Regional Differences in Gender-Role Attitudes:

Variations by Gender and Race

J. Jill Suitor*

Dorothy Mecom

Susana Guerra

Kim Gusman

Department of Sociology

Louisiana State University

We wish to thank Scott Feld, Yoshinori Kamo, Michael Patterson, Karl Pillemer, and Monisa
Shackelford for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Please direct all correspondence to J. Jill Suitor, Department of Sociology, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (jsuitor@lsu.edu).
 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN GENDER-ROLE ATTITUDES:

VARIATIONS BY GENDER AND RACE

Abstract

In this paper we use data from the General Social Survey (1977-1998) to examine the

effects of region on gender-role attitudes, focusing on variations by gender and race. The

findings contribute to a growing literature demonstrating the continuation of a distinctive

southern culture which includes more traditional gender-role attitudes. Further, the findings

indicate that region plays as important a role in explaining Black women’s gender-role attitudes

as those of white men and women. In contrast to our hypotheses, both southern Black and white

women held substantially more traditional gender-role attitudes than did their northern

counterparts, suggesting that the persistence of southern distinctiveness cannot be accounted for

entirely by the continuing conservativeness of white southern men.

 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN GENDER-ROLE ATTITUDES:

VARIATIONS BY GENDER AND RACE

Sociologists have long expressed an interest in regional differences in attitudes and

behaviors—particularly differences between "Southern" and "Northern" cultures. Studies of

regional differences in actual behaviors and beliefs about the existence of regional differences

have shown several consistent patterns across the past three decades. Southerners are expected,

both by themselves and by non-Southerners, to be more sociable (Reed 1972, 1993), religious

(Reed 1972, 1993), traditional regarding both moral issues and gender roles (Hurlbert 1989;

Hurlbert and Bankston, 1998; Twenge 1997), and "fun-loving" (Reed 1972, 1993).

While much of the literature has focused on the existence of regional differences, a new

line of work in this area has begun exploring changes in the strength of these differences across

time. These studies have shown with great consistency that social attitudes have become less

conservative across time throughout the country, and that regional differences on these issues

have declined (DiMaggio, Evans, and Bryson 1996; Rice and Coates 1995; Weakliem and

Biggert 1999). Four of these studies have included the attitudes regarding women’s roles

(Hurlbert 1989; Hurlbert and Bankston 1998; DiMaggio et al. 1996; Rice and Coates 1995).

Using consecutive cross-sectional data from the General Social Survey, all four studies reported

that Southerners continue to hold more traditional gender-role attitudes than do the rest of the

country, but that regional differences have become less pronounced across time.

Two issues that these studies did not examine were whether regional differences in

gender-role attitudes vary by gender and race, and whether the degree of change in regionality

across time differs across subgroups. Research on subgroup differences in gender-role attitudes

1
suggest that there may, in fact, be such variations in regionality (cf. Kozimor-King and Leicht

1999; Suitor and Carter 1999; Twenge 1997), as well as in changes in regionality across time

(Kozimor-King and Leicht 1999; Twenge 1997). The purpose of this paper is to address these

two questions, using data from the General Social Survey from 1977 to 1998.

Gender, Race, Regionality, and Gender-Role Attitudes

Theoretical and empirical literatures provide strong justification for exploring predictors

of gender-role attitudes separately by gender and race. This line of work argues that attitudes

vary by race and gender, and that somewhat different factors affect attitudes across these

subgroups, leading to the expectation that region might also have differential effects by race and

gender.

Gender and Regionality. The theoretical literature on gender has argued for several

decades that men’s and women’s perceptions differ considerably, almost certainly producing

differences in attitudes. Across the past three decades, discussions ranging from scholarly

discourses by Chodorow (1978), Gilligan (1982; 1990) and Hey (1997) to popular books, such as

Gray's Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (1992) and Tannen's You Just Don't

Understand (1990) have suggested that men’s and women’s perceptions differ, particularly

regarding social phenomena. Specifically, they have argued that faced with the same

information, men and women, as well as boys and girls, develop markedly different

interpretations of the salient characteristics and meanings of social situations.

Consistently, empirical research has supported these theoretical arguments by revealing

substantial differences in women’s and men’s attitudes and perceptions regarding social issues,

particularly gender-role attitudes (Beutel and Marini 1995; DiMaggio, Evans, and Bryson 1996;

2
Kane 1992; Pratto, Stallworth, and Sidanius 1997; Rice and Coates 1995; Suitor, Carter, and

Minyard, 2000). Specifically, this work has shown that women’s gender-role attitudes are more

egalitarian than are men’s regarding family roles, women’s employment, and women’s

participation in broader societal context, such as in the political arena.

Further, the factors that explain gender-role attitudes vary somewhat by gender. Some

factors, such as age, educational attainment, and religiosity have been found to be important in

explaining both women’s and men’s attitudes (Liao and Cai 1995; Willetts-Bloom and Nock

1994). However, marital status and employment status, which are important predictors of

women’s gender-role attitudes are of no consequence in terms of men’s attitudes (Kiecolt and

Acock 1988; Blee and Tickamyer 1995).

This literature indicates clearly that there are gender differences in both gender-role

attitudes and their predictors, but this does not provide a clear basis for developing specific

hypotheses regarding differences in the effects of region on women and men. However, findings

regarding regional differences in attitudes can be used as a basis for developing hypotheses

regarding the interaction of gender and region. In particular, although both women and men are

exposed to the more traditional attitudes generally held in the south, behavioral expectations

regarding gender for southern women are substantially more clearly defined and more culturally

mandated than they are for men (cf. Suitor and Carter 1999).

In sum, the men’s and women’s gender-role attitudes appear to diverge and are explained

by a somewhat different set of factors. This, combined with the greater emphasis of

traditionalism for women than for men in the south led us to anticipate that the effect of region

on gender-role attitudes would be greater for women than for men.

3
 Race and Regionality. The literature on race and gender-role attitudes provides a far less

consistent picture than does the literature on gender and attitudes. Theoretical arguments suggest

that Blacks, because of their less privileged position in American society, are more sensitive to

social issues, particularly those involving inequality (Hunter and Sellers 1998; Kamo and Cohen

1996; Kane 1992). On this basis, the argument could be made that for both men and women,

Blacks would be expected to hold more egalitarian gender-role attitudes. However, alternatively,

some scholars presenting theoretical perspectives on gender and race have emphasized that the

less predictable economic status faced by Black men than white men may lead them to be mixed

in their attitudes toward women’s roles–supportive of women’s employment, out of necessity,

but traditional in terms of women’s family roles with the goal of providing a venue in which

Black men can exert some sense of power and control (Kamo and Cohen 1996; Wade 1996).

The somewhat contradictory theoretical arguments regarding Black men’s attitudes have

been well supported by the empirical literature. Consistently, Black men have been found to hold

more egalitarian attitudes than white men regarding women’s employment, while simultaneously

holding the same or more traditional attitudes regarding women’s family roles than have their

white counterparts (Blee and Tickamyer 1995; Kamo and Cohen 1996; Kane 1992; Rice and

Coates 1995). Further confusing the picture is the finding that Black men contribute more to

domestic labor than do white men (Hossain and Roopnarine 1993; John, Shelton, and Luschen

1995; Kamo and Cohen 1996; Shelton and John 1993).

The pattern differs somewhat for Black women. Black women have been found to hold

the most egalitarian attitudes of all four gender/race combinations regarding women’s

4
employment, but hold the same, or in some cases, slightly more traditional attitudes than white

women regarding family roles (Kane 1992; Rice and Coates 1995). However, despite the slightly

greater traditionalism regarding family roles, Black women’s overall gender-role attitudes scores

consistently place them as the most egalitarian of all four race/gender groups (Hunter and Sellers

1998; Kamo and Cohen 1996; Kane 1992; Rice and Coates 1995).

Although there are some inconsistencies, this literature suggests that Black men and

women hold more liberal attitudes, overall, than do their white counterparts, although the race

difference is not consistent across all dimensions of gender-role attitudes. However, this does

not address the question of whether the effects of region on gender-role attitudes vary by race.

The theoretical argument discussed above regarding social disadvantage (Hunter and Sellers

1998; Kamo and Cohen 1996; Kane 1992) leads to the hypothesis that there will be a

substantially greater effect of region on Black men’s than white men’s gender-role attitudes, with

southern Black men holding more egalitarian attitudes. This is because being at a societal

disadvantage increases sensitivity to social issues, and Black men in the south are at a greater

disadvantage, relative to white men, than are Black men in other regions (Kuklinski et al. 1997).

However, classic relative deprivation arguments (cf. Hegtvedt and Markovsky 1995;

Snow and Oliver 1995) would lead to the opposite hypothesis. Relative deprivation theories

suggest that individuals or members of groups who are objectively not disadvantaged may

nevertheless perceive themselves as disadvantaged because their experiences are not

commensurate with their expectations or with the individuals or groups to whom they compare

themselves. Thus, although Black men in the north may face fewer objective obstacles to

equality than do their southern counterparts, their expectations may be higher than those of

5
southern Blacks, leading to perceptions of greater inequality. On this basis, we would expect not

only that region would affect Black men more strongly than their white counterparts, but that the

effect would be greatest on northern Black men.

Taken together, both of these theoretical arguments lead us to anticipate that region will

have a greater effect on Black than on white men. However, they also lead us to two equally

plausible alternative arguments regarding whether southern or northern Black men will hold

more egalitarian gender-role attitudes. Therefore, we will examine both of these alternative

hypotheses rather than proposing only one.

We believe that the same arguments can be used to develop parallel alternative

hypotheses regarding the relationships among race, region, and attitudes for women. Thus, as in

the case of men, we will explore both hypotheses, rather than proposing a single hypothesis. It is

important to note that anticipating egalitarian attitudes among Black southern women might

initially appear to contradict our earlier hypothesis regarding greater traditionalism among

southern women. However, the expectation of greater pressure toward traditionalism for women

in the south grows from a “southern belle” tradition that was specific to white women; thus, for

Black women, privilege and sensitivity to inequality may be stronger than regional pressures

toward traditional femininity.

Differential Changes in Gender-Role Attitudes Across Time

The final issue that we address in the analysis is differential changes in gender-role

attitudes across time; specifically, do changes in regional differences in gender-role attitudes vary

by either gender or race? Twenge’s (1997) and Kozimor-King and Leicht’s (1999) investigations

provide the greatest insight on these issues, although they do not provide an entirely consistent

6
picture of change. Both studies focused on changes in gender-role attitudes across time, one

using the General Social Survey (Kozimor-King and Leicht 1999) and the other using data from

published reports of college students’ attitudes (Twenge 1997).

Both studies reported that gender-role attitudes had become more egalitarian across time;

however, the subgroup variations in change across time were not mirrored in the two studies.

Kozimor-King and Leicht’s analysis, using data on women only, revealed a somewhat

inconsistent pattern. Change was greatest among two subgroups—those that began with the most

traditional attitudes, specifically, women who were older and who were married, and, conversely,

women with nontraditional jobs, who began with egalitarian attitudes. Twenge’s (1997) meta-

analysis using data on both women and men revealed patterns that were both internally

inconsistent and inconsistent with Kozimor-King and Leicht’s findings. In contrast to Kozimor-

King and Leicht, Twenge found that men, the gender subgroup that began with the most

traditional attitudes, showed substantially less change than did women. However, Twenge’s

analyses of regional differences suggested a pattern of greatest change among those who began

with the most traditional attitudes—southern women experienced the greatest overall change,

beginning with scores substantially more traditional than those of women in other regions in the

early 1970s and moving to parity with women from other regions by the mid 1990s.

Taken together, these studies do not provide a consistent pattern of empirical findings

upon which to base hypotheses regarding which of the four race/gender subgroups will

experience the greatest effect of the interaction between region and time. The predominant

pattern shown by these studies suggests that the interactive effect of region and time will be

greatest among women, however, it is not clear whether the effects will be larger for Black or

7
white women. Similarly, we do not feel that there is a sufficiently sound empirical basis from

these studies to develop hypotheses regarding differential effects of this interaction on Black and

white men.

In the absence of clear empirical findings upon which to base our hypotheses, we will

return to the theoretical arguments outlined above regarding the effects of relative privilege and

social sensitivity. This perspective would lead us to hypothesize that the greatest effect of the

interaction of time and region would be among white men, who, as a group, would have begun

with the greatest relative privilege and most traditional attitudes in 1977, followed by white

women, Black men, and finally Black women, who began with low privilege and, overall, the

most egalitarian gender-role attitudes.

Summary of Hypotheses

To summarize, we have developed the following set of hypotheses:

1. The effect of region on gender-role attitudes will be greater for women than men.

2. The effect of region on gender-role attitudes will be greater for Blacks than whites, regardless

of gender.

3: H3a. Southern Blacks will hold more egalitarian attitudes than will northern Blacks,

regardless of gender.

H3b. Northern Blacks will hold more egalitarian attitudes than will southern Blacks,

regardless of gender.

4. The effect of the interaction of time and region will be greatest for white men, followed by

white women, Black men, and finally Black women.

8
 METHODS

Data

The data for our study were drawn from the National Opinion Research Center’s General

Social Surveys for 1977-1998. The GSS is a cross-sectional national survey that has been

replicated almost every year since 1972. The survey is administered to English-speaking persons

aged 18 years and over in the continental United States. Our subsample includes the 13,708

respondents who answered the questions that compose the gender-role attitudes scale.

The subsample used in the analysis ranged in age from 18 to 89 years (_=45.17,

s.d.=17.3). Fifty-four per cent were married. Nine per cent had completed less than high school,

32 % had competed high school, 23% had completed some college, and 22% were college

graduates. Twenty-five per cent of the respondents were Catholic, 61% were Protestant, and 14%

were members of other religious denominations or reported no religious affiliation. Thirteen per

cent of the respondents were Black, and 87% were white. Fifty-seven per cent were women;

43% were men. Fifty-two per cent were employed full-time (37 or more hours per week), 10.%

were employed part-time, and 38% were not employed.

Measurement

Gender Role Attitudes. We constructed the dependent variable by combining the four

items specific to attitudes regarding women’s family roles. Respondents were asked to what

extent they agreed (4) or disagreed (1) with each of the following statements: a) A working

mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who

does not work; b) It is more important for a wife to help her husband’s career than to have one

herself; c) A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works; and d) It is much

9
better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes

care of the home and family. The alpha reliability coefficient for the scale was .70. The scale

was coded such that high values indicate egalitarian attitudes.

Independent Variables

Region. We created a variable to measure region of residence using the variable

REGION which lists nine areas within the United States in which a respondent may reside. The

regions corresponded with the following nine Census division categories: New England, middle

Atlantic, east north central, west north central, south Atlantic, east south central, west south

central, mountain and Pacific. For our analysis, we collapsed these nine regions into four

general regions: south (east south central, west south central, south Atlantic), northeast (New

England), Pacific, and other (west north central, east north central, mountain, and middle

Atlantic).

Year of Survey. A key question of our study addresses the change of gender role attitudes

over time. In the bivariate relationships shown in Tables 2 and 3 we have collapsed the years

into five categories: 1977, 1985, 1986-1989, 1990-1995, 1996-1998. For the multivariate

analysis we computed a variable of number of years since the first data collection point (year

minus1977). We created this variable to avoid the collinearity that would have occurred if we

had used the actual years of data collection (e.g., 1977, 1985, etc.).

Gender and Race. Gender was coded 0=man, 1=woman. To determine race, respondents

were asked, “What race do you consider yourself?” For the present analysis, race was

dichotomized into 0=white, 1=Black.

Control Variables. We included several control variables throughout the analyses,

10
selecting factors that have been shown to be related to either gender-role attitudes or region.

These variables include: age, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, religious

affiliation, and religiosity. Age was used as the actual number of years of age respondents

reported (18-89), as was educational attainment (0-20 years). Marital status was collapsed into

two categories: 0=unmarried, 1=married. Employment status was dichotomized into employed

full-time and not employed full-time (full- time=1), based on literature demonstrating that the

greatest distinction in terms of gender-role attitudes is full-time employment versus other

employment statuses (Cassidy and Warren 1996). Religious affiliation was collapsed into three

categories: Protestant, Catholic, and other. Dummy variables for religious affiliation were created

for use in the multivariate analysis; “other” was the reference category. Religiosity was

measured by an ordinal variable (4=strong).

Bivariate correlations of all of the variables included in the multivariate analysis are

shown, along with means and standard deviations, in Table 1. The data are shown separately by

gender.

[Table 1 about here]

RESULTS

Changes in Gender-Role Attitudes Across Time

We begin by showing gender-role attitudes for various combinations of subgroups: year

and gender (within race) and year by region. Both of these analyses reveal that gender-role

attitudes have become more egalitarian across time for all subgroups; however, there were

variations by gender, race, and region.

[Table 2 about here]

11
 Examination of the mean gender-role attitude scores of men and women from 1977-1998

reveals an increase in egalitarian gender-role attitudes across time, as shown in Table 2. For both

Black and white women, the increase in egalitarian attitudes is continuous from 1977-1998, thus

also indicating that further change has occurred from the mid to the late 1990s. Consistent with

studies of gender-role attitudes from the 1970s through the mid 1990s, the attitudes of Black

women are consistently more egalitarian than are those of white women. Further, consistent

with studies through the mid 1990s, both Black and white women’s attitudes are more egalitarian

than are those of both Black and white men.

Changes in men’s attitudes are less consistent from the 1970s through the 1990s.

Examination of the data for the full sample of men shows more rapid change from 1977 through

the mid 1990s, and essentially no change from the mid to late 1990s. However, the pattern

becomes more complex when considering Black and white men’s attitudes separately. Among

white men, attitudes became more egalitarian from 1977 through the mid 1990s, after which

there was no further increase. In contrast, among Black men, gender-role attitudes became

increasingly egalitarian from 1977 through the late 1980s, but did not increase across the early to

mid 1990s; however, Black men’s attitudes began to move again toward egalitarianism between

the mid and late 1990s, representing the only statistically significant change in attitudes between

the early and late 1990s (p=.05).

Table 2 reveals not only that white men began and ended the period of the study holding

more traditional attitudes than the other three subsamples, but also that this subsample

experienced the least change in attitudes. In contrast, white women experienced the greatest

change in attitudes, differing substantially from the change experienced by white men, while

12
there was no gender difference in degree of change among Blacks.

[Table 3 about here]

As shown in Table 3, gender-role attitudes also varied systematically by region.

Throughout the period during which the data were collected, respondents living on the south

continued to express the most traditional gender-role attitudes, while respondents in the northeast

almost uniformly expressed the most egalitarian attitudes. While remaining the most traditional

in the period from 1996-1998, the south experienced substantially more change from traditional

to egalitarian attitudes than did either the northeast or Pacific, both of which both began and

ended with considerably more egalitarian attitudes.

Multivariate Analysis of Effects of Region

The analyses just presented suggest that, in fact, there are considerable differences in

changes in gender-role attitudes by gender, race and regionality, at least at the bivariate level.

The next question is whether these relationships are maintained when controlling for other

factors that are related to either regionality or gender-role attitudes–in particular, educational

attainment, marital status, religiosity, religious affiliation, and age. Because our interest is in

examining how the entire model varies by gender and race, we conducted separate regression

analyses, rather than relying on race/gender interaction terms. It is important to note that all of

the preliminary multivariate analyses indicated that the effects of region except for south/not

south were of neither substantive nor statistical significance; for this reason, we used a

dichotomous south/not-south variable throughout the remainder of the analysis.

[Table 4 about here]

As shown in Table 4, the multivariate findings using the full sample closely mirror those

13
reported in the literature. The best predictor of gender-role attitudes is age, followed closely by

gender, education, year of data collection, and to a lesser extent, employment status, race, marital

status, and finally, region. In brief, respondents with the most egalitarian attitudes are younger,

better-educated, Black women who are employed full-time, and live outside of the south.

The one surprising finding in Table 4 is the absence of any effect of the interaction

between region and year of data collection. In fact, we examined the effect of this interaction on

all of the separate subsamples (men, women, Blacks, and whites) and also found no effect. For

this reason, we omitted the interaction term from all of the analyses that we discuss below.

[Table 5 about here]

Gender and Region. As discussed above, we believe that it is important to examine the

model separately by race and gender. We begin these analyses by comparing the findings for

women and men, controlling for race. As shown in Table 5, there is a great deal of consistency

between the findings for men and women. As hypothesized, region has a greater effect on

women than men, but the difference falls short of reaching statistical significance. As expected,

being employed full-time and being single are more strongly associated with egalitarian gender-

role attitudes for women than for men (p<.05).

[Table 6 about here]

Gender, Race, and Region. Table 6 presents analyses separately for Blacks and whites by

gender. The pattern of findings reveals the importance of the interaction of gender and race in

explaining gender-role attitudes. The data show that some factors that appear to have no effect

when looking at the full sample, even when separated by gender, are consequential for certain

subgroups. Of particular interest is the differential effect of region. In the case of men, the most

14
interesting finding is that region was a factor in explaining white men’s gender-role attitudes, but

that there was no such effect for Black men—a finding counter to our hypothesis that Black

men’s attitudes would be affected more strongly by region than would white men’s attitudes.

Differences between the findings for Black and white women do not mirror those found

among men. We anticipated that the effect of region would be greater for Black women and we

proposed alternative hypotheses regarding whether southern or northern Black women would

have the most egalitarian gender-role attitudes. While region has a somewhat greater effect on

Black than white women’s attitudes, the effect is in the direction of southern women holding

substantially more traditional attitudes than those held by northern women for both Black and

white women.

It is interesting to note the effects of religiosity, labor force participation, and marital

status. For white men and both Black and white women, those with high religiosity held

substantially more traditional gender-role attitudes; however, religiosity had nearly no effect on

Black men’s attitudes. Further, consistent with the literature, labor force participation, which was

unimportant among men of either race and was associated with substantially more liberal gender-

role attitudes for both Black and white women.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The findings revealed by our analyses demonstrate the importance of examining the

effects of region separately by gender and race. Support for our hypotheses regarding the

differential effects of region by race and gender were mixed. We hypothesized that for both men

and women, the effects of region would be greatest on Blacks’ gender-role attitudes. However,

in the case of Black men, there was essentially no effect of region. In the case of women, the

15
effect provided support for Hypothesis 3b, that northern Blacks would hold more egalitarian

attitudes than would southern Blacks.

Our hypothesis regarding the interaction of region and time was also unsupported by the

data, both for the full sample and for each of the four subgroups, although year of survey was

important across all four subgroups and region helped to explain attitudes for three of the four

subgroups. The absence of effects may be explained by the fact that we controlled for variables

that greatly account for regionality, and that also converged by region across time, such as

educational attainment and women’s employment (cf. DiMaggio et al. 1996; Weakliem and

Biggert 1996).

Taken together, the findings we have presented regarding the differential effects of region

by race and gender are important because they demonstrate that regionality is consequential for

Blacks’ as well as whites’ attitudes, at least for women. We based one of our alternative

hypotheses regarding race and region on relative deprivation theory, which would suggest that

northern Blacks would hold more liberal attitudes because their sensitivity to social issues is

heightened by their inequality, relative to their expectations. However, the fact that there was no

support for this hypothesis among Black men calls into question whether relative deprivation

accounts for the fact that northern Black women held more egalitarian attitudes than did their

southern counterparts. Perhaps the finding of more traditional gender-role attitudes among Black

than white southern women suggests that women of both races receive pressure to conform to

southern norms of traditionalism. In other words, while the tradition of the southern belle may

have been restricted to white women in earlier decades, by the late 20th century, the greater

pressures toward traditionalism experienced by white southern women may now experienced by

16
Black southern women as well.

This set of findings further reinforces the argument that scholars have made regarding the

persistence of a distinctive southern culture, despite regional convergence on some attitudes

(DiMaggio et al 1996; Hurlbert 1989; Hurlbert and Bankston 2000; Kuklinski, Cobb, and Gilens

1997; Weakliem and Biggert 1999). Further, it has been argued that persistence of southern

cultural distinctiveness is primarily due to the continuing conservatism of southern white men

(cf. Kuklinski, Cobb, and Gilens 1997), a conclusion called into question by our findings of

effects for region among Black women, as well as white women and men.

We believe that the findings have important implications for future research. In particular,

we hope that the findings presented here will spur scholars to give greater attention to the

relationships among race, gender, and regionality, since our findings reveal that the effects of

region may be masked if gender and race are not taken into consideration.

17
 REFERENCES

Beutel, Ann M. And Margaret Mooney Marini. 1995. “Gender and Values.” American

Sociological Review (60): 436-448.

Blee, Kathleen M.and Ann R. Tickamyer. 1995. ”Racial Differences in Men's Attitudes

about Women's Gender Roles (in Gender and Family).” Journal of Marriage and the

Family (57):21-30.

Bruce, Dickson D., Jr. 1979. Violence and Culture in the Antebellum South. Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press.

Canaan, J. E. (1990). "Passing Notes and Telling Jokes: Gendered Strategies among American

Middle School Teenagers." In F. Ginsburg & A. L. Tsing, (Eds.), Uncertain Terms:

Negotiating in American Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.

Cassidy, M.L. and B.O. Warren. 1996. “Family Employment Status and Gender Role Attitudes:

A Comparison of Women and Men College Graduates.” Gender and Society (10): 490.

Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis of the Sociology of

Gender. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA.

Coakley, Jay and Anita White. 1992. “Making Decisions: Gender and Sport Participation Among

British Adolescents.” Sociology of Sport Journal 9:20-35.

Coleman, James S. 1961. The Adolescent Society. NY: Free Press.

DiMaggio, Paul, John Evans, and Bethany Bryson. 1996. “Have American's Social

Attitudes Become More Polarized?” American Journal of Sociology 102: 690-755.

Dixon, Jo, and Alan J. Lizotte. 1987. "Gun Ownership and the 'Southern Subculture of

Violence'." American Journal of Sociology 93:383-405.

18
Eckert, P. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School.

New York: Teachers College.

Eder, Donna. 1985. “The Cycle of Popularity: Interpersonal Relations among Female

Adolescents.” Sociology of Education 58:154-165.

Eder, Donna and Stephen Parker. 1987. “The Cultural Production and Reproduction of Gender:

The Effect of Extracurricular Activities on Peer-Group Culture.” Sociology of Education

60:200-213.

Eicher, J. B., Baizerman, S., & Michelman, J. 1991. "Adolescent Dress, Part II: a Qualitative

Study of Suburban High School Students." Adolescence 26: 679-686.

Falk, William W., and Larry Griffin. 1997. "Is the South Still Worth Studying?"

The Southern Sociologist 29:1,3.

Flynn, Clifton P. 1996. “Regional Differences in Spanking Experiences and Attitudes: A

Comparison of Northeastern and Southern College Students.” Journal of Family Violence

11:59-80.

Foley, D. E. 1990. "The Great American Football Ritual: Reproducing Race, Class, and Gender

Inequality." Sociology of Sport Journal 7: 111-135.

Hegtvedt, Karen A. and Barry Markovsky. 1995. “Justice and Injustice,”in Karen S. Cook et al.

(eds.) Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Allyn and Bacon: Needham

Heights, MA.

Hossain, Ziarat and Jaipaul L. Roopnarine. 1993. “Division of Household Labor and Child Care

in

Dual-Earner African American Families with Infants.” Sex Roles (29): 9.

19
Hunter, Andrea G and Sherrill L. Sellers. 1998. “Feminist Attitudes among African

American Women And Men (in Research Reports).” Gender and Society (12) 81- 99.

Hurlbert, Jeanne S. 1989. “The Southern Region: A Test of the Hypothesis of Cultural

Distinctiveness.” The Sociological Quarterly 30:245-266.

Hurlbert, Jeanne S. and William B. Bankston. 1998. “Cultural Distinctiveness in the Face of

Structural Transformation: The “New” Old South.” In D.R. Hurt (editor), Social Change

in the Rural South,1945-1995. Baton Rouge, LSU Press.

John, Daphne, Beth Anne Shelton, and Kristen Luschen. 1995. “Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and

Perceptions of Fairness.” Journal of Family Issues (16): 357-379.

Kamo, Yoshinori and Ellen L. Cohen. 1996. “Division of Household Work Between Partners: A

Comparison of Black and White Couples.” Journal of Family Comparative Studies

Kane, M. J. 1988. "The Female Athletic Role as a Status Determinant Within the Social Systems

of High School Adolescents." Adolescence 23: 253-264.

Kane, Emily W.1992. ”Race, Gender, and Attitudes Toward Gender Stratification.” Social

Psychology Quarterly (55):311-320.

Kiecolt, K. Jill and Alan C. Acock. 1988.”The Long-Term Effects of Family Structure on

Gender-Role Attitudes (in Gender Roles).” Journal of Marriage and the Family (50):

709-717.

Kinney, David A. 1993. “From Nerds to Normals: The Recovery of Identity among Adolescents

from Middle School to High School.” Sociology of Education 66:21-40.

Kozimor-King, Michele and Kevin T. Leicht. 1999. “Sources of Convergence and Divergence in

Attitudes About Work and Family Roles Among Women.”

20
 Research in the Sociology of Work (7): 85-108.

Kulinski, James H., Michael D. Cobb, and Martin Gilens. 1997. “Racial Attitudes and the New

South.” The Journal of Politics (59):

323-349.

Liao, Tim Futing and Yang Cai. 1995. “Socialization, Life Situations, and Gender-Role Attitudes

Regarding the Family Among White American Women.” Sociological

Perspectives (38): 241-260.

Matteo, Sherri. 1986. “The Effect of Sex and Gender-Schematic Processing on Sport

Participation.” Sex Roles 15:417-432.

Nisbett, Richard E. 1993. “Violence and U.S. Regional Culture.” American Psychologist 48:441-

449.

Nisbett, Richard, and Dov Cohen. 1996. Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the

South. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Pratto, Felicia, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Jim Sidanius. 1997. “The Gender Gap: Differences in

Political Attitudes and Social Dominance Orientation.” British Journal of Social

Psychology (36): 49-68.

Reed, John Shelton. 1972. The Enduring South: Cultural Persistence in Mass Society.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Univ. of North Carolina Press.

Reed, John Shelton. 1993. Surveying the South. Columbia, Missouri: Univ. of Missouri Press.

Rice, Tom W. and Diane L. Coates. 1995.”Gender Role Attitudes in the Southern United

States.”

Gender and Society (9): 744-756.

21
Shelton, Beth Anne and Daphne John. 1993. “Ethnicity, Race, and Difference: A Comparison of

White, Black, and Hispanic

Men’s Household Labor

Time” in Jane C. Hood (ed.)

Men, Work, and Family.

Sage Publications: Newbury

Park, CA.

Snow, David A. and Pamela E. Oliver. 1995. “Social Movements and Collective Behavior:

Social

Psychological Dimensions and Considerations,” in Karen S. Cook et al. (eds.)

Sociol

ogical

Perspe

ctives

on

Social

Psycho

logy.

Allyn

and

Bacon:

22
 Needh

am

Height

s, MA.

Snyder, Eldon E. 1972. “High School Student Perceptions of Prestige Criteria.” Adolescence

59:126-136.

Suitor, J. Jill and Rebecca S. Carter. “Jocks, Nerds, Babes, and Thugs: A Research Note on

Region

al

Differe

nces in

Adoles

cent

Gender

Norms.

Gender

Issues

(3):

87-

101.

Suitor, J. Jill, Rebecca S. Carter, and S. Minyard. 2001. “Did You See What I Saw? Gender

23
 Differences in Perceptions of Avenues to Prestige Among Adolescents.” Sociological

Inquiry (71): 437-454.

Suitor, J. Jill, and Rebel Reavis. 1995. "Football, Fast Cars, and Cheerleading: Adolescent

Gender Norms, 1978-1989." Adolescence 30:265-272.

The American South: For Whom the Belle Tolls. 1994. The Economist, December 10: 3-18.

Twenge, Jean M. 1997. “Attitudes Toward Women, 1970-1995: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychology

of Women Quarterly 21:35-51.

Wade, Jay C. 1996. “African American Men’s Gender Role Conflict: The Significance of Racial

Identity.” Sex Roles (34): 17-33.

Weakliem, David L and Robert Biggert. 1999. “Region and Political Opinion in the

Contemporary United States.”Social Forces (77):863-886.

Williams, J.M., & White, K. A. 1983. "Adolescent Status Systems for Males and Females at

Three Age Levels." Adolescence 70: 381-389.

Willetts-Bloom, Marion C. and Steven L. Nock. 1994. “The Influence of Maternal Employment

on Gender

Role Attitudes

of Men and

Women.”Sex

Roles (30):

371-389.

Young, Robert L. 1986. “Gender, Region of Socialization, and Ownership of Protective

Firearms.” Rural Sociology 51:169-182.

24
25
Table 1. Correlation Matrix, Means, and Standard Deviations of All Variables Included in Multivariate Analysis

*Males are above the diagonal, females are below

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Mean: Men Mean: Women

1. Gender role 1.00 -.326** -..100** .273** .001 -.117** -.160** .171** .207** -.049** .025 a 10.36 11.10
attitudes (2.43) (2.70)

2. Age of -.386** 1.00 .225** -.205** -.033* .124** .138** -.388** .007 .006 -.020 a 44.13 45.95
respondent (16.59) (17.78)

3. Marital status -.047** -.084** 1.00 .005 .002 .076** .133** .126** -.091** .007 -.088** a .59 .50
(.492) (.50)

4. Education .330** -.276** .066** 1.00 .012 -.110** -.025 .243** .142** -.093** -.123** a 12.99 12.66
(3.31) (2.92)

5. Catholic .012 -.036** .015 .022 1.00 -.670** .157** .015 -.001 -.193** -.125** a .255 .250
(.436) (.433)

6. Protestant -.098** .112** .003 -.117** -.765** 1.00 .339** -.030* -.070** .234** .138** a .567 .637
(.496) (.481)

7. Religiosity -.190** .191** .049** -.066** .074** .259** 1.00 -.014 -.068** .061** .062** a 2.97 3.19
(.957) (.880)

8. Employment .297** -.306** -.033** .264** -.004 -.032** -.083** 1.00 .024 .004 -.026* a .66 .416
(.474) (.493)

9. Years Since .216** .004 -.078** .180** -.010 -.046** -.059** .074** 1.00 .012 .012 a 13.19 13.32
1977 (6.12) (5.98)

10. Region -.062** .002 .016 -.105** -.198** .244** .085** .041** .022 1.00 .108** a .365 .375
(.481) (.484)

11. Race .054** -.078** -.164** -.091** -.181** .192** .064** .023* .042** .126** 1.00 a .11 .14
(.312) (.351)

12. Sex a a a a a a a a a a a a .00 1.00

(.000) (.000)
Note: Standard deviations are reported in parentheses below the means, n =
*p < .05. **p < .01.
a. Cannot be completed because at least one of the variables is constant.

26
Table 2. Gender-Role Attitudes by Gender of Respondent, 1977-1998

Gender and Race Year of Survey+ Change in

Score,
1977 1985 1986-1989 1990-1995 1996-1998 1977-98
Men 8.92 9.97 10.39 10.67 10.69 1.77
(613) (581) (1271) (1819) (1587)
White Men 8.89 9.95 10.36 10.69 10.63 1.74
(549) (522) (1134) (1619) (1404)
Black Men 9.19 10.10 10.61 10.51 11.13 1.94
(64) (59) (137) (200) (183)
Women 9.40 10.80 11.00 11.43 11.52 2.12
(745) (748) (1747) (2415) (2846)
White Women 9.33 10.78 10.93 11.39 11.46 2.13
(648) (671) (1502) (2170) (1722)
Black Women 9.86 10.97 11.44 11.69 11.79 1.93
(97) (77) (245) (245) (1124)
+
Change across time was significant within each group (p<.001).

27
Table 3. Gender-Role Attitudes by Region, 1977-1998

Region Year of Survey Change in

Score,
1977 1985 1986-1989 1990-1995 1996-1998 1977-98
South 8.99* 10.25 10.48** 10.91** 11.00** 2.01+
(473) (499) (1100) (1618) (1389)
Northeast 9.72 10.57 11.17 11.50 11.53 1.81+
(57) (84) (178) (233) (204)
Pacific 9.54 10.69 11.04 11.28 11.21 1.67+
(182) (183) (406) (649) (551)
Other Regions 9.18 10.50 10.81 11.17 11.24 2.06+
(646) (563) (1334) (1836) (1523)
+
Change across time was significant within each group (p<.001).
* Variation by region within time period was significant (*p<.05;**p<.01)

28
 (n=12,985)

Variables Model 1 Model 2

(with interaction term)

B Beta B Beta
(s.e.) (s.e.)

Age -.039** -.259 -.039** -.259

(.001) (.001)

Married (=1) -205** .039 -.205** -.039

(.041) (.041)

Education .156** .184 .155** .184

(.007) (.007)

Catholic -.007 -.001 -.008 -.001

(.077) (.077)

Protestant -.066 -.012 -.067 -.013

(.072) (.072)

Religiosity -.283** -.100 -.283** -.100

(.027) (.027)

Employment .518** .099 .518** .099

(1=empl. ft) (.044) (.044)

Years Since 1977 .073** .169 .072** .166

(.003) (.004)

Region -.206** -.038 -.245** -.045

(South=1) (.043) (.100)

Race .369** .047 .370** .047

(1=Black) (.062) (.062)

Gender 1.032** .195 1.032** .195

(.042) (.042)

Year x Region -- -- .003 .008

(.007)

Constant 9.804** 9.820**

(.140) (.145)

Adjusted R2 .253** .253**

df 11 12
* p<05, ** p<.01

29
 by Gender
Variables Men Women

B Beta B Beta
(s.e.) (s.e.)

Age -.038** -.260 -.041** -.272

(.002) (.002)

Married (=1) -.067 -.013 -.285** -.053

(.064) (.055)

Education .139** .188 .172** .185

(.009) (.010)

Catholic -.112 -.020 .053 .009

(.109) (.109)

Protestant -.191 -.039 .009 .002

(.102) (.102)

Religiosity -.226** -.089 -.309** -.101

(.039) (.036)

Employment .105 .020 .769** .14

(1=empl. ft) (.070) (.059)

Years Since 1977 -.070** .176 .074** .165

(.005) (.005)

Region -.134* -.027 -.262** -.047

(South=1) (.063) (.058)

Race .393** .050 .325** .042

(1=Black) (.097) (.081)

Constant 10.107** 10.688**

(.195) (.198)

Adjusted R2 .1991** .2701**

df 10 10
* p<05, ** p<.01

30
 by Gender and Race
Men Women

Variables White Men Black Men White Women Black Women

B Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta

(s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.)

Age -.038** -.258 -.040** -.278 -.042** -.272 -.038** -.261

(.002) (.006) (.002) (.004)

Married (=1) -.110 -.022 .278 .061 -.268** -.049 -.358* -.067
(.068) (.175) (.060) (.146)

Education .138** .182 .145** .233 .175** .185 .165** .200

(.010) (.026) (.011) (.026)

Catholic -.120 -.022 .082 .011 .017 .003 .324 .032

(.115) (.375) (.116) (.367)

Protestant -.195 -.040 -.067 -.013 -.050 -.009 .529 .075

(.109) (.291) (.110) (.277)

Religiosity -.237** -.092 -.153 -.065 -.309** -.100 -.308** -.108

(.042) (.104) (.039) (.087)

Employment .097 .019 .139 .029 .823** .148 .466** .095

(1=empl. ft) (.075) (.192) (.064) (.144)

Years Since 1977 .069** .173 .073** .196 .077** .168 .058** .142
(.005) (.014) (.005) (.011)

Region -.155* -.030 .017 .004 -.225** -.039 -.457** -.094

(South=1) (.068) (.168) (.064) (.135)

Constant 10.195** 9.831** 10.628** 10.982**

(.208) (.538) (.216) (.482)

Adjusted R2 .195** .240** .273** .251**

df 9 9 9 9
* p<05, ** p<.01

31