Gender Identity of Students and Teachers: Implications for a Sustainable Future

Open access

Abstract

Considering the gender identity as a crucial aspect of the culture that shapes our daily life and recognising the research gap on this topic in the context of sustainable education, the paper describes the quantitative cross-sectional study on gender identity of students and teachers comparing the respondents by their age and sex. Three age groups (106 female and 62 male) participated in the study: 18-19-years-old pupils from comprehensive and vocational schools (n=59), 20-15-years-old university students (n=52) and 24-64- years-old teachers working at respective schools and universities (n=57). The original Bem Sex Role Inventory was administered to measure the individual gender identity types of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny. The majority of respondents from all age and sex groups described themselves as androgynous. Male and university students featured the scattering of scores more toward masculinity, while the scores of female, pupils, and teachers were more inclined toward femininity. No statistically significant differences were found among the three age groups, while sex appeared to be more influential factor causing significant differences between male and female in terms of gender identity with male’s inclination toward masculinity and female’s inclination toward femininity. Dominance of androgynous individuals challenges the current approaches to the gender education in the context of sustainable development.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Abele A. E. & Wojciszke B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93 751-763.

  • Badjanova J. & Iliško Dz. (2015). Holistic approach as viewed by the basic school teachers in Latvia. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education 6 132-140.

  • Badjanova J. Raščevskis V. & Iliško Dz. (2017). Gender differences of Latvian males and females at the stage of adulthood. Journal of Management and Marketing Review 2(3) 38-43.

  • Bakan D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.

  • Baucom D. H. & Aiken P. A. (1984). Sex role identity marital satisfaction and response to behavioral marital therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 52(3) 438-444.

  • Bem S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42 155-162.

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

  • 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.

  • Bem S. L. (1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory manual. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists.

  • Bem S. L. & Lewis S. A. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31(4) 634-643.

  • Beutel A. & Marini M. (1995). Gender and values. American Sociological Review 60 436-448.

  • Blake J. (2007). Missing links: Gender and education for sustainable development. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 2(3/4) 414-432.

  • Block J. H. (1973). Conceptions of sex-role: some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist 28 512-526.

  • Brougham R. R. Zail C. M. Mendoza C. M. & Miller J. R. (2009). Stress sex differences and coping strategies among college students. Current Psychology 28(2) 85-97.

  • Chodorow N. (1974). Family structure and feminine perspective. In M. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.) Women in culture and society (pp.41-48). Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Connell R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley CA USA: University of California Press.

  • Eagly A. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale N. J.: Erlbaum.

  • Eichinger J. Heifefetz L. H. & Ingraham C. (1991). Situational shifts in social role orientation: correlates of work satisfaction and burnout among women in special education. Sex Roles 25 427-442.

  • Eisler R. (1994). From domination to partnership: The hidden subtext for sustainable change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 7(4) 35-49.

  • Eisler A. D. Eisler H. & Yoshida M. (2003). Perception of human ecology: Crosscultural and gender comparisons. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(1) 89-101.

  • Erikson E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton. European Social Foundation. (2017). Sabiedrības izpratnes un informÁtības paaugstin‚ šanas pas‚kumu stratÁÏija pretdiskrimin‚cijas un da˛‚dības veicin‚šanai [Action strategy for the development of social understanding and awareness to promote

  • anti-discrimination and diversity]. Society Integration Foundation. European Commission. (2009). Gender in EU-funded research. Toolkit. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/.../language-en

  • Fischer J. L. & Narus L. R. (1981). Sex role development in late adolescence and adulthood. Sex Roles 7(2) 97-106.

  • Fiske S. T. Cuddy A. J. C. Glick P. & Xu J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 878-902.

  • Franz-Balsen A. (2014). Gender and (Un) sustainability - can communication solve a conflict of norms? Sustainability 6(4) 1973-1991.

  • Gilligan C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Guttman D. (1965). Women and the conception of ego strength. Merrill Palmer Quarterly 11 229-240.

  • Heinzle S. Kanzig J. Nentwich J. & Offenberger U. (2010). Moving beyond gender differences in research on sustainable consumption: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Working paper No. 6 within the project Soziale ˆkologische und ˆkonomische Dimensionen eines nachhaltigen Energiekonsums in Wohngeb‰uden. Retrieved from http://kooperationen.zew.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Redaktion/Seco@home/nachhaltiger_Energiekonsum/Werkstattberichte/Gender_Werkstattbericht6.pdf

  • 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(1) 39-55.

  • Howard J. A. & Hollander J. A. (1996). Gendered situations gendered selves. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

  • Hyde J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60 581-592.

  • Hyde J. S. Krajnik M. & Skuldt-Niederberger K. (1991). Androgyny across the life span: A replication and longitudinal followup. Developmental Psychology 27 516-519.

  • Hyde J. S. & Phillis D. E. (1979). Androgyny across the life span. Developmental Psychology 15(3) 334-336.

  • Hunt J. (2004). Introduction to gender analysis concepts and steps. Development Bulletin 64 100-106.

  • Hunter L. M. Hatch A. & Johnson A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly 85(3) 677-694.

  • Ivtzan I. & Conneely R. (2009). Androgyny in the mirror of self-actualisation and spiritual health. The Open Psychology Journal 2 58-70.

  • Kark R. (2017). Androgyny. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T.K. Shackelford (Eds.) Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer International Publishing AG.

  • Kark R. Waismel-Manor R. & Shamir B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role transformational leadership and identification. TheLeadership Quarterly 23(3) 620-640.

  • Kasen S. Chen H. Sneed J. Crawford T. & Cohen P. (2006). Social role and birth cohort influences on gender-linked personality traits in women: A 20-year longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91(5) 944-958.

  • Keller E. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

  • Koenig A. M. Eagly A. H. Mitchell A. A. & Ristikari T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin 137(4) 616-642.

  • Leszczynski J. P. & Strough J. (2008). The contextual specificity of masculinity and femininity in early adolescence. Social Development 17 719-736.

  • Norlander T. Erixon A. & Archer T. (2000). Psychological androgyny and creativity: Dynamics of gender-role and personality trait. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 28(5) 423-435.

  • Olsson D. & Gericke N. (2017). The effect of gender on studentsí sustainability consciousness: A nationwide Swedish study. The Journal of Environmental Education 48(5) 357-370.

  • Parson T. & Bales R. (1955). Family socialization and interaction process. Glencoe Ill.: Free Press. Perry D. G. & Pauletti R. E. (2011). Gender and adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence 21(1) 61-74.

  • Pickard J. & Strough J. (2003). The effects of same-sex and other-sex contexts on masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles 48 421-432.

  • Pipere A. (2016). Envisioning complexity: Towards a new conceptualization of educational research for sustainability. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education 7(2) 68-91. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Rogers R. A. (2008). Beasts burgers and hummers: Meat and the crisis of masculinity in contemporary television advertisements. Environmental Communication 2(3) 281-301.

  • Salīte I. (2015). Searching for sustainability in teacher education and educational research: Experiences from the Baltic and Black Sea Circle Consortium for educational research. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education 6 21-29. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Schalkwyk J. (2000). Culture gender equality and development cooperation. The Canadian International Development Agency. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/social/gender-development/1896320.pdf

  • Schultz I. & Stiess E. (2009). WP1. Gender aspects of sustainable consumption strategies and instruments. Policies to Promote Sustainable Consumption Patterns EUPOP. Institute for Social-Ecological Research Frankfurt/Main.

  • Schwendenman D. (2012). Gender role expectations of classroom teachers. Doctoral dissertation. The University of Dayton.

  • Spence J. 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.

  • Spence J. T. (1993).Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(4) 624-635.

  • Spence J. T. (1999). Thirty years of gender research: A personal chronicle. In W. Swann L. Langlois & L. Gilbert (Eds.) Sexism and stereotypes in modern society. The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 255-289). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Starr C. R. & Zurbriggen E. L. (2017). Sandra Bemís schema theory after 34 years: A review of its reach and impact. Sex Roles 76 566-578.

  • Stets J. E. & Burke P. J. (2000). Femininity/masculinity. In E. Borgatta& R. Montgomery (Eds.) Encyclopedia of sociology (Revised ed. pp. 997-1005). New York: MacMillan.

  • Strough J. N. 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.

  • Tobin D. D. Menon M. Menon M. Spatta B. C. Hodges E. V. E. & Perry D. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-socialization. Psychological Review 117(2) 601-622.

  • Twenge J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A metaanalysis. Sex Roles 36 305-325.

  • Earth Charter Commission. (2000). The Earth Charter. San Jose Costa Rica: Earth Charter International. Retrieved from http://www.earthcharter.org

  • UNESCO. (2014). Bonn Declaration. Retrieved from http://www.esd-world-conference-2009.org/fileadmin/download/ESD2009_BonnDeclaration080409.pdf

  • UNESCO. (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

  • Unger R. & Crawford M. (1996). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Vantieghem W. Vermeersch H. & Van Houtte M. (2014). Why ìGenderî disappeared from the gender gap: (Re-) introducing gender identity theory to educational gender gap research. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal 17(3) 357-381.

  • Vinz D. (2009). Gender and sustainable consumption: A German environmental perspective. European Journal of Womenís Studies 16(2) 159-179.

  • West C. & Zimmerman D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society 1(2) 125-151.

  • Wilkinson S. & Kitzinger C. (Eds.) (1996). Representing the other: A feminist and psychology reader. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

  • Wood W. & Eagly A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin 128 699-727.

  • Wood W. & Eagly A. H. (2009). Gender identity. In R. H. M. Leary (Ed.) Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 109-125). New York: Guilford Press.

  • Wood W. & Eagly A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles 73 461-473.

  • Xiao C. & Hong D. (2010). Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Population and Environment 32 88-104.

  • Zelezny L. C. Chua P. P. & Aldrich C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues 56 443-457.

  • Huang X. Zhu X.-L. Zheng J. & Zhan L. (2012). Relationships among androgyny self-esteem and trait coping style of Chinese university students. Social Behaviour and Personality 40(6) 1005-1014.

  • Cai H. Huang X. & Song H. (2008). The relationship between sex role and subjective well-being in China [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica 40 474-486.

  • Психодиагностические методики изучения гендерных особенностей личности. (2013). / Сост. Е. Д. Беспанская-Павленко. Минск: БГУ.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 1.65

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.255
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.496

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1276 553 26
PDF Downloads 548 303 9