No. of close friends of same sex 4-point scale: 1 (none) to 4 (all)Hours per week: Socializing with friends 8-point scale: 1 (none) to 8 (over 20)Got married Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Participated in leadership training Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Took a women’s studies course Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Took an ethnic studies course Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Attended racial/cultural awareness workshop Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Participated in a racial/ethnic student organization Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Had a roommate of a different race or ethnicity Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Socialized with someone of a different racial/ethnic group 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Faculty provided intellectual challenge and stimulation 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Hours per week: Talking with faculty outside of class 8-point scale: 1 (none) to 8 (over 20)Participated in organized demonstrations 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Discussed politics 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Participated in intercollegiate football/basketball Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Participated in other intercollegiate sport Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Joined a social fraternity or sorority Dichotomous variable: 1 (not marked), 2 (marked)Performed volunteer work 3-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently)Hours per week: Studying/homework 8-point scale: 1 (none) to 8 (over 20)College GPA 6-point scale: 1 [C- or less (below 1.75)] to 6 [A (3.75-4.0)]

P1: ZBU


142 Bryant

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author sincerely thanks Anne Peplau andAlexander Astin for providing helpful insight and re-viewing drafts of the paper throughout the researchprocess.

REFERENCES

Astin, A. W. (1993a). What matters in college: Four critical yearsrevisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1993b). Assessment for excellence: The philoso-phy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher ed-ucation. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/OryxPress.

Astin, A. W., Parrott, S. A., Korn, W. S., & Sax, L. J. (1997). TheAmerican freshman: Thirty year trends, 1966–1996. Los Ange-les: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Baker, C. A., & Annis, L. V. (1980). Sex-role stereotyping and thefeminism of education undergraduates. Southern Journal ofEducational Research, 14, 79–87.

Bargad, A., & Hyde, J. S. (1991). Women’s studies: A study of fem-inist identity development in women. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 15, 181–201.

Bers, T. H. (1980). Perceptions of women’s roles among commu-nity college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 492–507.

Buckner, D. R. (1981). Developing coed residence hall programsfor sex-role exploration. Journal of College Student Personnel,22, 52–54.

Corbett, M., Rudoni, D., & Frankland, E. G. (1981). Change andstability among college students: A three-year panel study. SexRoles, 7, 233–246.

Etaugh, C. (1975). Biographical predictors of college students’ at-titudes toward women. Journal of College Student Personnel,16, 273–275.

Etaugh, C. (1977, May). Development of sex-role attitudes. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psycho-logical Association, Chicago, IL.

Etaugh, C., & Spandikow, D. B. (1981). Changing attitudes towardwomen: A longitudinal study of college students. Psychologyof Women Quarterly, 5, 591–594.

Etaugh, C., & Spiller, B. (1989). Attitudes toward women: Com-parison of traditional-aged and older college students. Journalof College Student Development, 30, 41–46.

Funk, R. B., & Willits, F. K. (1987). College attendance and atti-tude change: A panel study. Sociology of Education, 60, 224–231.

Geffner, R. A., & McClure, R. F. (1990, April). Changing sex-roleattitudes with education: Can it be done? Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Asso-ciation, Dallas, TX.

Harris, K. L., Melaas, K., & Rodacker, E. (1999). The impact ofwomen’s studies courses on college students of the 1990s. SexRoles, 40, 969–977.

Lottes, I. L., & Kuriloff, P. J. (1992). The effects of gender, race,religion, and political orientation on the sex-role attitudes ofcollege freshmen. Adolescence, 27, 675–688.

Lottes, I. L., & Kuriloff, P. J. (1994). The impact of college experi-ence on political and social attitudes. Sex Roles, 31, 31–54.

Lovejoy, M. (1998). “You can’t go home again”: The impact ofwomen’s studies on intellectual and personal development.NWSA Journal, 10, 119–138.

Lyson, T. A. (1986). Race and sex differences in sex role attitudesof southern college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly,10, 421–427.

McHale, M. T. (1994, November). The impact of college on students’attitudes toward women’s roles. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,Tucson, AZ.

Morinaga, Y., Frieze, I. H., & Ferligoj, A. (1993). Career plans andgender-role attitudes of college students in the United States,Japan, and Slovenia. Sex Roles, 29, 317–333.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects stu-dents: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Renzetti, C. M. (1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes ofcollege women toward feminism. Sex Roles, 16, 265–277.

Rhoads, R. A. (1995). Whales tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: Anethnographic case study of fraternity life. Anthropology andEducation Quarterly, 26, 306–323.

Stake, J. E., & Rose, S. (1994). The long-term impact of women’sstudies on students’ personal lives and political activism. Psy-chology of Women Quarterly, 18, 403–412.

Steiger, J. C. (1981). The influence of feminist subculture in chang-ing sex-role attitudes. Sex Roles, 7, 627–633.

Thomas, L. K., & Chambliss, C. (1998). Educating students aboutcultural differences in attitudes toward women: ComparingAmerican and Japanese college students and their parents. Col-legeville, PA: Ursinus College. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Services No. ED 421 671).

Thomsen, C. J., Basu, A. M., & Reinitz, M. T. (1995). Effects ofwomen’s studies courses on gender-related attitudes of womenand men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 419–426.

Vedovato, S., & Vaughter, R. M. (1980). Psychology of womencourses changing sexist and sex-typed attitudes. Psychologyof Women Quarterly, 4, 587–590.

Weeks, M. O., & Botkin, D. R. (1987). A longitudinal study of themarriage role expectations of college women: 1961–1984. SexRoles, 17, 49–58.

Documents

Changes in Attitudes Toward Women's Roles: Predicting Gender-Role Traditionalism Among College Students