家事分工性別化內隱與外顯測驗發展之初探研究

Instrument Development and Validation of Implicit and Explicit Measures of Gender Stereotypes in the Division of Housework

10.6251/BEP.201812_50(2).0002

藍玉玲(Yu-Ling Lan)；林烘煜(Hung-Yu Lin)

內隱測量 ； 性別刻板印象 ； 家務分工 ； Domestic labor ； Gender stereotype ； Iimplicit measure

教育心理學報

50卷2期（2018 / 12 / 01）

189 - 217

繁體中文

本研究目的有二：（1）發展「家務性別角色量表（Domestic Gender Role Scale, DGRS）」與「家務性別角色內隱聯結測驗（Domestic Gender Role Implicit Association Test, DGR IAT）」，測量台灣人家務分工的外顯與內隱性別刻板印象；及（2）檢驗DGRS與DGR IAT信、效度。本研究先招募92位Y世代台灣人參與預備性研究，完成DGRS初步發展與DGR IAT家務工作的詞彙選擇；再招募99位Y世代與50位嬰兒潮世代台灣人，共149位成為正式研究參與者以檢驗這兩個測驗的信、效度。刪題後之驗證性因素分析結果證實DGRS的因素結構與預期相符，包含男、女、中性家事三面向；因素結構與實際觀察資料適配度良好。除了嬰兒潮世代男性家事分量表信度係數略低於.70之外，DGRS三分量表的alpha值與組合信度皆高於.70，具有良好的信度。DGR IAT方面，僅在嬰兒潮世代先進行和諧版施測的信度係數高於.70，仍有部分改善空間；但其IAT效果已達顯著，證實DGR IAT適用於台灣人家務分工的內隱性別刻板印象測量。透過相關分析證實DGR IAT與DGRS之間，呈現低度相關，顯示兩者所測量的構念不盡相同，具有區別效度，且DGRS三個因素之間，呈現中度相關，證實DGRS之聚斂效度。以新發展測驗而言，研究結果初步證實DGRS 與DGR IAT具有構念效度、DGRS的信度良好，但DGR IAT的信度仍可進一步改善；後續研究可招募不同教育程度、婚姻狀況的台灣人參與研究，驗證其跨樣本的穩定性及應用性。

The purpose of this study was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of two new instruments-the Domestic Gender Role Scale (DGRS) and the Domestic Gender Role Implicit Association Test (DGR IAT)-in assessing Taiwanese people’s explicit and implicit gender stereotypes regarding domestic labor. In a pilot study, 92 Taiwanese adults were recruited to obtain a sample of genderized household chores for development of the initial DGRS and DGR IAT versions. In the main study, another 149 Taiwanese people were recruited on a voluntary basis to examine the psychometric properties of the DGRS and DGR IAT. Confirmatory factor analysis of this sample indicated that the DGRS was a three-factor model. Except for the DGRS subscale for male baby boomers, the Cronbach's alpha values and composite reliability coefficients of the three DGRS subscale scores were all above .7, indicating satisfactory reliability. The significant IAT effects of the DGR IAT indicated that it was a valid instrument for assessing implicit gender stereotypes regarding domestic labor. Its reliability coefficient was over .7 only when assessing Taiwanese baby boomers using the congruent association-first version of the DGR IAT. Moreover, the weak association between its IAT effects and the three DGRS subscale scores revealed the divergent validity of these two instruments, whereas the moderate correlation among the three DGRS subscale scores indicated its convergent validity. As newly developed instruments, the DGRS demonstrated suitable reliability and validity, whereas the DGR IAT had suitable validity but required further modifications to improve its reliability. This study provided only an initial validation of these two instruments, and further research should validate their psychometric properties using samples with diverse education levels and marital statuses.

1. 王叢桂(1999)。性別角色信念、家庭承諾、工作承諾與工作價值之關係。本土心理學研究，11，59-89。
   連結：
2. 王叢桂、羅國英(2010)。自我發展與利他服務價值觀的融合：華人工作價值的變遷與發展。本土心理學研究，33，3-57。
   連結：
3. 張晉芬、李奕慧(2007)。“女人的家事”、“男人的家事”：家事分工性別化的持續與解釋。人文及社會科學集刊，19(2)，203-229。
   連結：
4. 陳學志、李威震、周泰安、卓淑玲(2002)。以內隱聯結測驗〈IAT〉測量國人自尊的可行性研究。測驗年刊，49(2)，217-234。
   連結：
5. 陸洛、黃茂丁、高旭繁(2005)。工作與家庭的雙向衝突：前因、後果及調節變項之探討。應用心理研究，27，133-166。
   連結：
6. 蔡孟寧、王倫婷、林烘煜(2015)。情感錯誤歸因程序的自動化反應態度測量檢視。中華心理學刊，57，261-280。
   連結：
7. Bar-Anan, Y.,Nosek, B. A.(2014).A comparative investigation of seven indirect attitude measures.Behavior Research Methods,46,668-688.
8. Bass, B. C.(2014).Preparing for parenthood? Gender, aspirations, and the reproduction of labor market inequality.Gender and Society,29(3),326-385.
9. Becton, J. B.,Walker, H. J.,Jones-Farmer, A.(2014).Generational differences in work-place behavior.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,44,175-189.
10. Cennamo, L.,Gardner, D.(2008).Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person organization values fit.Journal of Managerial Psychology,23,891-906.
11. Charles, M.,Grusky, D. B.(2004).Occupational ghettos: The worldwide segregation of women and men.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
12. Civettini, N.(2016).Housework as non-normative gender display among lesbians and gay men.Sex Roles,74,206-219.
13. Coltrane, S.(2000).Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work.Journal of Marriage and the Family,62,1208-1233.
14. DeVellis, R. F.(1991).Scale development: Theory and applications.Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.
15. Eagly, A. H.(1987).Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Fernández, J.,Quiroga, M. A.,Escorial, S.,Privado, J.(2014).Explicit and implicit assessment of gender roles.Psicothema,26,244-251.
17. Fuwa, M.(2004).Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries.American Sociological Review,69(6),751-767.
18. Gawronski, B.(Ed.),Payne, B. K.(Ed.)(2010).Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications.New York, NY:Guilford Press.
19. Gerson, K.(2010).The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in America.New York:Oxford University Press.
20. Greenwald, A. G.,Banaji, M. R.,Rudman, L. A.,Farnham, S. D.,Nosek, B. A.,Mellott, D. S.(2002).A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept.Psychological Review,109,3-25.
21. Greenwald, A. G.,Nosek, B. A.,Banaji, M. R.(2003).Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.Journal of Persona lity and Social Psychology,85,197-216.
22. Grunow, D.,Schulz, F.,Blossfeld, H.(2012).What determines change in the division of housework over the course of marriage?.International Sociology,27,289-307.
23. Hodges, A. J.,Park, B.(2013).Oppositional identities: Dissimilarities in how women and men experience parent versus professional roles.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,105,193-216.
24. Hofmann, W.,Gawronski, B.,Gschwendner, T.,Le, H.,Schmitt, M.(2005).A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31,1369-1385.
25. Hu, L. T.,Bentler, P. M.(1999).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling,6,1-55.
26. Knudsen, K.,Waerness, K.(2008).National context and spouses housework in 34 countries.European Sociological Review,24,97-113.
27. Lachance-Grzela, M.,Bouchard, G.(2010).Why do women do the lion's share of housework? A decade of research.Sex Roles,63,767-780.
28. Lange, P. A. M. V.(Ed.),Kruglanski, A. W.(Ed.),Higgins, E. T.(Ed.)(2011).Handbook of Theories in Social Psychology.London:Sage.
29. Lennon, M. C.,Rosenfield, S.(1994).Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options.American Journal of Sociology,100,506-531.
30. McDonald, P.(2002).Sustaining fertility through public policy: The range of options.Population,57,417-446.
31. Nosek,B. A.,Bar-Anan, Y.,Sriram, N.,Axt, J.,Greenwald, A. G.(2014).Understanding and using the Brief Implicit Association Test: Recom-mended scoring procedures.Plos One,9(12),e110938.
32. Park, B.,Smith, J. A.,Correll(2010).The persistence of implicit behavioral associations for moms and dad.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,46,809-815.
33. Payne, B. K.,Burkley, M. A.,Stokes, M. B.(2008).Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94,16-31.
34. Rudman, L. A.,Greenwald, A. G.,McGhee, D. E.(2001).Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable trait.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,27,1164-1178.
35. Schulz, W.,Ainley, J.,Fraillon, J.,Kerr, D.,Losito, B.(2010).ICCS 2009 international report: Civic knowledge, attitudes and engagement among lower secondary school students in thirty-eight countries.
36. Treas, J.(Ed.),Drobnič, S.(Ed.)(2010).Men, women, and housework in cross-national perspective.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
37. Treas, J.,Tai, T.(2016).Gender inequality in housework across 20 European Nations: Lessons from gender stratification theories.Sex Roles,74,495-511.
38. Van Well, S.,Kolk, A. M.,Oei, N. Y. L.(2007).Direct and indirect assessment of gender role identification.Sex Roles,56,617-628.
39. 行政院主計總處（ 2017c ）： 婦女婚育與就業調查報告。取自行政院主計處總網站：https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=2841，2017 年11 月17 日。[Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan (2017, November 17). Report on Women's marriage, fertility and employment. Retrieved from https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=2841.]
40. 行政院主計總處（2017a）：表8、歷年年齡組別勞動力參與率。取自行政院主計總處網站：https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=40928&ctNode=3102，2017 年11 月17 日。[Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan (2017, November 17). Table 8. Labor force participation rate by age. Retrieved from https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=40928&ct Node= 3102.]
41. 行政院主計總處（2017b）：薪資及生產力統計資料查詢系統。取自行政院主計總處網站：http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas04/bc5/EarningAndProductivity/Default.aspx，2017 年11 月17 日。[Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan (2017, November 17). Earnings and Productivity Statistics Database. Retrieved from http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas04/bc5/EarningAndPro-ductivity/Default.aspx.]
42. 余民寜(2011)。教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量。台北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理出版社=Psych-ological Publishing Co。
43. 金耀基(2013)。中國社會與文化。香港=Hong Kong:牛津大學出版社=Oxford University Press。
44. 陳學志、黃宏宇、邱發忠、楊立行、卓淑玲(2011)。態度的表象與真實：內隱測量典範的現況與發展。αβγ 量化研究學刊，3(1)，54-77。
45. 蔡志浩（2005）：菜市場名的背後。取自蔡志浩個人網站：http://taiwan. chtsai.org/ 2005/08/11/caishichang _ming_de_beihou/，2014 年5 月1 日。[Tsai, C. H. (2014, May 1). Behind popular names for birth. Retrieved from http://taiwan. chtsai.org/ 2005/08/11/caishichang_ming_de_beihou/]
46. 蕭英玲(2005)。台灣的家務分工：經濟依賴及性別的影響。台灣社會學刊，34，115-145。

1. 劉鶴群,張玉龍,林鈺縈(2021)。變遷中的母系社會與移居都市地區阿美族女性家庭照顧者之照顧樣態。社會發展研究學刊，27，1-29。
2. 葉理豪,陳苡禕,洪珮瑩(2023)。短期正念引導降低閱讀時的內隱性別刻板印象。教育心理學報，54(3)，515-536。
3. (2023)。直視壓迫：以社會支配論分析《日常對話》。輔導季刊，59(4)，1-14。