The Bem Sex-Role Inventory: propuesta de una versión corta en español
Resumen
El objetivo del estudio fue examinar la estructura factorial, la confiabilidad y proporcionar alguna evidencia de validez de la versión en español del Inventario de Roles Sexuales de Bem (BSRI), que evalúa la autodescripción en términos de rasgos de género. Una muestra de 2.672 participantes españoles, adultos heterosexuales (1.289 hombres, 1.383 mujeres) distribuidos en cuatro grupos de edad (18-25, 26-35, 36-55, 56 años o más), completó una versión en español de 40 ítems del BSRI. Se propone una escala de 8 ítems con estructura bidimensional: Masculinidad (M) y Feminidad (F). Ambos factores presentan una fiabilidad adecuada. Con respecto a la evidencia de validez, los hombres (vs. las mujeres) obtuvieron puntuaciones más altas en M y las mujeres (vs. los hombres) en F. Las puntuaciones M fueron más altas para los participantes menores de 56 años. No se encontraron diferencias en las puntuaciones F entre grupos de edad. Discutimos la utilidad de esta medida para evaluar las diferencias interindividuales, según el sexo y la edad, en la autoatribución de los rasgos de género tradicionales.
Descargas
Citas
Ahmed, T., Vafaei, A., Belanger, E., Phillips, S. P., & Zunzunegui, M. V. (2016). Bem sex role inventory validation in the international mobility in aging study. Canadian Journal on Aging/La revue canadienne du vieillissement, 35, 348-360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980816000404
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2, 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
Álvarez-Muelas, A., Gómez-Berrocal, C., & Sierra, J. C. (2021). Study of sexual satisfaction in different tipologies of adherence to the sexual double standard. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 609571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.609571
Arcos-Romero, A. I., & Sierra, J. C. (2020). Factors associated with subjective orgasm experience in heterosexual relationships. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 46, 314-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1711273
Asbrock, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of Personality, 24, 324-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.746
Ashenhurst, J. R., Wilhite, E. R., Harden, K. P., & Fromme, K. (2017). Number of sexual partners and relationship status are associated with unprotected sex across emerging adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0692-8
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Beacon Press
Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the Performance of Maximum Likelihood Versus Means and Variance Adjusted Weighted Least Squares Estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1047-1054. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.1047
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364. https://doi.org10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15, 239-260.
Calvillo, C., Sánchez-Fuentes, M. M., Parrón-Carreño, T., & Sierra, J. C. (2020). Validation of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire in adults with a same-sex partner. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 20, 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2019.07.005
Caricati, L. (2007). The relationship between social dominance orientation and gender: The mediating role of social values. Sex Roles, 57, 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9231-3
Carlier, I. V. E., van Eeden, W. A., de Jong, K., Giltay, E. J., van Noorden, M. S., van der Feltz-Cornelis, C., & van Hemert, A. M. (2019). Testing for response shift in treatment evaluation of change in self-reported psychopathology amongst secondary psychiatric care outpatients. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 28, Article e1785. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1785
Choi, N., & Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 872-887.
Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R. & Newman, J. L. (2007). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 818-832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406299106
Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2009). Exploratory and confirmatory studies of the structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory short form with two divergent samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 696-705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332218
Colley, A., Mulhern, G., Maltby, J., & Wood, A. M. (2009). The short form BSRI: Instrumentality, expressiveness and gender associations among a United Kingdom sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 384-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.005
Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 76, 556-565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 458–476). Sage Publications.
Fernández, J. (2011). Un siglo de investigaciones sobre masculinidad y feminidad: una revisión crítica [A century of research on masculinity and femininity: A critical review]. Psicothema, 23, 167-172.
http://www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=3866
Fernández, J., & Coello, M. T. (2010). Do the BSRI and PAQ really measure masculinity and femininity. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 1000-1009. https://doi.org/10.1017/S113874160000264X
Fernández, J., Quiroga, M. Á., Del Olmo, I., & Rodriguez, A. (2007). Escalas de masculinidad y feminidad: estado actual de la cuestión [Masculinity and femininity scales: Current state of the art]. Psicothema, 19, 357-365.
Ferrer-Pérez, V. A., & Bosch-Fiol, E. (2014). The measure of the masculinity–femininity construct today: Some reflections on the case of the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Revista de Psicología Social, 29, 180-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2013.878569
Gazendam, N., Cleverley, K., King, N., Pickett, W., & Phillips, S. P. (2020). Individual and social determinants of early sexual activity: A study of gender-based differences using the 2018 Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Study (HBSC). Plos One, 15, Article e0238515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238515
Helgeson, V. S. (2015). Gender and personality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, L. M. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Personality processes and individual differences) (Vol. 4, pp. 515–534). American Psychological Association.
Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011
Hirschfeld, G., & von Brachel, R. (2014). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis in R-A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19, 1–12 https://doi.org/10.7275/qazy-2946
Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2001.12069021
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0319-7
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209-232. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 371-392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215
Lee, D., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2015). Factor structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory in samples of ethnically diverse young adults in the US. Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling, 5,1-22 https://doi.org/10.18401/2015.5.1.1
Lorente, L. M., Paz, Y. M., & Arencibia, Y. S. V. (2020). Ciencia y Tecnología: la brecha de género en Europa y América Latina [Science and Technology: gender gaps in Europe and Latin America]. Atenas, 1, 135-150.
Manrique, R. D., & Semenova, N. (2015). Psychometric properties and structural validity of the short version of the Personality Belief Questionnaire (PBQ-SF). International Journal of Psychological Research, 8, 48–59.
Marks, M. J. (2008). Evaluations of sexually active men and women under divided attention: A social cognitive approach to the sexual double standard. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701866664
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2020). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological Science, Article 1745691620902442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620902442
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Quackenbush, D.M. (2011). Sexual Double Standard Scale. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3th ed., pp. 199-201). Routledge.
Parsons, T., & Bales, M. (1955). Familiy. Socialization and Interaction Process. Free Press
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A Personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Sánchez-Fuentes, M. M., Moyano, N., Granados., R, & Sierra, J. C. (2019). Validation of the Spanish Version of the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX) using self-reported and psychophysiological measures. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 10, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.23923/j.rips.2019.01.021
Schmitt, D. P., Long, A. E., McPhearson, A., O'Brien, K., Remmert, B., & Shah, S. H. (2017). Personality and gender differences in global perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 52, 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12265
Sevi, B., Aral, T., & Eskenazi, T. (2018). Exploring the hook-up app: Low sexual disgust and high sociosexuality predict motivation to use Tinder for casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 17-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.053
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti‐egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross‐cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 41-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::AID-EJSP976>3.0.CO;2-O
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 845-880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x
Silván-Ferrero, M. P., & Bustillos, A. (2007). Adaptación de la Escala de Orientación a la Dominancia Social al castellano [Adaptation of The Social Dominance Orientation scale into Spanish: Validation of Group-Based Dominance and Opposition to Equality as underlying factor]. Revista de Psicología Social, 22, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347407779697485
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes what do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076857
Stroope, S., McFarland, M. J., & Uecker, J. E. (2015). Marital characteristics and the sexual relationships of US older adults: An analysis of national social life, health, and aging project data. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0379-y
Strough, J., Leszczynski, J. P., Neely, T. L., Flinn, J. A., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles, 57, 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9282-5
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Twenge, J. (1997). Changes inmasculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766650
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73, 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2
Derechos de autor 2022 Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia (España)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. El Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (la editorial) conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2022
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (texto legal). Se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que: i) se cite la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial y URL de la obra); ii) no se usen para fines comerciales; iii) se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente las versiones pre-print (versión antes de ser evaluada y enviada a la revista) y/o post-print (versión evaluada y aceptada para su publicación) de sus obras antes de su publicación, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión más temprana y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica. Color RoMEO: verde.
