an exploratory evaluation of the cognitive-active gender role identification continuum

The American Journal of Family Therapy, 40:152–168, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01926187.2011.601196

An Exploratory Evaluationof the Cognitive-Active Gender Role

Identification Continuum

JACOB B. PRIESTFlorida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

ANNE B. EDWARDS, JOSEPH L. WETCHLER,and CATHERINE M. GILLOTTI

Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana, USA

REBECCA A. COBBFlorida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

CHRISTINE WALSH BORSTEast Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA

Individual beliefs and expectations regarding gender roles influ-ence interpersonal behavior. If family therapists ignore or avoiddiscussions regarding gender roles, change may ultimately be in-hibited. The Cognitive-Active Gender Role Identification Contin-uum (CAGRIC) is a framework that may facilitate a therapist’sdiscussion of gender roles and the ways in which gender role ex-pectations impact their clients’ relationships. Using data from the2002 International Social Survey Program module on “Family andChanging Gender Roles,” this study examines the gender role clas-sifications proposed by the CAGRIC model and the influence ofgender role beliefs and behaviors on relationship satisfaction. Datafrom Australia, Brazil, Israel, Japan, Russia, Spain, and the UnitedStates are used to test the clustering and congruence hypotheses ofthe CAGRIC model. Results suggest support for the clustering hy-pothesis of the model, especially in Western countries.

“No two human groups experience more constant social differentiation thanmen and women” (Rudman & Glick, 2008, p. 6). Gender categorization cre-ates stereotypes and prescriptions about how men and women should think

Address correspondence to Jacob B. Priest, Florida State University, 225 Sandels Building,Tallahassee, FL 32306-1491. E-mail: [email protected]

152

CAGRIC Exploratory Evaluation 153

and behave (Lyness, Haddock, & Zimmerman, 2003). These gender-basedexpectations are carried into marital relationships (O’Donohue & Crouch,1996) and are likely to impact relational satisfaction based on an evalu-ation of whether or not these expectations are being met by one’s selfand one’s partner (Miller & Bermudez, 2004). Despite increased attentionto issues of gender within the Marriage and Family Therapy literature overthe past decade (Ferree, 2010), the influence of gender on clients in mak-ing important relational decisions continues to often be ignored (Miller &Bermudez, 2004). In order to fully understand how men and women functionwithin intimate relationships, it is necessary for therapists to address the waysin which gender roles influence the relationships of their clients (Miller &Bermudez, 2004; Rampage, 2002). Without this understanding, therapists mayperpetuate stereotypes and prescriptions that may inhibit change (Pressman,1989).

Cobb, Walsh, and Priest (2009) proposed the use of the Cognitive-Active Gender Role Identification Continuum (CAGRIC) model as a way ofaddressing gender role expectations within family therapy. The purpose ofthis study is to evaluate the hypotheses of the gender role classificationsfound in the CAGRIC model. Specifically, we use secondary data from aninternational data set to see if the classification patterns proposed in theCAGRIC model can be found in different countries.

THE COGNITIVE-ACTIVE GENDER ROLEIDENTIFICATION CONTINUUM

The CAGRIC model is conceptualized on two intersecting continuums: flex-ibility of cognition and flexibility of action (Cobb et al., 2009, see Figure 1).Traditional and nontraditional cognitions fall at opposite ends of the cogni-tion axis. As individuals move closer to the center of the axis, they displaygreater levels of flexibility. The same pattern holds true on the action axis.As individuals display greater levels of flexibility on both axes, they drawcloser to the zone of androgyny.

Flexibility of gender role cognition is exhibited in individuals who be-lieve it is acceptable to display behaviors that are both traditional and non-traditional for their gender. Flexible cognition is a component of androgynythat may or may not be accompanied by androgynous behavior. Rigidityof gender role cognition is exhibited in individuals who believe it is onlyacceptable to display behaviors that are traditional for their gender or that itis only acceptable to display behaviors that are gender-reversed. Individualswith cognitive rigidity may or may not act exclusively in ways that are eithertraditional or gender-reversed.

154 J. B. Priest et al.

FIGURE 1 The Cognitive-Active Gender Role Identification Continuum. (color figure avail-able online)

Flexibility of gender role action is exhibited when individuals adapt theirgender role behavior to meet the demands of a situation despite the femi-nine or masculine nature of that situation’s behavioral expectations. Flexibleaction is the behavioral component of androgyny. However, this behaviormay or may not be accompanied by cognitive gender role flexibility. Rigidityof gender role action is exhibited when individuals do not adapt their genderrole behavior in situations where it may be beneficial to do so. An individualwith rigid gender role actions consistently displays either solely traditionalor solely gender-reversed behaviors.

Quadrant 1 of the model consists of the interaction between highertraditional cognitive rigidity and higher gender-reversed action rigidity (Cobbet al., 2009). Individuals in this quadrant are more likely to believe thatthey should display traditional gender behaviors, yet due to circumstancethey participate in gender-reversed behavior. In the extreme portion of thisquadrant, individuals are likely to experience guilt, cognitive dissonance,and added levels of stress because of the inconsistency between their beliefsand actions.

Quadrant 2 consists of the interaction between higher gender-reversedcognitive rigidity and higher gender-reversed action rigidity (Cobb et al.,2009). Individuals in this quadrant are more likely to believe that they shoulddisplay gender-reversed behaviors, and their behaviors are more likely to begender-reversed. In the extreme portion of this quadrant, individuals arelikely to experience greater personal satisfaction due to the congruence oftheir thoughts and actions. However, if flexibility regarding gender roles is


required by circumstance, maladaptive behavior may result from an unwill-ingness to change behavior to meet the demands of the situation.

Quadrant 3 consists of the interaction between higher gender-reversedcognitive rigidity and higher traditional action rigidity (Cobb et al., 2009).Individuals in this quadrant are more likely to believe that they should dis-play gender-reversed behaviors, yet due to circumstance they participatein traditional gender role behavior. In the extreme portion of this quad-rant, individuals are likely to experience guilt, cognitive dissonance, andadded levels of stress because of the inconsistency between their beliefs andactions.

Quadrant 4 consists of the interaction between higher traditional cog-nitive rigidity and higher traditional action rigidity (Cobb et al., 2009). In-dividuals in this quadrant are more likely to believe that they should dis-play traditional gender role behaviors and their behaviors are more likelyto be traditional. In the extreme portion of this quadrant, individuals arelikely to experience greater personal satisfaction due to the congruence oftheir thoughts and actions. However, if flexibility regarding gender roles isrequired by circumstance, maladaptive behavior may result from an unwill-ingness to change behavior to meet the demands of the situation.

The Zone of Androgyny is the area in which individuals exhibit flexibilityin both cognitions and actions (Cobb et al., 2009). This zone is found at theintersection of the cognitive and active axes, and includes the surroundingarea. Individuals in this zone utilize their flexibility to more readily adaptto changing situations (Bem, 1974, 1975). Androgynous individuals are lesslikely to experience cognitive dissonance, guilt, or unrealistic expectationsdue to the flexibility of their attitudes.

The CAGRIC model (Cobb et al., 2009) suggests certain tenets whenclassifying and understanding gender roles. First, it suggests that cognitionsand actions are both important components of an individual’s gender role,and that an individual’s beliefs and attitudes may not be congruent with hisor her behavior. Second, the discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors maylead to cognitive dissonance, and cognitive dissonance may lead to lowerlevels of happiness for individuals and between partners. Third, while of-ten overlooked, flexibility is an important component of gender roles. Usingdichotomous classifications of gender roles, such as traditional and nontradi-tional, tends to ignore levels of flexibility, which can influence rigid genderrole stereotypes. The tenets of the CAGRIC model afford new classificationsof gender roles that encompass the interplay of cognitions and actions.

CURRENT STUDY

This study evaluates two hypothesis of the CAGRIC model. First, it evaluatesthe classification hypothesis, which suggests that individuals demonstrate


patterns of gender role classification centered on the congruence and incon-gruence of their thoughts and actions. According to this hypothesis, genderrole classifications should cluster according to the CAGRIC model’s fourquadrants. Second, this study evaluates the congruence hypothesis, whichsuggests that individuals with more congruent gender role beliefs and behav-iors will report higher levels of satisfaction than those with less congruency.

METHOD

Data for this study comes from the 2002 International Social Survey Program(ISSP) Family and Changing Gender Roles survey. This survey collected datafrom 39 countries and included more than 40,000 participants. Sampling pro-cedures for each country varied. For the seven countries used in the finalanalysis each employed methods of random sampling to create a represen-tative sample of the population from each country. Only the participantswho reported being married or cohabitating with a partner, and those whohad at least one child, were included in the final analysis. Each item usedin the analysis was coded to reflect a traditional or nontraditional Westerngender role. For example, if a man and a woman both responded that theyalways did the laundry, the score for the man would reflect a nontraditionalbehavior, whereas the score for the woman would reflect a traditional behav-ior. Lower scores represent more traditional beliefs or behaviors, and higherscores represent more nontraditional beliefs or behaviors. The analysis ofthis data contained four steps: scale creation, cluster analysis, ANOVA, andpost hoc tests.

Scale Creation

In order to observe the patterns of classification of the CAGRIC model, mea-sures of gender role beliefs, gender role behaviors, and levels of happinesswere needed. Participants from 39 countries (n = 12,286) were included infactor and reliability analyses to create a measure of gender role beliefs. Theresearchers selected ten items from the Family and Changing Gender Rolessurvey that best reflected the tenets of the CAGRIC model. A factor analysisproduced two gender role belief constructs, each with three items: WorkingMother Beliefs (α = .67) and Housework Beliefs (α = .60). The remainingfour items did not factor together (see Table 1).

Five items were used to measure gender role behaviors (i.e., House-work Behaviors; α = .88). These included questions regarding whether therespondent or the respondent’s partner does laundry, cares for sick familymembers, shops for groceries, does household cleaning, and prepares meals.Two items were used to create a variable reflecting happiness (α = .77).


TABLE 1 Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor Loadings

Working HouseworkItem Mother Beliefs Behaviors

A working mother warm relationship children .702 −.083Preschool children likely suffer if mother works .774 .288Family life suffers when woman has full time job .781 .203What women really what is home and kids .263 .726Household satisfies as much as paid job −.127 .788Work is best for women’s independence .007 −.070Both should contribute to household income −.72 −.015Men’s job is work, women’s job is household .352 .624Men should do a larger share of housework −.018 −.033Men should do a larger share of childcare .049 −.080Eigenvalues 2.451 1.207% of variance 24.512 12.073

Note. Factor loadings over .40 appear in bold.

These items include the following: 1) If you were to consider your life ingeneral, how happy or unhappy would you say you are, on the whole? 2)All things considered, how satisfied are you with your family life?

Cluster Analysis

Following the creation of the scales, a two-step cluster analysis was con-ducted to identify patterns of gender role beliefs and gender role behaviors.The three construct variables were standardized and used in the two-stepcluster analysis. The number of clusters was fixed at four, to reflect thefour quadrants of the CAGRIC model, excluding the Zone of Androgyny.Log-likelihood was used as the distance measure and noise handling wasemployed to account for outliers.

Participants

Participants from 7 countries were included in the analyses: Australia (n =687), Brazil (n = 537), Israel (n = 669), Japan (n = 596), Russia (n = 757),Spain (n = 1047), and the United States (n = 431). These countries werechosen based on their diverse cultures and geographic locations, a moreeven distribution of male and female participants, and similar number ofrespondents (see Table 2).

ANOVA and Post hoc Tests

Following the cluster analyses, the researchers explored if there were signifi-cant differences in reported levels of happiness between the clusters for each


TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics for Sample From Each Country

Country n % Female % Male Mean Age

Australia 687 50.5 49.5 50.5Brazil 537 50.9 49.1 44.17Israel 669 57.4 42.6 47.87Japan 596 52.5 47.5 53.23Russia 757 54.6 45.4 47.46Spain 1047 51.7 48.3 52.25United States 431 54.8 41.6 47.6

country. Using the measure of happiness, ANOVA and post hoc tests wereconducted comparing the clusters to evaluate the congruence hypothesis ofthe CAGRIC model.

RESULTS

Each country’s cluster analysis includes a figure showing the findings in-terpreted through the lens of the CAGRIC model. These figures include aseries of means scores. The bottom left-hand side of each figure contains theoverall means for the country. These scores reflect the overall mean scoresof gender role beliefs and gender role behaviors for the individuals in theparticular country. Lower mean scores reflect more traditional gender rolebeliefs and behaviors. Higher mean scores reflect more nontraditional beliefsand behaviors. In the middle of each figure are two intersecting lines, repre-senting the cognitive and active axes of the CAGRIC model. These are usedto create the four quadrants of the CAGRIC model. Each quadrant containsthe mean scores of each of the measures. The researchers compared themean scores on each of the three measures in each cluster to the overallmean score of the particular country. Those whose beliefs and behaviorswere most reflective of Quadrant I of the CAGRIC model were labeled asbeing in Cluster I and were put in the upper left corner of the model. Thisprocess continued for the three remaining clusters (see Figures 2–8 for theresults for Australia, Brazil, Israel, Japan, Russia, Spain, and the United Statesrespectively).

The pattern of clustering shown by the analysis supports the groupinghypothesis. The results indicate that there is at least one cluster where thereis a discrepancy between gender role beliefs and behaviors in each of thecountries examined. The clusters formed by participants from Australia andthe United States show the strongest support for the clustering hypothesis,with almost all of the clusters following the pattern suggested by the CAGRICmodel. It should be noted, however, that the results of the cluster analysis donot indicate that differences between each cluster are statistically significant.


Cluster I – 35.4% Mean SD Cluster II – 27.8% Mean SDWorking Mother Beliefs 6.61 1.67 Working Mother Beliefs 11.61 1.70Housework Beliefs 8.52 2.06 Housework Beliefs 10.39 2.10Housework Behaviors 11.36 2.76 Housework Behaviors 13.26 2.50

Cluster IV – 14.8% Mean SD Cluster III – 21.1% Mean SDWorking Mother Beliefs 7.54 2.18 Working Mother Beliefs 12.04 1.72Housework Beliefs 6.64 1.73 Housework Beliefs 10.85 1.89Housework Behaviors 6.11 1.36 Housework Behaviors 7.39 1.82

Overall Group Mean SDWorking Mother Beliefs 9.31 3.05Housework Beliefs 9.25 2.48Housework Behaviors 10.39 3.81

FIGURE 2 Australia clusters.

The purpose of the cluster analysis was not to suggest statistical significance,but to look for patterns of classification.

ANOVA and post hoc tests were then conducted for each of the sevencountries to examine the congruence hypothesis. The ANOVA comparedthe respondents in each cluster to determine if there were any significant


Cluster IV – 9.3% Mean SD Cluster III – 8% Mean SDWorking Mother Beliefs 3.24 0.55 Working Mother Beliefs 7.81 1.74Housework Beliefs 4.80 1.90 Housework Beliefs 3.23 0.43Housework Behaviors 7.54 2.40 Housework Behaviors 5.26 0.66


FIGURE 3 Brazil clusters.





FIGURE 4 Israel clusters.

differences regarding levels of happiness between clusters. Lower scoresindicated higher levels of happiness, and higher scores indicated lowerlevels of happiness. No significant comparisons were found for the Aus-tralian, Japanese, and Russian clusters. However, significant comparisons

Cluster I – 33.6% Mean SD Cluster II – 26% Mean SDWorking Mother Beliefs 7.87 2.27 Working Mother Beliefs 13.29 1.79Housework Beliefs 6.10 1.86 Housework Beliefs 9.50 1.71Housework Behaviors 8.42 3.47 Housework Behaviors 10.88 2.78



FIGURE 5 Japan clusters.

FIG

UR

E6

Russ

iacl

ust

ers.

161


Cluster I – 25% Mean SD Cluster II – 32% Mean SDWorking Mother Beliefs 6.79 1.77 Working Mother Beliefs 9.21 2.50Housework Beliefs 6.25 1.35 Housework Beliefs 11.11 2.02Housework Behaviors 7.99 3.16 Housework Behaviors 13.60 3.32



FIGURE 7 Spain clusters.

were found for Brazil, F(4, 527) = 3.81, p < .01, Israel, F(4, 652) = 2.355, p =.053, Spain, F(4, 1035) = 5.81, p < .001, and the United States, F(4, 424) =2.33, p = .055.

Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc testing. For Brazil, cluster 1 wassignificantly higher than cluster 4 (MD = .64, p < .05), and cluster 3 was




FIGURE 8 United States clusters.


significantly higher than cluster 4 (MD = .80, p < .05). No significant differ-ences between clusters were found for the Israeli respondents. Spain’s cluster1 was significantly higher than cluster 4 (MD = .55, p < .04), and cluster 2was significantly higher than cluster 4 (MD = .53, p < .05). For the UnitedStates, a significant difference was found between clusters 2 and 3, withthose in cluster 2 reporting significantly higher levels of happiness (MD =.64, p < .05).

DISCUSSION

Results of the analysis support many tenets proposed in the CAGRIC model.First, each country contained clusters of individuals whose gender role be-liefs and behaviors were incongruent. This suggests that gender role beliefsand behaviors do not always align, demonstrating the importance of exam-ining the interplay of gender role beliefs and behaviors (Jain et al., 1996;Magnusson, 1995).

Second, the analysis of gender role beliefs and behaviors follows thepattern of the four quadrants of the CAGRIC model. Clusters formed by par-ticipants in Australia and the United States corresponded to these quadrants.Clusters formed by participants from Israel, Japan, Russia, and Spain weresimilar to the CAGRIC model, but were not as well-defined as those fromAustralia and the United States. Clusters formed by Brazilian participantswere the least similar to those proposed by the CAGRIC model. While thepurpose of this study was not to compare gender roles between countries,the results indicate that the quadrants of the CAGRIC model are a better fitfor Western, industrialized nations.

Third, clusters that did not follow the CAGRIC pattern may demonstratethe importance of acknowledging flexibility in gender roles. For example,in Japan and Spain, cluster 4 was composed of individuals with traditionalbeliefs and behaviors regarding housework, but nontraditional beliefs re-garding working mothers. This may suggest greater flexibility in thought andaction. These results may also indicate that some women in this group wouldbe comfortable working outside the home, but would also be comfortablestaying home and doing housework. The men in these clusters also reportedtraditional beliefs and behaviors about housework, but nontraditional beliefsabout working women. This may suggest an attitude that condones womenworking the “second shift” (Hochschild & Machung, 1989), or the idea thatwomen may work outside of the house, while still holding the expectationthat women will do the majority of housework.

Those in cluster 3 in both Russia and Israel also exhibited gender roleflexibility. These clusters included individuals with more androgynous beliefsand behaviors. It may be that the flexibility of thoughts allows these individ-uals to have more androgynous behaviors, or it may be that circumstanceshave influenced them to have more androgynous behavior.


Fourth, the results of this study demonstrate mixed support for the ideathat congruence of gender role thought and action leads to higher inter-personal and intrapersonal satisfaction. The results for participants from theUnited States support the CAGRIC hypothesis. Those with nontraditionalbeliefs and behaviors (cluster 2) reported significantly higher levels of hap-piness than did those with nontraditional beliefs and traditional behaviors(cluster 3). Therefore, those with greater congruence reported being happierthan those with incongruent beliefs and behaviors. However, the same didnot hold true for participants in other countries.

Brazilian participants also had significant differences in reported levelsof happiness between clusters. Those with traditional beliefs and nontra-ditional behaviors (cluster 1) reported higher levels of happiness than didthose with traditional beliefs and behaviors (cluster 4). Interestingly, indi-viduals in cluster 4 reported the most traditional beliefs of any cluster forBrazilian participants. This finding may be indicative of the problems createdwhen gender roles become rigid. While those in cluster 4 had congruenceof belief and action, the inflexibility of their beliefs may lead to conflict oradded stress. Brazilian respondents with nontraditional beliefs and behaviors(cluster 2) also reported higher levels of happiness than did those with tradi-tional beliefs and behaviors (cluster 4). Again, this may speak to the rigidityof beliefs of those in cluster 4. While both clusters demonstrate congruence,those in cluster 2 reported beliefs and behaviors that were not as extreme asthose in cluster 4.

There were also significant differences in reported levels of happinessbetween clusters for participants from Spain. While these differences supportthe idea that congruence leads to higher levels of satisfaction, the reasonsfor the differences appear to be different than those previously discussed.Additionally, those in clusters 1 and 2 reported significantly higher levels ofhappiness than did those in cluster 4. Those in clusters 1 and 2 had morecongruent thoughts and behaviors than those in cluster 4 who reported tra-ditional Housework Beliefs and Behaviors, but nontraditional Beliefs AboutWorking Mothers. This may suggest that incongruence between differentaspects of gender role beliefs may also lead to cognitive dissonance andtherefore decreased levels of happiness.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COUPLE AND FAMILY THERAPY

Cobb et al. (2009) suggest the use of the CAGRIC model in overcomingissues rooted in gender identity and couple conflict regarding role expec-tations. This study supports the tenets of the CAGRIC model and suggeststhat many people experience an incongruence of gender role beliefs andbehaviors, potentially affecting levels of personal happiness. Issues stem-ming from gender role incongruence may be directly related to resenting


problems in couples therapy. Using the CAGRIC model as a framework toguide discussion about gender may help increase understanding of the waysin which their gender role beliefs and behaviors affect personal happinessand interpersonal functioning.

Although modern day relationships tend to be more egalitarian thanthose in the past, couples continue to struggle in establishing a “distributionof responsibilities in the relationship” (Rampage, 1994, p. 135). For exam-ple, when women earn more money than their husbands they tend to domore household work in order to compensate for their deviation from thegendered norm of men earning more money than women (Bittman et al.,2003). The desire to maintain a collaborative relationship necessitates con-versations regarding expectations of one another’s contributions to the re-lationship, many of which may be related to beliefs associated with genderroles. These conversations may be especially important when establishing anew relationship, preparing for marriage, or when couples present in therapywith problems regarding gender role expectations

CASE EXAMPLE

The following is a hypothetical example of how the CAGRIC model may beused in therapy with a couple experiencing conflict regarding gender roles.Cindy, 36, and Justin, 42, presented in therapy with a complaint of maritalconflict. Cindy explained that things were fine in their relationship whenJustin was working and she was staying at home with their two children (2and 4) and helping to care for Justin’s elderly father. Cindy stated that thingsstarted to change in their relationship when Justin lost his job and Cindystarted working to help pay the bills. Justin explained that he wanted to goback to work, but that Cindy wanted to continue working, especially sinceshe got a raise. Both clients expressed the desire to have someone stay athome to care for their family, but disagreed as to who should take on thisrole.

The therapist discussed with the clients their expectations regardinggender roles and the influence of these expectations on their current re-lational functioning (for a list a potential questions to guide this type ofdiscussion, see Cobb et al., 2009). Prior to Justin’s job loss, his traditionalgender role rigidity in both thought and action placed him in the fourthquadrant of the model. At this time, Cindy’s display of flexible cognitionsand higher traditional gender role behaviors placed her between quadrantsthree and four. When Justin lost his job and was unable to take on his role as“provider” for the family, he moved up the first quadrant of the model, main-taining traditional cognitive rigidity, but displaying gender-reversed behav-iors. After Cindy started working, she began to display more gender-reversedbehaviors, but maintained her flexibility in cognitions regarding acceptable


work roles of men and women, moving her up between quadrants one andtwo. Cindy’s behaviors were consistent with her flexible thoughts regardingthe work roles of men and women, and thought that it only made sensefor her to continue working if she enjoyed it and would be making moremoney than Justin did at his previous place of employment. However, dueto the fact that Justin’s thoughts were inconsistent with his actions, he experi-enced cognitive dissonance that created both intrapersonal and interpersonalconflict.

Over the course of therapy, the therapist discussed with the clients thesources of their gender role expectations and the ways in which they wereand were not accepting of flexibility in this area. Eventually, Justin beganto shift his understanding of a man’s role as provider to one of caring forhis family, which also included caring for his children and father, movinghim closer to the zone of androgyny. While he did take on a part time job,he maintained the primary role of caregiver in his family, allowing Cindy tocontinue working at the job that she so much enjoyed.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

While the study included a large number of participants, its use of secondarydata creates limitations. Gender role beliefs influence many aspects of life,but the items used in this study did not address many of these aspects. Fur-ther, the scales created from the gender role belief items did not demonstratedesired reliability. However, as Streiner (1989) suggested the alpha level isoften influenced by the number of items on a scale. Due to the small num-ber of items on each scale, the researchers felt that the alpha levels obtainedwere sufficient enough use in the cluster analysis. The items regarding gen-der role behaviors were also limited. These items only addressed houseworkand neglected other important behavior aspects of gender. Future studiesneed to include reliable scales that ask questions about more aspects ofgender role beliefs and behaviors.

This study also lacked a way to measure androgyny and flexibility.One of the most important tenets of the CAGRIC model is that gender roleactions and cognitions can shift and change. The nature of the data madesuch inferences difficult, and future studies aimed at testing the CAGRICmodel should incorporate methods that allow for this type of examination.

While the inclusion of many participants from many countries was astrength of the study, it also created limitations. Using a Western modelmeans assuming it is traditional for a woman to do housework and for a manto work outside the home. This assumption makes cross-cultural applicationdifficult (Kerig et al., 1993). Also, use of the traditional and gender-reversedlanguage of the CAGRIC model may not be applicable to all cultures. Someindividuals may not associate the beliefs and behaviors asked about in the


study with gender, so assuming we can use gender as a lens to explain thesebeliefs and behaviors may prove difficult in many cultures.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study support the tenets of the CAGRIC model and suggestthat it may provide therapists with a useful framework to address genderroles in therapy. Using the CAGRIC model in therapy may help individuals,couples, and families overcome gender role stereotypes, achieve increasedflexibility in division of household labor, and decrease stress and conflict thatmay result from an incongruence of gender role expectations and behaviors.

REFERENCES

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 155–162.

Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androg-yny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634–643.

Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., & Matheson, G. (2003). When doesgender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Jour-nal of Sociology, 109, 186–214.

Cobb, R. A., McNally, C. E., & Priest, J. B. (2009). The Cognitive-Active Gender RoleIdentification Continuum. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 29, 77–97.

Ferree, M. M. (2010). Filling the glass: Gender perspectives on families. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 72, 420–439.

Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift. New York, NY: PenguinBooks.

International Social Survey Programme. (2002). Family and Changing Gender RolesIII Codebook. Retrieved March 2009 from http://www.gesis.org/ZA

Jain, A., Belsky, J., & Cmic, K. (1996). Beyond fathering behaviors: Types of dads.Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 431–442.

Kerig, P. K., Alyoshina, Y. Y., & Volovich, A. S. (1993). Gender-role socializationin contemporary Russia: Implications for cross-cultural research. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 17, 389–408.

Lyness, K. P., Haddock, S. A., & Zimmerman, T. S. (2003). Contextual issues inmarriage and family therapy: Gender, culture, and spirituality. In L. L. Hecker& J. L. Wetchler (Eds.), An introduction to marriage and family therapy (pp.409–448). Binghamton, NY: Hawthorn Press.

Magnusson, D. (1995). Individual development: A holistic integrated model. In P.Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Linking lives and contexts: Perspectiveson ecology of human development (pp. 19–60). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Miller, M. M., & Bermudez, J. M. (2004). Intersecting gender and social ex-change theory in family therapy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 16, 35–42.


O’Donohue, W., & Crouch, J. L. (1996). Marital therapy and gender-linked factors incommunication. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 87–101.

Pressman, B. (1989). Power and ideological issues in intervening with assaultedwomen. In B. Pressman, G. Cameron, & M. Rothery (Eds.), Intervening withassaulted women: Current theory, research, and practice (pp. 9–19). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rampage, C. (1994). Power, gender, and marital intimacy. Journal of Family Therapy,16, 125–137.

Rampage, C. (2002). Working with gender in couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman &N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp.533–545). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender. New York, NY:The Guilford Press.

Streiner, D. L. (1989). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their develop-ment and use. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

an exploratory evaluation of the cognitive-active gender role identification continuum

Documents