Development of a Brief Multidimensional Aversion to Women Who Work Scale

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP

Sex Roles [sers] pp276-sers-346716 October 12, 2001 9:13 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Sex Roles, Vol. 44, No. 11/12, June 2001 ( C© 2001)

Development of a Brief Multidimensional Aversionto Women Who Work Scale

Sean Valentine1

University of Wyoming

A brief multidimensional measure of aversion to women who work(MAWWWS) was developed using data collected from 175 predominantlylower income Anglo American undergraduate and graduate students attend-ing a medium-sized university located in the southern United States. Findingsindicated that the 10-item measure exhibited acceptable reliability, as well asadequate convergent and criterion validities. Consequently, the MAWWWSmay be a useful measure of employment-related gender attitudes.

Gender roles attitudes involve expectations directed at men and women(Spence & Helmreich, 1978), and these ideas are often based on negativestereotypes and broad assumptions about people’s characteristics (Conway& Vartanian, 2000; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Because gender stereotypes“usually attach themselves to strong emotional values to form prejudices,our investment in maintaining these beliefs is usually very high” (Colwill,1987, p. 101) and reinforcement occurs through confirmation and selectiveperceptual biases (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). Research indicatesthat gender roles commonly lead to the discouragement of women’s em-ployment outside of the home in nontraditional jobs (Galambos, Petersen,Richards, & Gitelson, 1985; Heilman, 1997; Rosen & Jerdee, 1975). Accord-ing to Schreiber (1998, p. 6), “women as caregivers and homemakers andmen as breadwinners and leaders are stereotypes that dictate the appropri-ateness of various occupations for females and males.”

Gender stereotypes are frequently categorized into masculine and fem-inine preferences, and expectations become the basis of gender identity

1To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Management and Mar-keting, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3275, Laramie, Wyoming 82071-3275; e-mail:[email protected].

773

0360-0025/01/0600-0773$19.50/0 C© 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP


774 Valentine

(Auster & Ohm, 2000; Spence & Buckner, 2000; Spence & Helmreich, 1978).Masculinity refers to socially desirable characteristics that are typically ex-hibited by men, which include the willingness to make sacrifices, the ten-dency to think logically and analytically, and the ability to manage stress(Fischer & Good, 1998; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). A masculine ideologycan also promote achievement-oriented, independent, and aggressive ten-dencies (Fischer & Good, 1998). Femininity refers to socially desirable traitsand behaviors that are typically held by women, and these include sensitivity,concern for others, and the display of emotion (Spence & Helmreich, 1978).

Unfortunately, many of the stereotypes directed at women have neg-ative employment implications, often harming their careers (Brady, 1998;Chang & Chang-McBride, 1997; Cooper, 1997; Daley & Naff, 1998; Reskin& Padavic, 1994; Schreiber, 1998). Men are frequently seen as more objec-tive and analytical than women, better able to manage both family and workresponsibilities, and less likely to be affected by domesticity (see Eyring &Stead, 1998; Jorstad, 1996; Korabik & Rosen, 1995; Lewis & Park, 1989, fordiscussion). Some men believe only superior women can enjoy successfulcareers (Sutton & Moore, 1985).

According to Mott (1998, p. 26), “women of all ages remain underrep-resented in skilled career fields due to misconceptions regarding gender-specific abilities and preferences and undervaluation of women’s skills.”There is sometimes a reluctance to hire women in key managerial positions(Eyring & Stead, 1998), so female leaders are consequently “given job assign-ments with lower visibility and fewer chances to make important contacts”(Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994, p. 49). Women also tend to earn sig-nificantly less compared to men in equivalent occupations, they frequentlyfind high-level promotions difficult, and they experience barriers when seek-ing mentors (Anderson & Tomaskovic-Devey, 1995; Bhatnagar & Swamy,1995; Browne, 1997; Pfeffer & Ross, 1990). Some studies even show a distinctpreference for male direction among subordinates (Cann & Siegfried, 1987;Jeanquart-Barone & Sekaran, 1994), and this fondness translates into higherratings for male managers (McGlashan, Wright, & McCormick, 1995) andincreased trust (Jeanquart-Barone & Sekaran, 1994). Women sometimesdoubt their own abilities and skills (Hammick & Acker, 1998; Maccoby &Jacklin, 1974; Talmud & Izraeli, 1999), suggesting that stereotypes may beprevalent among both men and women.

According to the gender-centered model, women are more likely toexhibit less preferred and less rewarded feminine leadership behaviors thatemphasize relationship building and consideration, whereas men prefer us-ing leadership behaviors that are task-oriented in nature (Eagly, Karau, &Makhijani, 1995; Hammick & Acker, 1998; Lewis & Fagenson-Eland, 1998;Valentine & Godkin, 2000). Even though men and women are considered

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP


Multidimensional Measure of Aversion to Women Who Work 775

equal in competence and ability (Cooper, 1997), stereotypes of women’semotional, passive, and person-oriented leadership styles (Heilman, 1997;McGlashan et al., 1995; Owen & Todor, 1993) may encourage further biases(Rigg & Sparrow, 1994). Evidence also suggests that women who do not fitthese stereotypes receive low ratings (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; McGlashanet al., 1995). Consequently, it is important to develop scales that assess thesegender role attitudes because women’s complaints over disparate treatmenthave increased over the last several decades (Reskin & Padavic, 1994; Swimet al., 1995). Indeed, although research suggests that “fewer people dis-approve of nontraditional roles for women, . . . the depth of the endorsementof gender equality is open to question” (Swim et al., 1995, p. 200).

PREVIOUS SCALE DEVELOPMENT WORK

A number of scales have been developed over the last several decadesthat measure various gender role attitudes and behaviors. Spence andHelmreich (1972) developed the widely used Attitudes toward Women Scale(AWS), which measures beliefs about women in various educational, em-ployment, and social roles. Dubno, Cannon, Wankel, and Emin (1979) de-veloped the popular Managerial Attitudes toward Female Executives Scale(MATWES), which assesses the degree to which women are accepted in cor-porate managerial roles. Similarly, the Women as Managers Scale (WAMS)was developed by Peters, Terborg, and Taynor (1974) to measure attitudesabout women in leadership roles, and the scale is composed of items that tapboth stereotypical and managerial traits (Terborg, Peters, Ilgen, & Smith,1977). Swim et al. (1995) recently developed a modern sexism instrumentthat assesses discrimination, antagonism, and resentment associated withwomen’s employment, and Yoder and McDonald (1997) provided some sup-port for the scale’s psychometric properties. Finally, several feminism scaleshave been developed to assess identification with gender-related political ac-tivism, sexual equality, and negative ideas about men (Gerstmann & Kramer,1997; Henley, Meng, O’Brien, McCarthy, & Sockloskie, 1998; Stephan,Stephan, Demitrakis, Yamada, & Clason, 2000).

Despite the proliferation of these instruments, many of them have var-ious limitations and shortcomings. According to Henley et al. (1998, p. 318),even though there has been “widespread development and use of suchscales, there has been some dissatisfaction with them” among researchers.Some scales do not adequately assess contemporary gender issues (Henleyet al., 1998; McHugh & Frieze, 1997), whereas others do not adequatelydiscriminate between various gender phenomena and are too general andoverly long (Henley et al., 1998; Spence & Buckner, 2000; Terborg et al.,

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP


776 Valentine

1977). For instance, Liss, Hoffner, and Crawford (2000, p. 279) recentlyclaimed that the AWS is “no longer viewed as a measure of feminism, andit is considered an outdated measure of attitudes toward women’s roles.”Unfortunately, developing brief measures that overcome these shortcom-ings is difficult since stereotypical gender attitudes tend to be complex andchallenging to define.

More recently, Valentine and Mosley (1998) constructed a single dimen-sion scale that assesses aversion to women who work (AWWWS) with fiveitems from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which is a widely usedsecondary data source that has been compiled since 1979. Use of this measuremay mitigate several of the concerns with previously developed gender atti-tude scales. Because high item count tends to be a common problem amongmany measures, the scale is particularly useful when questionnaire length isan issue. Previous longitudinal, comparative, and causal research also indi-cates that the scale has acceptable internal validity. Valentine and Mosley(1999) found that scores on the AWWWS decreased over time among AngloAmericans and Hispanic Americans, and Valentine and Elias (in press) con-cluded that the AWWWS predicted perceptions of sex discrimination amongHispanic and non-Hispanic women. Finally, the measure exhibits accept-able internal consistency reliability (Valentine & Elias, in press; Valentine &Mosley, 1998, 1999).

The scale in its present form however could be improved in several ways.First, the validity of the AWWWS needs to be further assessed. Second, al-though the measure appears to effectively assess preferences for traditionalgender roles, it essentially ignores many of the negative stereotypes aboutworking women that are most likely related to these values. Indeed, thebelief among many skeptics that women lack the qualities necessary for pro-ductive employment is documented in the gender literature (see Auster &Ohm, 2000; Bhatnagar et al., 1995; Dubno et al., 1979; Owen & Todor, 1993;Spence & Helmreich, 1978; Terborg et al., 1977). Research also shows thatstereotypical beliefs and gender biases are reduced when employees are ex-posed to women operating in nontraditional roles, which implies that there isa relationship between gender roles and stereotypes (Eagly & Steffen, 1984;Heilman & Martell, 1986). Research also suggests however that the genderinequities associated with division of domestic roles and work responsibili-ties may exist despite liberal gender role attitudes (see Swim et al., 1995 fordiscussion), which supports the notion that negative stereotypes directedat women’s employment and preferences for traditional gender roles areconceptually distinct. It is therefore likely that the addition of employment-specific items that assess beliefs about women’s ineffectiveness at work couldimprove the scale’s validity and reliability. Consequently, the purpose of thisstudy is to refine the original 5-item measure by adding items that survey

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP



an employment skepticism component, to test the factor structure of therefined scale using primary data, and to assess the reliability and validity ofthe new instrument.

METHOD

Sample

Questionnaires were distributed to students attending several businessclasses at a medium sized public university in the southern United States.Students were told that the survey solicited information about their work-related attitudes and that their answers would be kept confidential, andclass time was provided so that individuals could immediately complete andreturn the questionnaire. Distribution of these surveys resulted in a conve-nience sample of 175 usable responses, and the characteristics of the sampleare presented in Table I. Slightly over half of the participants were women(53%), a large majority considered themselves to be of Anglo-American de-scent (68.7%), and 67.3% were single. Almost 57% of the participants wereseniors, 32% were juniors, 7% were graduate students, just under 5% weresophomores, and a large majority of these students were business majors(91.1%). From an employment standpoint, a majority of the participants(72%) had an annual income less than $20,000, almost 48% were employedpart-time, and just over 15% were supervisors in their current job.

Measures

The refinement and validation of the original measure began with athorough review of the current gender literature. With regard to negativeattitudes directed at the employment of women, the literature suggests thatsome people believe women to be ill-suited for the workplace. Accordingto Owen and Todor (1993, p. 12), many individuals believe that “womentend to place family demands above work considerations,” “they lack thenecessary drive to succeed in business,” they “take negative feedback per-sonally rather than professionally,” and “they are too emotional and lackaggressiveness.” Many also believe that women are dependent, passive, andnurturing (Colwill, 1987; McGlashan et al., 1995; Terborg et al., 1977), andthat “men and women are naturally suited for different tasks” (Reskin &Padavic, 1994, p. 34). Consequently, an employment skepticism (ES) com-ponent was devised to assess beliefs about women’s abilities to cope withemployment demands. The items were reviewed with various scholars inter-ested in gender research, and consensus over their content and inclusion inthe study was achieved. These items were added to the original AWWWS,

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP


778 Valentine

Table I. Characteristics of the Sample

Variable Frequency Valid %

GenderFemale 89 53.0Male 79 47.0

RaceAfrican American 27 16.3Anglo American 114 68.7Asian American 8 4.8Hispanic American 5 3.0Other 12 7.2

Marital statusSingle 113 67.3Married 47 28.0Widowed 0 0.0Separated, Divorced 8 4.8

Student levelFreshman 1 0.6Sophomore 7 4.2Junior 53 31.5Senior 95 56.5Graduate student 12 7.1

MajorBusiness 153 91.1Liberal arts 1 0.6Science/engineering 4 2.4Education 0 0.0Other 10 6.0

Annual incomeLess than $20,000 113 72.0$20,000–$29,999 15 9.6$30,000–$39,999 11 7.0$40,000–$49,999 8 5.1$50,000–$59,999 2 1.3$60,000–$69,999 3 1.9$70,000–$79,999 2 1.3$80,000 and up 3 1.9

Job statusFull-time employee 63 37.5Part-time employee 80 47.6Does not currently work 25 14.9

Supervisor in current jobNo 138 84.7Yes 25 15.3

Note. Number of Participants = 168; Minimum age =19 years; Maximum age = 47 years; Mean (M) = 24.95years; Standard Deviation (SD) = 6.23 years.

which represents traditional roles preference (TRP), a component that iden-tifies the degree to which individuals believe that women should stay at home(see appendix for ES and TRP items). It has been suggested that these genderroles affect many work-related factors such as scholastic achievement,

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP



Table II. Scale Descriptive Statistics

Item N Min Max M SD

MAWWWS 01: Traditional husband/wife roles the best 168 1 4 2.53 0.86MAWWWS 02: Women are happier in traditional roles 165 1 4 2.12 0.69MAWWWS 03: An employed wife leads to juvenile 169 1 4 1.63 0.68

delinquencyMAWWWS 04: Women with families do not have time 170 1 4 1.73 0.59

for other employmentMAWWWS 05: A woman’s place is in the home 170 1 4 1.67 0.67MAWWWS 06: Women’s personal characteristics make 170 1 4 1.68 0.65

life at work difficultMAWWWS 07: Women lack the skills and abilities 170 1 3 1.34 0.49

needed at workMAWWWS 08: Women are not suited for work 170 1 3 1.38 0.50

outside of the homeMAWWWS 09: Women frequently find the demands 170 1 4 1.72 0.70

of work difficultMAWWWS 10: I am skeptical about women’s 169 1 3 1.49 0.57

effectiveness in the workplace

career choice, and family orientation (Valenzuela, 1993). These ideas are alsolinked to masculine and feminine ideologies that specify status and aggre-ssive roles for men and nurturing and subservient roles for women (Fischer& Good, 1998; Spence & Buckner, 2000). The 10 items were rated using a4-point Likert-type response format anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 4(strongly agree), and item descriptive statistics are presented in Table II. Lowitem scores indicated that participants adopted somewhat nontraditionalgender roles. The ES, TRP, and MAWWWS (Multidimensional Aversion toWomen Who Work Scale) items were averaged, and all values ranged from1 to 4 with higher scores implying more traditional gender attitudes.

Several gender measures were included in the survey to test the validityof the MAWWWS. The 15-item short form of the AWS developed by Spenceand Helmreich (1978) was used to assess global gender attitudes, and thescale was coded in reverse so that high scores represented the acceptanceof traditional gender roles (see Spence & Buckner, 2000, for similar proce-dure). Item examples include “Women should assume their rightful placein business and all the professionals along with men” and “Women shouldbe as free as men to propose marriage.” Items were rated on a 4-point scaleanchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 4 (strongly agree), items scores wereaveraged, and values ranged from 1 to 4. The 22-item WAMS was includedto measure global beliefs about women’s performance in leadership roles.Sample items include “It is less desirable for women than men to have a jobthat requires responsibility” and “Women are good at realistic assessmentof business situations.” All WAMS items were rated on a 7-point Likert-likescale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree), item scores

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP


780 Valentine

were combined, and scores ranged from 7 to 154 with higher scores repre-senting nontraditional or liberal attitudes. The Symbolic Threat Scale (STS)developed by Stephan et al. (2000) was also used, which is comprised of10 items that measure the degree to which men are considered intimidat-ing. Sample items are “Men often misunderstand women’s intentions” and“Most men treat women as equals.” The STS was rated on a 10-point scalethat runs from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree), and the item scoreswere combined with higher scores representing a greater threat, and scoresranged from 10 to 100. The 10-item version of the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) was used to assess global self-worth. Item examplesinclude “I am a person of worth” and “I have a number of good qualities.”Items were rated on a 4-point scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and4 (strongly agree), scores were averaged, and values ranged from 1 to 4with higher scores indicating greater self-esteem. Because social desirabil-ity can be a source of bias in gender research (see Gerstmann & Kramer,1997; Loo & Thorpe, 1998; Spence & Helmreich, 1978), a 10-item version ofthe Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) was used. Severalitems are “I like to gossip at times” and “I always practice what I preach.”The items were rated with 1 (no) and 2 (yes), and after several statementswere reverse coded, answers were combined generating a possible range of10–20 with higher scores representing greater social desirability.

RESULTS

Factor analysis using oblique rotation was employed to assess the di-mensionality of the 10-item scale, and the results highlighted a two-factorsolution with 64.62% of the variance explained (see Table III). The pattern

Table III. Pattern Matrix using Oblique Rotation

Item Factor 1 Factor 2

MAWWWS 07 .966 −.195MAWWWS 08 .893 .008MAWWWS 10 .819 .052MAWWWS 06 .632 .144MAWWWS 09 .574 .245

MAWWWS 01 −.127 .896MAWWWS 02 −.104 .864MAWWWS 05 .259 .643MAWWWS 03 .272 .587MAWWWS 04 .292 .544

Eigenvalue 5.059 1.403% variance explained 50.591 14.030Cumulative % variance explained 50.591 64.621

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP



Table IV. Scale Reliabilities

CoefficientReliability estimate alpha in

Scale Past study in past study current study

Aversion to Women Valentine & Mosley (1998) .82 .88Who Work Scale (MAWWWS)(5 items) Valentine & Mosley (1999) .81 .83

(traditional rolespreference)

Valentine & Elias (1999) .82 .85(employment

skepticism)Attitudes Toward Spence & Helmreich (1978) .89 .80

Women Scale Rice, Bender, & Vitters (1980) .86(AWS) (15 items)

Women as Managers Peters, Terborg, & .91 .91Scale (WAMS) Taynor (1974)(21 or 22 items) Terborg, Peters, Ilgen, & .92

Smith (1977)Bhatnagar, Deepti, Swamy, & .85

Ranjini (1995)Symbolic Threat Stephan, Stephan, Demitrakis, .80 .57

(10 items) Yamada, & Clason (2000) .78Rosenberg Valentine (1998) .87 .82

Self-Esteem Scale Abu-Saad (1999) .70(10 items)

matrix indicated that none of the items cross-loaded above a 0.30 standard,and all of the item loadings for each factor were above 0.54. The eigenvaluefor the first factor (employment skepticism) was 5.059, and this factor ex-plained nearly 51% of the variance, whereas the second factor (traditionalvalues preference) explained 14.03% of the variance and had an eigenvalueof 1.403.

Reliability analysis was conducted, and the results along with the find-ings from previous research are presented in Table IV. The 10-itemMAWWWS had an acceptable coefficient alpha (α = .88), and both tradi-tional roles preference and employment skepticism also had high reliabilityscores (α = .83 and α = .85 respectively). Both the AWS and the WAMSalso indicated high internal consistency (α = .80 and α = .91, respectively).Although the STS had a somewhat low coefficient alpha (α = .57), Stephanet al. (2000) provided evidence of high test-retest reliability. Finally, theRSES had a coefficient alpha of .82.

Table V presents the variable descriptive statistics and the results ofthe correlation analysis. Scores on the various gender role scales indicatedoverall that participants subscribed to less traditional attitudes. With regardto social desirability, the WAMS and RSES were the only measures that pos-itively related to the social desirability measure, indicating that impression

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP


782 Valentine

Table V. Variable Descriptive Statistics and Results of Correlation Analysis

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. MAWWWS 1.72 0.45 —2. ES 1.52 0.47 .88∗∗∗ —3. TRP 1.93 0.54 .91∗∗∗ .60∗∗∗ —4. AWS 1.98 0.39 .70∗∗∗ .61∗∗∗ .64∗∗∗ —5. WAMS 124.99 19.48 −.62∗∗∗ −.59∗∗∗ −.52∗∗∗ −.61∗∗∗ —6. STS 65.40 10.06 −.22∗∗ −.23∗∗ −.19∗ −.26∗∗ .28∗∗∗ —7. RCES 34.33 4.14 −.26∗∗ −.29∗∗∗ −.18∗ −.20∗∗ .27∗∗∗ −.01 —8. MCSDS 14.86 2.10 −.11 −.10 −.10 −.14 .27∗∗∗ .14 .19∗ —

Note. MAWWWS: Multidimensional Aversion to Women Who Work Scale; ES: Employ-ment Skepticism; TRP: Traditional Roles Preference; AWS: Attitudes toward Women Scale;WAMS: Women as Managers Scale; STS: Symbolic Threat Scale; RSES: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; MCSDS: Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

bias was not a serious problem in this study. The MAWWWS and its twodimensions, employment skepticism and traditional values preference, werestrongly and positively related to the AWS, which indicates convergent va-lidity. The MAWWWS factors were also negatively related to the WAMS,STS, and RSES, also indicating convergent validity.

Because previous research suggests that feminism (Fischer & Good,1994), gender role identity (Lamke, 1982; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp,1975), and preferences for traditional gender roles (Galambos et al., 1985;Valentine, 1998) are related to self-esteem, analyses were employed to assesswhether the MAWWWS would predict self-esteem in a regression model.Results of the hierarchical regression analyses (shown in Table VI) indicatedthat the MAWWWS and ES were both negatively related to self-esteem af-ter controlling for the effects of gender (1 = male, 2 = female) and age,although TRP was negatively but marginally related to self-esteem. Somestatistical support was therefore provided for the scale’s criterion validity.Statistical support was also provided for the notion that many gender-relatedattitudes are associated with individual self-esteem. Quite possibly, peoplewho do not favor women’s employment are resented by their colleagues,peers, and coworkers, leading to fewer opportunities, less support, and lowerself-confidence.

DISCUSSION

Based on the results of the statistical analyses, the MAWWWS ap-pears to be a fairly valid and reliable measure of traditional gender roleattitudes and stereotypes. The most notable advantage of the scale is itslength, which is comparatively shorter than many other scales of its type. TheMAWWWS also exhibits sound psychometric properties unlike some other

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP



Table VI. Results of Hierarchical Regression Models that Specify Self-Esteemas Dependent Variable

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Gender .19∗∗ .05 .18∗∗ .03 .19∗∗ .13Age −.03 −.03 −.02 .03 −.03 −.03MAWWWS −.27∗∗∗ES −.31∗∗∗∗TRP −.15∗Change in R2 .04 .05 .03 .07 .04 .02Change in F 2.85∗ 9.00∗∗∗ 2.71∗ 12.72∗∗∗∗ 2.92∗ 3.06∗Overall R2 .04 .09 .03 .10 .04 .05Adjusted R2 .02 .07 .02 .09 .02 .04Overall F 2.89∗ 5.00∗∗∗ 2.71∗ 6.18∗∗∗ 2.92∗ 2.99∗∗

Note. Standardized coefficients presented in regression models. MAWWWS: Mul-tidimensional Aversion to Women Who Work Scale; ES: Employment Skepticism;TRP: Traditional Roles Preference.∗ p < .10. ∗∗ p < .05. ∗∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗∗ p < .001.

gender-related instruments (e.g., see Yoder & McDonald for discussion ofModern Sexism Scale), which provides evidence of adequate content valid-ity and construct definition. From a conceptual standpoint, the measure alsoappears to be centrally positioned with regard to many gender role measures,which improves the scale’s efficacy. Although its conceptual underpinningsallow the MAWWWS to be used as a global gender role measure, it canalso be employed to assess more specific attitudinal domains, employmentskepticism, and traditional roles preference.

Given the limitations of this study, the MAWWWS should not be consid-ered a superior gender role scale. Even though the MAWWWS appears to bean adequate measure of broad convictions about women’s work roles, bothemployment skepticism and traditional roles preference may depend heav-ily on the jobs and circumstances being referenced, which makes these mea-sures somewhat susceptible to situational influences and variations. Also,the factor structure, validity, and reliability of the measure were assessedusing a somewhat homogenous sample of young business students, whichraises concern over the scale’s performance when utilizing heterogeneoussamples. Finally, both the behavioral validity and discriminant validity of theMAWWWS were not assessed in this study, and further analysis will be re-quired to fully evaluate the scale’s construct validity. Given these limitations,researchers should use the MAWWWS in its present form to complementother gender role measures included in a survey.

Because the MAWWWS is newly developed, future research needs tofurther address the scale’s validity and reliability using information gatheredfrom greatly varied samples. New research needs to identify other atti-tudes not measured by the MAWWWS, such as those involving women’s

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP


784 Valentine

employment in predominantly male occupations or those directed atwomen’s ability to perform specific organizational tasks such as following orteambuilding. This may be accomplished by changing the wording of itemsto represent specific jobs and employment situations. By devising scales thatassess traditional gender values and skepticism toward women’s employ-ment, researchers will be able to better determine how these beliefs affectindividuals’ experiences at work.

APPENDIX: MULTIDIMENSIONAL AVERSION TO WOMENWHO WORK SCALE

Employment Skepticism1. Women lack the skills and abilities needed at work.2. Women are not suited for work outside of the home.3. I am skeptical about women’s effectiveness in the workplace.4. Women’s personal characteristics make life at work difficult.5. Women frequently find the demands of work difficult.

Traditional Roles Preference6. Traditional husband/wife roles are the best.7. Women are happier in traditional roles.8. A woman’s place is in the home.9. An employed wife leads to juvenile delinquency.

10. Women with families do not have time for other employment.

Note. Items are rated on a 4-point scale: 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree),3 (agree), 4 (strongly agree).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their helpful commentson this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Abu-Saad, I. (1999). Self-esteem among Arab adolescents in Israel. The Journal of SocialPsychology, 139, 479–486.

Anderson, C. D., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1995). Patriarchal pressures: An exploration oforganizational processes that exacerbate and erode gender earnings inequality. Work andOccupations, 22, 328–356.

Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary Americansociety: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499–527.

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP



Bhatnagar, D., & Swamy, R. (1995). Attitudes toward women as managers: Does interactionmake a difference? Human Relations, 48, 1285–1307.

Brady, T. (1998). How equal is equal pay? Management Review, 87, 59–61.Browne, B. A. (1997). Gender and beliefs about work force discrimination in the United States

and Australia. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 107–116.Cann, A., & Siegfried, W. D. (1987). Sex stereotypes and the leadership role. Sex Roles, 17,

401–408.Chang, L., & Chang-McBride, C. (1997). Self- and peer-ratings of female and male roles and

attributes. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 527–529.Colwill, N. L. (1987). Man and women in organizations: Roles and status, stereotypes and power.

In K. S. Koziara, M. H. Moskow, & L. D. Tanner (Eds.), Working women: Past, present, andfuture (pp. 97–117). Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

Conway, M., & Vartanian, L. R. (2000). A status account of gender stereotypes: Beyond com-munality and agency. Sex Roles, 43, 181–199.

Cooper, V. W. (1997). Homophily or the Queen Bee Syndrome: Female evaluation of femaleleadership. Small Group Research, 28, 483–499.

Daley, D. M., & Naff, K. C. (1998). Gender differences and managerial competencies:Federal supervisor perceptions of the job of management. Review of Public PersonnelAdministration, 18, 41–56.

Dubno, P., Costas, J., Cannon, H., Wankel, C., & Emin, H. (1979). An empirically keyed scale formeasuring managerial attitudes toward women executives. Psychology of Women Quar-terly, 3, 357–363.

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 108, 233–256.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders:A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of womenand men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754.

Eyring, A., & Stead, B. A. (1998). Shattering the glass ceiling: Some successful corporate prac-tices. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 245–251.

Fischer, A. R., & Good, G. E. (1994). Gender, self, and others: Perceptions of the campusenvironment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 343–355.

Fischer, A. R., & Good, G. E. (1998). New directions for the study of gender role attitudes: Acluster analytic investigation of masculine ideologies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22,371–384.

Galambos, N. L., Petersen, A. C., Richards, M., & Gitelson, I. B. (1985). The Attitudes towardWomen Scale for Adolescents (AWSA): A study of reliability and validity. Sex Roles, 13,343–356.

Gerstmann, E. A., & Kramer, D. A. (1997). Feminist identity development: Psychometric anal-ysis of two feminist identity scales. Sex Roles, 36, 327–348.

Hammick, M., & Acker, S. (1998). Undergraduate research supervision: A gender analysis.Studies in Higher Education, 23, 335–347.

Heilman, M. E. (1997). Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: The role of sexstereotypes. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 877–889.

Heilman, M. E., & Martell, R. E. (1986). Exposure to successful women: Antidote to sex dis-crimination applicant screening decisions? Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 37, 376–390.

Henley, N. M., Meng, K., O’Brien, D., McCarthy, W. J., & Sockloskie, R. J. (1998). Developinga scale to measure the diversity of feminist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22,317–348.

Jeanquart-Barone, S., & Sekaran, U. (1994). Effects of supervisor’s gender on Americanwomen’s trust. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 253–254.

Jorstad, J. (1996). Narcissism and leadership: Some differences in male and female leaders.Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17, 17–23.

Korabik, K., & Rosin, H. M. (1995). The impact of children on women managers’ career behaviorand organizational commitment. Human Resource Management, 34, 513–528.

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP


786 Valentine

Lamke, L. K. (1982). The impact of sex-role orientation on self-esteem in early adolescence.Child Development, 53, 1530–1535.

Lewis, A. E., & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. (1998). The influence of gender and organization levelon perceptions of leadership behaviors: A self and supervisor comparison. Sex Roles, 39,479–502.

Lewis, G. B., & Park, K. (1989). Turnover rates in federal white-collar employment: Are womenmore likely to quit than men? American Review of Public Administration, 19, 13–48.

Liss, M., Hoffner, C., & Crawford, M. (2000). What do feminists believe? Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 24, 279–284.

Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (1998). Attitudes toward women’s roles in society: A replication after20 years. Sex Roles, 39, 903–912.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974), The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

McGlashan, K. E., Wright, P. M., & McCormick, B. (1995). Preferential selection and stereo-types: Effects on evaluation of female leader performance, subordinate goal commitment,and task performance. Sex Roles, 33, 669–686.

McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A reviewand commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1–16.

Mott, V. W. (1998). Women’s career development in midlife and beyond. New Directions forAdult and Continuing Education, 80, 25–33.

Ohlott, P., Ruderman, M., & McCauley, C. (1994). Gender differences in managers’ develop-ment job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 46–67.

Owen, C. L., & Todor, W. D. (1993). Attitudes toward women as managers: Still the same.Business Horizons, 36, 12–16.

Peters, L. H., Terborg, J. R., & Taynor, J. (1974). Women as Managers Scale (WAMS): A measureof attitudes toward women in managerial positions. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documentsin Psychology, Ms. No. 585.

Pfeffer, J., & Ross, J. (1990). Gender-based wage differences: The effects of organizationalcontext. Work and Occupations, 17, 55–78.

Reskin, B., & Padavic, I. (1994). Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.Rice, R. W., Bender, L. R., & Vitters, A. G. (1980). Leader sex, follower attitudes toward

women, and leadership effectiveness: A laboratory experiment. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 25, 46–56.

Rigg, C., & Sparrow, J. (1994). Gender, diversity and working styles. Women in ManagementReview, 9, 9–16.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1975). The psychological basis for sex role stereotypes—a note onTerborg and Ilgen’s conclusions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,14, 151.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Schreiber, P. J. (1998). Women’s career development patterns. New Directions for Adult andContinuing Education, 80, 5–13.

Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, andsexist attitudes: What do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The Attitudes toward Women Scale: An objectiveinstrument to measure attitudes towards the rights and roles of women in contemporarysociety. JAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66–67.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological di-mensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributesand their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.

Stephan, C. W., Stephan, W. G., Demitrakis, K. M., Yamada, A. M., & Clason, D. L. (2000).Women’s attitudes toward men: An integrated threat theory approach. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 24, 63–73.

P1: GYQ/LOV P2: GCP



Sutton, C. D., & Moore, K. K. (1985). Executive women: Twenty years later. Harvard BusinessReview, 85, 42–66.

Swim, J. K., Aiken, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old fashionedand modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.

Talmud, I., & Izraeli, D. N. (1999). The relationship between gender and performance issuesof concern to directors: Correlates or institution? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20,459–474.

Terborg, J. R., Peters, L. H., Ilgen, D. R., & Smith, S. (1977). Organizational and personalcorrelates of attitudes toward women as managers. Academy of Management Journal, 20,89–100.

Valentine, S. (1998). Self-esteem and men’s negative stereotypes of women who work. Psycho-logical Reports, 83, 920–922.

Valentine, S., & Godkin, L. (2000). Supervisor gender, leadership style, and perceived job design.Women in Management Review, 15, 117–129.

Valentine, S., & Elias, R. (in press). Perceived sex discrimination: The role of sex stereotypingamong Hispanic and non-Hispanic women. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.

Valentine, S., & Mosely, G. (1998). Aversion to women who work and perceived discriminationamong Euro-Americans and Mexican-Americans. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 1027–1033.

Valentine, S., & Mosely, G. (1999). Acculturation and sex-role attitudes among MexicanAmericans: A longitudinal analysis. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 104–113.

Valenzuela, A. (1993). Liberal gender role attitudes and academic achievement amongMexican-origin adolescents in two Houston inner-city catholic schools. Hispanic Journalof Behavioral Sciences, 15, 310–323.

Yoder, J. D., & McDonald, T. W. (1997). The generalizability and construct validity of theModern Sexism Scale: Some cautionary notes. Sex Roles, 36, 655–663.