0000 Family Structure and The Intergenerational Transmission of Gender Ideology

Journalhttp://jfi.sagepub.
com/
of Family Issues
Family Structure and the Intergenerational Transmission of Gender

Ideology
Daniel L. Carlson and Chris Knoester
Journal of Family Issues 2011 32: 709 originally published online 23 January
2011
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X10396662
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/32/6/709
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Family Issues can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/32/6/709.refs.html
Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

396662
arlson and KnoesterJournal of Family Issues
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.

JFI32610.1177/0192513X10396662C
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Journal of Family Issues
Family Structure and 32(6) 709734

The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
the Intergenerational sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X10396662
Transmission of http://jfi.sagepub.com
Gender Ideology
Daniel L. Carlson1 and Chris Knoester1
Abstract
Using data from the National Survey of Families and Households, this study
explores how single-parent, stepparent, and two-parent biological family
structures may affect the transmission of gender ideology from parents to
their adult children. Results indicate that biological parents ideologies are
strong predictors of their childrens ideologies. Stepparents ideologies are
predictive of their stepchildrens only when they have high-quality relation-
ships. Parentchild gender heterogeneity, performance of traditional parent-
ing roles, and relationship quality are related to high similarity scores. The
authors find evidence of converging ideologies between mothers and sons
and diverging ideologies for fathers and daughtersespecially in stepfamilies.
Finally, their results suggest that high-quality relations with a stepparent
enhance transmission between same-sex biological parentchild dyads but
high-quality relations with a spouse in two-parent biological families produce
a competing role-model dynamic.
Keywords
family structure, gender ideology, socialization, parenting roles
1
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Daniel L. Carlson, Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, 238 Townshend Hall,
Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Email: carlson.192@sociology.osu.edu

710 Journal of Family Issues 32(6)
Socialization can be defined as the process through which individuals acquire

the values, attitudes, and other social characteristics that form their personal
identity (Inkeles, 1968). Generally, parents set the early course for the devel-
opment of a childs attitudes, values, and identity before he or she is immersed
in other institutions or has significant contact with other potential influences
(Cunningham, 2001a, 2001b; Fan & Marini, 2000).
Due to substantial increases in the number of premarital childbirths and
divorces in recent decades, families are markedly more diverse locations for
socialization. Between 1970 and 2000, the proportion of single-parent fami-
lies increased from 13% to 31% of all family groups (2000 U.S. Census).
Furthermore, 10% of all children in two-parent families now live with a step-
parent (Krieder & Fields, 2005). Despite increased diversity in family forms
and substantial research on how this has impacted childrens well-being
(Carlson, 2006; Coley, 1998), little is known about how variations in family
structure may influence child socialization.
The purpose of this study is to compare socialization processes within
single-parent, stepfamily, and two biologicalparent family structures by
examining the similarity between a parents and young adult childs gender
ideologies. First, we focus on the extent to which a biological parents ideol-
ogy predicts the adult childs ideology. Then, we construct similarity scores
based on a biological parents and childs ideologies and use these as our
outcome of interest. In each analysis, we investigate the extent to which three
factors may condition the relationship between the parents and childs gen-
der ideologies: (a) the presence of a second biological parent or stepparent,
(b) the gender composition of parentchild dyads, and (c) parentchild rela-
tionship quality.
We focus on gender ideology because the gender socialization of children
may be especially influenced by family structure differences (Kiecolt &
Acock, 1988; Mandara, Murray, & Joyner, 2005; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001). In
recent decades, not only have a variety of different family structures become
markedly more common but dramatic shifts in gender ideologies occurred as
well. Since the 1960s, the population as a whole has become much more egali-
tarian in their perspectives (Thornton & Young-Demarco, 2001). The feminist
movement, shifts in labor force participation and educational attainment, and
the increased popularity of nontraditional living arrangements are frequently
cited as factors that led to these changes (Brooks & Bolzendahl, 2004; Faludi,
1992; Moen, Erickson, & Dempster-McClain, 1997). Yet parents remain
dominant influences on their adult childrens beliefs about gender equality
(Cunningham, 2001b; Fan & Marini, 2000; Moen et al., 1997). Nonetheless, it

Carlson and Knoester 711
is unclear how the gender ideologies of parents are transmitted to their chil-
dren and whether transmission is affected by family structure differences.
Conceptual Framework
Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) emphasizes that socialization occurs
through modeling and reinforcement. Parents are primary role models for
children because they are usually very visible, accessible, and tightly
bonded to their children. Reinforcement of modeled behavior within fami-
lies is accomplished through a parents interactions with his or her children.
There is evidence that the intergenerational transmission of gender ideol-
ogy is due to social learning (Cunningham, 2001a, 2001b; Fan & Marini,
2000). For example, Cunningham (2001a, 2001b) finds that a childs gender
ideology and family behaviors are a function of parents gendered behaviors
and attitudes while the child was growing up. Yet studies of a parents influ-
ence have largely focused on White mothers in two-parent biological families
or single-parent households. Also, stepfamilies are notably absent from
the vast majority of studies on gender ideology transmission. We address
these shortcomings by studying an ethnically diverse, nationally representative
sample that includes single-father families and both mother-headed and
father-headed stepfamilies. In considering gender ideology similarity between
biological parents and children in traditional, stepfamily, and single-parent
family structures, we focus on (a) parenting roles as they relate to the pres-
ence or absence of biological parents and stepparents, (b) the gender compo-
sition of the parentchild dyad, and (c) parentchild relationship quality.
Parenting Roles
Family structure may affect child socialization because it is linked to who
assumes primary caregiving responsibilities within families. Traditionally,
men and women have had very different parenting roles and family structure
influences the roles that they embrace (Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2006;
Hilton & Haldeman, 1991).
Because mothers are typically the primary caregivers and socializing agents
in a variety of family structures (Cunningham, 2001a; Kohn, Slomczynski,
& Schoenbach, 1986), it may be that family structure primarily affects
fathers ability to transmit their gender ideologies to their children. For
fathers, family structure likely influences their performance of primary care-
giving and the degree to which that matters for their ability to transmit their
attitudes. Although research indicates that assuming more caregiving

responsibilities increases a single fathers intimacy and involvement with his

children (Hawkins et al., 2006; Risman, 1987), remarriage leads biological
fathers to embrace more traditional and less instrumental parenting roles
(Hawkins et al., 2006). A father who takes a less instrumental role in step-
families may have less influence over his childrens ideologies. Furthermore,
the challenges in negotiating the dynamics of blended families and obtaining
paternal custody may also adversely affect a biological fathers influence on
his children (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Ganong & Coleman, 2004).
Thus, it seems likely that a mothers ability to transmit her gender ideology
to resident children will be little affected by variations in family structure,
whereas a fathers ability to do the same may be compromised primarily in
stepfamilies. In single-parent families, fathers are more likely to take on the
role of primary caregiver, which likely increases their bond with their children
and hence their influence, whereas in two-parent biological families, fathers
have the biological mothers to assist in transmitting their values. In father-
headed stepfamilies, children may reject the instrumental parenting roles that
stepmothers may perform (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Thus, the intergenera-
tional transmission of gender ideology in father-headed stepfamilies may be
particularly problematicespecially since fathers may rely on stepmothers to
be the primary socializing agents of their resident biological children.
Gender Composition and the

Presence of Same-Sex Role Models
The intergenerational transmission of gender ideology may also depend on
the gender composition of parentchild dyads and the availability of resident
role models, factors that vary across family structure. Because children
are most likely to model members of their own sex (Cunningham, 2001b;
Kapinus, 2004), the presence of a same-sex role model may be especially
important in the formation of a childs gender ideology. Despite large shifts
in gender ideologies in recent years, men and women continue to have sig-
nificantly different gender ideologies; men continue to favor traditional divi-
sions of labor more than women (Kane, 1992; Thornton &Young-Demarco,
2001). If the gender composition of a biological parentchild dyad is homo-
geneous (fatherson/motherdaughter), one might expect higher levels of
attitude transmission. If the biological parentchild gender dyad is heteroge-
neous (fatherdaughter/motherson), transmission and similarity may be less
likely. Nevertheless, the degree to which gender composition and the presence
of same-sex role models matter may depend on the presence of alternative
role models, which also varies across family structure.

In single-parent families, compared with two-parent families, heteroge-

neous parentchild dyads may be more likely to exhibit value transmission
because of the lack of a same-sex role model (Kiecolt & Acock, 1988;
Mandara et al., 2005). Evidence for this comes from research on boys living
with single mothers (Kiecol & Acock, 1988) and lesbian parents (for a
review, see Stacey & Biblarz, 2001) exhibiting less traditionally masculine
personality traits than boys raised in two-parent, heterosexual households.
Nevertheless, research on the effects of parentchild gender heterogeneity on
the transmission of values is sparse and limited to mothers and sons. It is less
clear what might occur among fatherdaughter pairs.
In stepfamilies, same-sex stepparents could serve as role models, although
there is evidence that stepparents have relatively little influence over step-
children and their presence can lead to complications in the quality of the
biological parentchild relationship (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Ganong &
Coleman, 2004; Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992). Stepfamilies suffer
from incomplete institutionization as stepparenting roles are not well
defined and relationships with stepchildren are tentative (Cherlin, 1992).
Therefore, stepparents may have relatively little influence in the socialization
of their stepchildren. Nonetheless, the presence of an additional parent may
provide support to biological parents parenting efforts. If this is the case,
heterogeneous parentchild dyads may exhibit similar, or even higher, levels
of gender ideology similarity than in single-parent families. Compared with
two-parent biological families, both of these family structures are expected to
result in greater gender ideology similarity among heterogeneous parent
child dyads.
ParentChild Relationship Quality

It seems clear that parentchild relationship quality affects the modeling and
reinforcement process. Higher levels of parentchild closeness, contact, and
parental support lead to more successful modeling and reinforcement (Fingerson,
2005; Knafo & Schwartz, 2003). Thus, it is important to examine the potential
links between relationship quality, the transmission of gender ideology, and
family structureespecially since the manner and degree to which relationship
quality with parents matters may vary across family structure.
Social learning theory posits that identification with role models is essen-
tial for value transmission. In single-parent families, children are faced with
only one role model in the home and the influence of parentchild relationship
quality may be straightforward; higher levels of relationship quality are

expected to lead to increased similarity in ideology. A childs emulation of

role models, however, is complicated by the presence of more than one
potential role model in two-parent families (biological or step)and multiple
relationship dynamics. Gender ideology similarity with one parent may
be affected by a childs relationship with the other parent in the household.
Because the intergenerational transmission of gender ideologies may be
most likely to occur among same-sex dyads, high-quality parentchild rela-
tionships involving opposite-sex parents may buttress the socialization pro-
cess among same-sex biological parentchild dyads in two-parent families
(Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 2000). Nevertheless, because mothers and
fathers may ascribe to different gender ideologies, a competing role model
dynamic may emerge in which children may model the parent with whom
they have the closest relationship.
It is unclear whether a stepparent is likely to stand as an alternative role
model or function solely in a supportive role. On one hand, the socialization
process and the influence and choice of role models in stepfamilies may be
most similar to two-parent biological families. That is, one might assume that
a child is most likely to model the same-sex (step)parent. On the other hand,
the process may be more similar to that of single-parent families in that chil-
dren may primarily model their biological parent and the stepparent may only
serve to support this process. Overall, because of the potentially tentative
relationship between stepparents and stepchildren, we expect that children
likely infrequently model their stepparents. Yet modeling influences are
likely to be a function of relationship quality.
Confounding Factors
Socialization does not simply consist of parents socializing their children
while they are young. Indeed, socialization is a continuous and reciprocal
process that persists throughout the life course (Fan & Marini, 2000). The
background characteristics and life experiences of individuals also matter.
Our focus on the intergenerational transmission of gender ideology is also
complicated by broader changes in gender ideology in recent decades.
First, background characteristics and life experiences shape attitudes and
behavior and may confound our analysis. Gender ideology has been found
to vary by level of education (Astin & Kent, 1983; Fan & Marini, 2000),
childhood family structure (McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003), and
marital and parental status (Fan & Marini, 2000; Kane & Sanchez, 1994;
Sanchez & Thomson, 1997). Because ones experiences shape ones

attitudes, it is important to recognize that gender ideology similarity or

dissimilarity between parents and their adult children may be the product of
similarity or dissimilarity in these experiences (Glass, Bengtson, &
Dunham, 1986). Indeed, gender ideology similarity outcomes between par-
ents and children may be due in part to status inheritance and the effects
those statuses have on ones gender ideology rather than social learning by
children. Therefore, in examining the transmission of gender ideology from
parents to children, it is first necessary to assess the relative importance of
parents gender ideologies for those of their adult children compared with
other factors implicated in shaping ones gender ideology, and second, to
control for status similarities in assessing how family structure conditions
gender ideology similarity.
Second, socialization between parents and children may be a reciprocal
process, and as children age they may influence their parents (Glass et al.,
1986; McHale & Crouter, 2003). Thus, we consider changes in a parents
gender ideology as a predictor of the adult childs gender ideology as well as
the parentchild gender ideology similarity.
Finally, cohort and age effects may confound analyses of socialization
outcomes. Although younger cohorts and generations are more egalitarian
than older cohorts and generations, there have also been substantial within-
cohort changes toward egalitarianism (Brewster & Padavic, 2000; Brooks &
Bolzendahl, 2004; Ciabattari, 2001; Fan & Marini, 2000; Moen et al., 1997;
Thornton &Young-Demarco, 2001). Also, age differences between parents
and children may be associated with dissimilarity as older parents are likely
to be more traditional than younger parents. However, since older ages at
birth for recent generations are related to higher levels of education (Martin,
2000)a factor implicated in higher valuation of gender egalitarianism
age differences may instead be related to increases in similarity.
Thornton and Young-Demarcos (2001) analysis of sex-role attitudes
from the 1960s to 1990s illustrates how between- and within-cohort differ-
ences may affect intergenerational similarity. In 1985 and 1993, daughters
(81.7% and 85.3%, respectively) were far more likely to report egalitarian
attitudes than mothers (69.7% and 74.1%) and sons (74.6% and 79.9%).
Moreover, the views of sons and mothers appear to be more similar than
the views of daughter and mothers. Sons, and especially daughters, are
likely to possess even more dissimilar attitudes from their fathers. Thus,
differences across cohorts may result in increasing similarity between
mothers and sons but especially divergent attitudes between fathers and
daughters.

Method
Data
Data for this study come from Waves 1 (1987-1988) and 2 (1992-1994) of
the National Survey of Families and Households. From the original sample
of 13,017 U.S. adults, those with children had a randomly selected older
focal child who was also interviewed in Wave 2 when between the ages of
18 and 23 years.
The sample for this study consists of these children, who were full-time
members of their household in Wave 1, and their resident (step)parents who
were in one of three family structures at Wave 1 that did not change before
the Wave 2 interviews: intact two-parent biological families, stepfamilies,
and single-parent families. In cases in which both biological parents were
present at home (i.e., two-parent biological families) the primary respondents
responses are used to assess biological parentchild gender ideology simi-
larity. Stepfamilies are operationalized as households where the child was a
full-time member at Time 1, living with a biological parent who was married
to, or who eventually married, a coresidential adult who was not his or her
biological parent. Single-parent families are defined as households where the
child was also a full-time member at Time 1, living with an unmarried bio-
logical parent who remained unmarried and noncohabiting.
The sample restrictions exclude families with a focal child whose family
structure changed between Waves 1 and 2 (n = 169; 15.5%), families consist-
ing of long-term cohabiting adults (n = 8; 0.1%), and families where no bio-
logical parent of the focal child was present (n = 76; 7.0%). In all, our final
sample includes parentchild dyads from 269 single-parent families, 167 step-
families, and 401 two-parent biological families (N = 837).
Measures
Descriptive characteristics for all variables that are used in our analysis are
displayed in Table 1. Young adult child attitudes and characteristics derive
from his or her only interview (i.e., Wave 2). Unless indicated, we use parent
characteristics from the Wave 1 interviews because they better reflect the
family environment while the adult child was growing up.
Gender ideology and gender ideology similarity. Young adult childs gender
ideology (Time 2) as well as biological parents gender ideology (Times 1
and 2) and spouses gender ideology (Time 1) are summed scales (range = 0-12)
derived from ones level of agreement with the following three statements:
(a) A husband whose wife is working full-time should spend just as many

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Young Adult Children, Biological Parents, and
Spouses (N = 837)
Two-Parent Single-Parent
Biological Family Stepfamily Family
Sample (N = 837) (N = 401) (N = 167) (N = 269)
Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD
Gender ideology
Young adult child 8.123 2.1911 8.099 2.227 8.141 2.213 8.148 2.123
gender ideology
Biological parent 6.396* 2.348 6.132 2.271 6.301 2.338 6.850 2.399
gender ideology
Wave 1
Spouse gender 6.132 2.290 6.063 2.206 6.316 2.479
ideologyWave 1
Biological parent 9.497 1.833 9.434 1.802 9.482 2.039 9.600 1.738
child gender
ideology similarity
Moderating variables
Young adult childs 0.036* 0.715 0.109 0.641 0.007 0.793 0.054 0.757
relationship quality
with biological
parent
Young adult childs 0.296 0.953 0.121 0.631 .670 0.976
relationship quality
with biological
parents spouse
Two-parent 0.479
biological family
Single-parent family 0.321
Biological parent 0.271* 0.396 0.275 0.082
gender (1 = father)
Heterogeneous 0.505 0.494 0.519 0.512
biological parent
child dyad
Predictors of young adult childs gender ideology
Young adult child 0.501 0.482 0.488 0.536
gender (1 = male)
education (years)
still attending high
school
high school
education
more than high
school education
(continued)

Table 1. (continued)
Two-Parent Single-Parent
Biological Family Stepfamily Family
Sample (N = 837) (N = 401) (N = 167) (N = 269)
Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD
marital status
(1 = married)
Young adult child 0.189* 0.132 0.192 0.272
parental status
(1 = parent)
Live with parent 0.442* 0.596 0.407 0.234
Young adult child 20.60 1.893 20.72 1.935 20.44 1.799 20.52 1.882
age
Black 0.153* 0.090 0.084 0.290
Hispanic 0.073 0.077 0.090 0.056
Confounding factors
ideology change
Young adult more 0.579* 0.638 0.557 0.506
educated than
biological parent
Young adult less 0.112* 0.087 0.084 0.167
educated than
biological parent
Marital status 0.397* 0.170 0.156 0.885
similarity
Parentchild age 26.865 5.765 27.028 5.525 26.268 5.640 27.029 6.181
difference
Note: N = 837 biological parentchild dyads. Family structure is represented by three dummy variables
with stepfamily as the reference category. Race/ethnicity is represented by three dummy variables with
White as the reference category. All variables are unweighted. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
*p < .05, analysis of variance. p < .05 (two-tailed), independent samples t test.
hours doing housework as his wife, (b) It is much better for everyone if the
man earns the main living and the woman takes care of the home and family,
(c) It is all right for mothers to work full-time when their youngest child is
under 5. Responses range from 0 to 4 (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree,
2 = neither, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree) and were recoded so that higher
scores indicate more egalitarian gender ideologies (Cronbachs for focal
child = .43; biological parent Time 1 = .35, Time 2 = .34; spouse Time 1
= .39).
Each of these items taps a unique dimension of gender ideology including
attitudes toward the gendered division of labor, mothers labor force partici-
pation, and mens participation in unpaid household labor (Szinovacz &

Harpster, 1993). We are limited to these three items because they were the
only questions asked of focal children at Wave 2. Because our gender ideol-
ogy scales are limited to only three items, the internal consistency score of
each is notably low. We compared the three-item scale for parents and
spouses with a larger five-item scale available for both at each wave (bio-
logical parent Time 1 = .68, Time 2 = .63; spouse Time 1 = .70).
Additional questions were asked about ones level of agreement with the
following two statements: children whose mothers work full-time are likely
to suffer and it is okay for a child younger than age 3 to spend all day in
daycare. Results indicated that the three-item scales highly correlated with
the five-item scales at each wave (Time 1 biological parent r = .89; Time 2
r = .91; Time 1 spouse r = .89), suggesting that the low reliability scores for
our measures are largely because of the low number of items used to create
these scales.
Biological parentchild similarity score is a measure of similarity between
a biological parents gender ideology at Wave 2 and young adult childs ide-
ology at Wave 2. To construct this measure, we first took the absolute value
of the difference between the biological parents and adult childs attitudes
(range = 0-12). Then, we subtracted 12 from this measure and again took the
absolute value, to create a score that indicates similarity (0 = vastly different
attitudes, 12 = identical attitudes).
Moderating variables. In examining the association between a parents and a
young adult childs gender ideology we consider one moderating variable:
parentchild relationship quality. Relationship quality with biological parent
and relationship quality with biological parents spouse are drawn from the
adult childs Wave 2 rating of their overall relationships (0 = really bad, 10 =
absolutely perfect) with biological parents and stepparents, and their responses
to three questions: (a) My mother/father/stepparent is a loving and affection-
ate parent, (b) My mother/father/stepparent praises or admires things Ive
done, and (c) My mother/father/stepparent is not very interested in my life
or in what happens to me. Responses for these questions range from 0 to 4
(0 = strongly agree, 1 = agree, 2 = neither, 3 = disagree, 4 = strongly dis-
agree). All responses were recoded so that higher values indicate higher levels
of parentchild relationship quality. Then, the four measures were standardized
and summed to create relationship quality scales (Cronbachs = .72).
When predicting parentchild similarity scores, we consider several addi-
tional variables that may interact with one another: family structure, parents
gender, parentchild gender heterogeneity. Family structure contains three
categories: single-parent family, two-parent biological family, and stepfamily
(reference category). Biological parents gender and parentchild gender
heterogeneity are dummy variables with mother and biological same-sex
parentchild pairs as reference categories.

Predictors of gender ideology. Factors that may influence the association

between a parents and adult childs ideologies include the following: young
adult childs gender (1 = male), parents education (which is a continuous
measure of years of school completed; range = 1-20), and young adult childs
education (which is an ordinal level measure of highest level of school
attended). We collapsed young adult childrens education into four catego-
ries: less than high school (reference), still attending high school, high school
or equivalent, and more than high school. A childs background characteris-
tics such as marital status (1 = married), parental status (1 = parent), whether
one lives with parent(s), young adult childs age, and race (Black, Hispanic,
with non-Black/non-Hispanic as reference) are also analyzed.
Confounding factors. To consider the effects of changes in parents ideology,
we use the variable biological parent ideology change, which indicates
the difference between a biological parents Wave 1 and Wave 2 scores
(range = 8 to 8). Educational similarity is a three-category variable measur-
ing whether children have more, the same (reference), or less education than
the biological parent of interest. Because some of the focal children have yet
to finish their education, we also include a dummy variable for whether the
child is still attending high school. Marital status similarity is a measure indi-
cating whether the biological parent and young adult child share similar mari-
tal statuses (1 = both married or both unmarried). Age difference is measured
as the difference in young adult childs age and the biological parents age.
Analysis
All analyses are conducted using ordinary least squares regression. Because
of issues with missing data related to spouses/partners information and
childrens reports of relations with parents in the National Survey of Families
and Households, we follow the recommendation of Sassler and McNally
(2003) by imputing these missing data. In our sample, listwise deletion of
cases with missing values results in a 27.5% reduction in cases for two-parent
families (n = 155). To impute missing data we use the ICE and MICOMBINE
procedures in Stata (Acock, 2005). For our analyses, significance levels up
to p < .10, two-tailed, are reported because of small sample sizes (Royall, 1986).
Results
As shown in Table 1, the gender ideologies of young adult children are mark-
edly more egalitarian than those of their parents, which is consistent with
evidence of gender ideology shifts across cohorts. Parents gender ideology
varies across family structure, whereas the attitudes of their young adult

children do not. Compared with single parents, married parents hold more
traditional gender ideologies. Relationship quality also appears to vary sub-
stantially across family structure. Young adult children report significantly
higher levels of relationship quality with their biological parents in intact
homes. Also, they report markedly better relations with biological parents
than stepparents in two-parent families, as expected.
The results from our analysis that predicts a young adult childs gender
ideology are shown in Table 2. The coefficients in Model 1 of Table 2 indi-
cate, as expected, a positive and significant association between a biological
parents gender ideology at Wave 1 and the young adult childs gender ideol-
ogy at Wave 2 ( = 0.227, p < .001). To assess the importance of biological
parents ideologies for those of their adult children, we compared the amount
of variation (partial R2) in adult childrens gender ideologies that were
explained by each variable in our model. Our results suggest that next to a
young adult childs gender (partial R2 = .042) and education (partial R2 =
.047), a biological parents gender ideology is the most important predictor of
a young adults gender ideology (partial R2 = .026).
In Model 2, we test the hypothesis that the association between a parents
gender ideology and that of their young adult child depends on parentchild
relationship quality. As shown by the interaction coefficient in Model 2, we
find no evidence of a significant interaction between biological parentchild
relationship quality and biological parents gender ideology in predicting
their young adult childs gender ideology.
Limiting our sample to two-parent families (i.e., two-parent biological and
stepfamilies) in Models 3 through 6, we next examine the association between
the biological parents spouses gender ideology and the gender ideology of
their young adult (step)children. As shown in Model 3, spouses gender ide-
ology is significantly associated with the gender ideology of the adult child
( = 0.114, p < .05). However, the interaction term ( = 0.175, p < .10) and
component coefficients in Model 4 indicate that the spouses gender ideology
only predicts those of the adult child when the spouse is a biological parent.
On average, there is no association between a stepparents gender ideology
and their stepchildrens gender ideology ( = 0.004), whereas gender
ideologies for spouses who are biological parents are just as predictive of
the childs gender ideologies as the other biological parents ideologies
(0.175 0.004 = 0.171).
The differences between biological parents and stepparents appear to be
explained by the spouses relationship quality with children. The interactions
of spouses gender ideology with spousechild relationship quality in Models 5
and 6 are significant, suggesting that as relationship quality between spouses
and children increase, the predictive quality of the spouses gender ideology

Table 2. Ordinary Least Squares Regression of Adult Childs Egalitarian Gender Ideology on Parents Egalitarian Gender Ideology,
Parent Characteristics, Adult Child Characteristics, and Family Characteristics (N = 837)
722
All Family Structures (N = 837) Two-Parent Family Structures (N = 568)
Model 1, B (SE) Model 2, B (SE) Model 3, B (SE) Model 4, B (SE) Model 5, B (SE) Model 6, B (SE)
Biological parent egalitarian 0.227*** (0.039) 0.226*** (0.039) 0.163** (0.057) 0.157** (0.057) 0.158** (0.056) 0.156** (0.056)
gender ideology
Spouse egalitarian gender 0.114* (0.048) 0.004 (0.080) 0.122* (0.047) 0.061 (0.085)
ideology
Two-parent biological family 0.112 (0.200) 0.110 (0.200) 0.024 (0.250) 1.039 (0.626) 0.010 (0.248) 0.525 (0.668)
Single-parent family 0.170 (0.221) 0.164 (0.222)
Biological parents gender (father)a 0.405* (0.177) 0.401* (0.178) 0.441* (0.215) 0.403 (0.216) 0.433* (0.214) 0.415 (0.215)
Relationship quality with 0.203 (0.103) 0.117 (0.294) 0.395* (0.172) 0.400* (0.171) 0.454** (0.171) 0.449** (0.172)
biological parent
Relationship quality with 0.047 (0.168) 0.062 (0.166) 1.052** (0.406) 0.940* (0.431)
biological parents spouse
Biological parent egalitarian 0.012 (0.041)
gender ideology * Relationship
quality with biological parent
Spouses egalitarian gender 0.175 (0.095) 0.088 (0.102)
ideology * Two-parent biological
family
Spouses egalitarian gender 0.160** (0.058) 0.141* (0.062)
ideology * Relationship quality

with biological parents spouse
Young adult childs gender (male)b 0.853*** (0.150) 0.854*** (0.150) 1.012*** (0.203) 1.041*** (0.204) 1.058*** (0.203) 1.067*** (0.203)
Biological parents years of 0.039 (0.028) 0.040 (0.028) 0.015 (0.038) 0.017 (0.038) 0.020 (0.038) 0.020 (0.038)
education
(continued)

Table 2. (continued)
All Family Structures (N = 837) Two-Parent Family Structures (N = 568)
Model 1, B (SE) Model 2, B (SE) Model 3, B (SE) Model 4, B (SE) Model 5, B (SE) Model 6, B (SE)
c
Attending high school 1.510*** (0.454) 1.515*** (0.455) 1.675* (0.691) 1.653* (0.690) 1.641* (0.686) 1.633* (0.686)
High schoolc 0.974** (0.351) 0.977** (0.351) 1.263* (0.563) 1.270* (0.562) 1.248* (0.559) 1.253* (0.559)
More than high schoolc 1.384*** (0.338) 1.385*** (0.338) 1.381* (0.545) 1.320* (0.544) 1.297* (0.542) 1.276* (0.543)
Married 0.616** (0.237) 0.611** (0.238) 1.118*** (0.325) 1.194*** (0.324) 1.227*** (0.323) 1.230*** (0.323)
Parent 0.307 (0.217) 0.307 (0.217) 0.232 (0.337) 0.254 (0.336) 0.307 (0.336) 0.309 (0.336)
Live with parent 0.263 (0.170) 0.260 (0.170) 0.509* (0.228) 0.509* (0.227) 0.496* (0.226) 0.498* (0.226)
Age (standardized) 0.164* (0.081) 0.165* (0.081) 0.201 (0.117) 0.220 (0.117) 0.222 (0.120) 0.229 (0.117)
Black 0.267 (0.212) 0.265 (0.212) 0.683 (0.360) 0.656 (0.359) 0.707* (0.358) 0.690 (0.358)
Hispanic 0.188 (0.295) 0.187 (0.295) 0.137 (0.419) 0.193 (0.420) 0.257 (0.422) 0.271 (0.422)
Biological parent ideology change 0.155*** (0.042) 0.155*** (0.042) 0.159** (0.059) 0.160** (0.059) 0.161** (0.058) 0.161** (0.058)
R2 .153 .153 .192 .199 .208 .210
Note: N = 837 biological parentchild dyads. Family structure is represented by three dummy variables with stepfamily as the reference category. Race/ethnicity is
represented by three dummy variables with White as the reference category. SE = standard error.
a. Reference category = mother.
b.Reference category = female.

c.Reference category = dropout.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
723
for the young adult childs ideology also increases. This finding holds even
when accounting for whether the spouse is a biological parent or a stepparent.
The results of our first analysis that examines parentchild similarity score
as the dependent variable are shown in Table 3. In Model 1, as predicted,
fathers exhibit less similar attitudes with their adult children than mothers
( = 0.374, p < .05). Also, increases in a parents support for more egalitar-
ian gender ideologies are positively linked to parentchild similarity ( = 0.178,
p < .001). Greater age differences between parents and children lead to less
similarity in gender ideologies ( = 0.038, p < .001), supporting the notion
of significant shifts toward more egalitarian gender ideologies across cohorts.
Unexpectedly, there is some evidence (p < .10) that being a parent signifi-
cantly reduces a young adults gender ideology similarity with their biologi-
cal parent. This finding may be indicative of the fact that parenthood in young
adulthood can reflect problems in the parentchild relationship, a lack of
parental monitoring of their childs behaviors, or a rejection of parental
influence.
Surprisingly, parentchild relationship quality does not predict attitude
similarity. Combined with the findings that the relatively strong association
between a parents and adult childs ideologies does not vary by relationship
quality (see Model 2 from Table 2), the result suggests that biological parent
child relationship quality is not associated with parentchild gender ideology
similarity. It seems that ones family is such a primary source of gendered
attitudes (Cunningham, 2001a) that the transmission of gender ideology may
not depend on the quality of the biological parentchild bond.
We test for interaction effects involving family structure and parentchild
gender combinations in Models 2 through 5. In Model 2, there is no evidence
that parentchild heterogeneity reduces similarity in two-parent biological
families compared with single-parent families and stepfamilies. In Model 3,
the interaction findings suggest that biological fathers attitudes are more
similar to that of their children in single-parent and two-parent biological
families, compared with stepfamily households. This finding is consistent
with our hypothesis that stepfamily structure would adversely affect fathers
socialization of children. In contrast, similarity between mothers and their
adult children does not vary substantially by family structure, as predicted.
In Model 4 of Table 3, the interaction between parentchild gender hetero-
geneity and parents gender suggests that parentchild gender heterogeneity
is associated with lower levels of gender ideology similarity between fathers
and daughters and higher levels of similarity between mothers and sons.
Overall, this finding is consistent with our expectation that as younger gen-
erations become more egalitarian in their attitudes than their parents, young

Table 3. Ordinary Least Squares Regression of ParentChild Gender Ideology Similarity on Family Structure, ParentChild

Gender Heterogeneity, and ParentChild Relationship Quality (N = 837)
Model 1, B (SE) Model 2, B (SE) Model 3, B (SE) Model 4, B (SE) Model 5, B (SE)
Two-parent biological family 0.034 (0.169) 0.299 (0.240) 0.320 (0.201) 0.040 (0.168) 0.307 (0.200)
Single-parent family 0.124 (0.230) 0.340 (0.290) 0.199 (0.245) 0.051 (0.229) 0.255 (0.244)
Biological parentchild gender heterogeneitya 0.040 (0.124) 0.451 (0.280) 0.056 (0.124) 0.314* (0.146) 0.318* (0.145)
Fatherb 0.374* (0.154) 0.371* (0.154) 1.333*** (0.315) 0.121 (0.209) 0.825* (0.348)
Relationship quality with biological parent 0.141 (0.088) 0.142 (0.088) 0.153 (0.088) 0.143 (0.088) 0.154 (0.087)
Two-parent biological family * Heterogeneity 0.529 (0.333)
Single-parent family * Heterogeneity 0.480 (0.358)
Single-parent family * Father 1.433** (0.507) 1.327** (0.504)
Two-parent biological family * Father 1.183*** (0.362) 1.157*** (0.360)
Heterogeneity * Father 0.992*** (0.283) 0.955*** (0.281)
Biological parent ideology change 0.178*** (0.029) 0.177*** (0.030) 0.181*** (0.029) 0.184*** (0.029) 0.186*** (0.029)
Adult child parent 0.316 (0.173) 0.316 (0.175) 0.264 (0.173) 0.264 (0.173) 0.217 (0.172)
Marital status similarity 0.066 (0.183) 0.038 (0.184) 0.044 (0.182) 0.019 (0.182) 0.001 (0.181)
Parentchild age difference 0.038*** (0.011) 0.038*** (0.011) 0.037*** (0.011) 0.038*** (0.011) 0.037*** (0.011)
Adult child more educated than parentc 0.067 (0.142) 0.077 (0.142) 0.034 (0.141) 0.055 (0.141) 0.024 (0.140)
Adult child less educated than parentc 0.249 (0.221) 0.243 (0.222) 0.295 (0.220) 0.223 (0.219) 0.269 (0.219)
Still attending high school 0.089 (0.297) 0.101 (0.298) 0.091 (0.296) 0.083 (0.296) 0.088 (0.294)
Live with parent 0.071 (0.139) 0.067 (0.139) 0.060 (0.138) 0.111 (0.138) 0.099 (0.138)
Black 0.074 (0.186) 0.068 (0.187) 0.066 (0.185) 0.038 (0.185) 0.033 (0.184)
Hispanic 0.116 (0.248) 0.129 (0.250) 0.052 (0.247) 0.084 (0.246) 0.023 (0.246)
R2 .076 .079 .090 .091 .105

Note: N = 837 biological parentchild dyads. Family structure is represented by three dummy variables with stepfamily as the reference category. Race/ethnicity is
represented by three dummy variables with White as the reference category. Gender ideology similarity ranges from 0 to 12 (12 = most similar, 0 = most different).
SE = standard error.
a. Reference category = homogeneous parentchild gender dyad.
b. Reference category = mother.
c. Reference category = parent and child have same level of education
725
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
adult men may be more closely converging in attitudes with their mothers,
whereas young adult women are growing even more divergent in their atti-
tudes from their fathers. In Table 4, we examine the socialization process in
stepfamilies and two-parent biological families more closely by investigating
the role a biological parents spouse may play in influencing gender ideology
similarity between biological parents and their young adult children. The
coefficients from Model 1 are largely consistent with those from the additive
models that use the full sample in Table 3. Interactions concerning the bio-
logical parents gender, family structure, and heterogeneity also remain sig-
nificant, as shown in Model 2.
As the interactions in Model 3 show, there is some evidence (p < .10) that
similarity in gender ideology between biological parents and their children
depends on whether the spouse is a stepparent or a biological parent, the
parentchild gender combination, and the childs relationship quality with
the biological parents spouse. High-quality relationships between opposite-
sex stepparents and young adult children appear to significantly increase gen-
der ideology similarity within same-sex biological parentchild dyads.
However, the quality of same-sex stepparentchild relations on opposite-sex
biological parentchild similarity appears to have little effect. When the other
parent is also the childs biological parent, high-quality relationships appear
to reduce similarity.
To better understand these interactions, we graphed the full interaction
equation presented in Model 4 and display the graph in Figure 1. Three main
patterns are apparent. First, the interaction terms that involve parents gender
(Two-parent biological family * Father and parentchild gender heterogene-
ity * Father) are consistent with those found using the full sample (see Table 3).
The effects suggest that fatherchild similarity is especially low in stepfami-
lies, with fathers and daughters in these families the most dissimilar.
In addition, a childs relationship quality with the other parent in the home
interacts with family structure and parentchild gender in ways that result in
unique patterns of attitude similarity across family structure. In stepfamilies,
high-quality relations with stepparents lead to higher levels of similarity in
the gender ideologies of biological parents and their young adult children
who are of the same sex. This finding is consistent with our expectation that
the influence of stepfamilies on the socialization process are especially
dependent on contextual factors such as (step)parentchild relationship qual-
ity. High-quality stepparentchild relationships provide a supportive family
environment that is associated with increased similarity among custodial bio-
logical parents and their same-sex children. Furthermore, although affect
between stepparents and stepchildren may assist biological parentchild

Table 4. Ordinary Least Squares Regression of ParentChild Gender Ideology Similarity on Family Structure, ParentChild
Gender Heterogeneity, and ParentChild Relationship Quality in Two-Parent Families (N = 568)
Model 1, B (SE) Model 2, B (SE) Model 3, B (SE) Model 4, B (SE)
a
Two-parent biological family 0.065 (0.197) 0.368 (0.215) 0.156 (0.213) 0.433 (0.223)
Biological parentchild gender heterogeneityb 0.103 (0.154) 0.523** (0.191) 0.071 (0.155) 0.492* (0.192)
Fatherc 0.461** (0.173) 0.751* (0.367) 0.389* (0.176) 0.632 (0.374)
Relationship quality with biological parent 0.105 (0.134) 0.086 (0.130) 0.048 (0.133) 0.035 (0.129)
Relationship quality with biological parents spoused 0.057 (0.137) 0.004 (0.134) 0.449* (0.227) 0.359 (0.231)
Two-parent biological family * Father 1.154** (0.376) 1.078** (0.380)
Heterogeneity * Father 1.141*** (0.321) 1.137*** (0.320)
Heterogeneity * Relationship quality with parents spouse 0.406 (0.216) 0.369 (0.204)
Two-parent biological family * Relationship quality with parents spouse 0.408 (0.240) 0.375 (0.239)
Biological parent ideology change 0.189*** (0.037) 0.193*** (0.036) 0.196*** (0.037) 0.200*** (0.037)
Adult child parent 0.590* (0.244) 0.501* (0.240) 0.599* (0.244) 0.513* (0.240)
Marital status similarity 0.142 (0.247) 0.256 (0.243) 0.136 (0.246) 0.249 (0.243)
Parentchild age difference 0.031* (0.015) 0.028 (0.014) 0.029* (0.015) 0.026 (0.014)
Adult child more educated than parente 0.112 (0.175) 0.046 (0.173) 0.129 (0.175) 0.064 (0.173)
Adult child less educated than parente 0.462 (0.303) 0.533 (0.299) 0.485 (0.302) 0.550 (0.298)
Still attending high school 0.105 (0.384) 0.155 (0.378) 0.092 (0.383) 0.144 (0.377)
Live with parent 0.152 (0.177) 0.114 (0.174) 0.111 (0.178) 0.077 (0.175)
Black 0.071 (0.280) 0.027 (0.276) 0.072 (0.279) 0.028 (0.275)
Hispanic 0.187 (0.292) 0.070 (0.288) 0.171 (0.291) 0.062 (0.287)
R2 .092 .128 .105 .140

Note: N = 568 biological parentchild dyads from two-parent biological and stepfamilies. Race/ethnicity is represented by three dummy variables with White as the
reference category. SE = standard error.
a. Reference category = stepfamily.
b. Reference category = homogeneous parentchild gender dyad.
c. Reference category = mother.
d. Spouse may be either childs biological parent or stepparent.
727
e. Reference category = parent and child have same level of education.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
Father-son
Father-daughter
Mother-daughter
12.00
Mother-son
9.99 10.11 10.13 10.04
10.00 9.66 9.69 9.41
9.36
9.27 9.21 9.33
Gender Ideology Similarity
8.64 8.64 8.98

8.34 8.36
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
High RQ (+1 SD) Low RQ (1 SD) High RQ (+1 SD) Low RQ (1 SD)
Stepfamily Two-parent biological family
Family Structure
Figure 1. Parentchild gender ideology similarity by gender composition, family

structure, and relationship quality with parents spouse
socialization, Figure 1 also shows that relations between stepparents and chil-
dren of the same sex are not associated with similarity outcomes with bio-
logical parents, indicating that stepparents are less likely to serve as gender
role models for their stepchildrenor do not detract from a biological par-
ents influence.
In two-parent biological families the picture is quite different; higher lev-
els of relationship quality between the other biological parent and child of the
same sex are associated with lower levels of similarity in opposite-sex bio-
logical parentchild pairs. This is indicative of a competing role model effect,
which results in especially divergent gender ideologies among opposite-sex,
parentchild dyads in two-parent biological families when relationship qual-
ity within the same-sex parentchild dyad is high but convergent ideologies
when relationship quality within same-sex parentchild dyads is low.

Discussion
Although a great deal of attention has been paid to the effects of family
structure on childrens well-being, we know very little about how variations
in family structure affect child socialization, especially gender socialization.
Considering the extensive movement toward gender egalitarianism since the
1960s and the significant shifts in family structure coinciding with these
changes, our goal for this study was to explain: (a) how differences in the
marital and family experiences of adults are transmitted to their children and
(b) whether transmission is affected by family structure.
Overall, the results of our study indicate that a biological parents gender
ideology is an important predictor of the gender ideology of a young adult
child. In contrast, a stepparents gender ideology is only conditionally rele-
vant; it may have an influence if stepparentchild relationship quality is high.
However, on average, stepparents have low-quality relations with stepchil-
dren and their gender ideologies are not predictive of their stepchildrens.
This finding is illuminating given that stepparents gender ideologies are, on
average, virtually identical to that of biological parents in two-parent families
whose ideologies are predictive of their childrens ideologies.
We hypothesized that variations in family structurethe performance of
traditional parenting roles, the gender composition of parentchild dyads,
and the relationship quality between parents and childreninfluence parent
child similarity outcomes. There was evidence to support these hypotheses.
For example, we found variations in family structure to primarily predict
attitude similarity among fatherchild dyads, as expected. Although a bio-
logical mothers influence does not appear to vary by family structure, trans-
mission of a biological fathers values occurs most when he is a single parent
or the biological mother is present to assist in socialization. These results
indicate that despite concerns regarding the effects of diverse family struc-
tures on family processes (Blankenhorn, 1995; McLanahan & Sandefur,
1994), variations in family structure do not substantially affect the intergen-
erational transmission of a biological parents gender ideology. Our results
showed that whereas parents ideologies vary across family structure, par-
entchild ideology similarity does not. This finding provides credence to the
notion that continuing shifts away from traditional gender ideologies across
cohorts may be the result of the shifting family structure experiences of chil-
dren. As the numbers of single-parent households increase, the egalitarian
ideologies of single parents are transmitted to children to the same extent as
the more traditional ideologies of parents in two-parent families (father-
headed stepfamilies excluded).

Although we expected that the effects of parentchild gender heterogene-

ity would depend on family structure and the presence of same-sex role mod-
els, we found no evidence for this. Because we considered nontraditional
families headed by both mothers and fathers, our findings indicate that
although previous studies based primarily on motherson dyads indicate het-
erogeneity leads to convergence in attitudes, this does not appear to apply to
fathers and daughters. Nonetheless, we did find heterogeneity to be associ-
ated with similarity but differently for mothers and fathers. We found evi-
dence of converging ideologies among mothers and sons but diverging
attitudes among fathers and daughters. Although we could not explore the
issue further, we think this is an interesting finding warranting further explo-
ration to identify the causal mechanisms that may explain it.
As we anticipated, evidence of the influence of parentchild relationship
quality on the similarity of parents and childs gender ideologies appeared to
be present in our results. Interestingly, in stepfamilies, high levels of spouse
child relationship quality seem to especially enhance attitude similarity among
custodial biological parents and their children who are of the same sex. In
two-parent biological families, high levels of spousechild relationship qual-
ity seem to especially compromise attitude similarity among the (other) bio-
logical parent and children who are of the opposite sex. Indeed, our results
further suggest that a competing role model effect occurs in traditional fami-
lies in which children may model after their opposite-sex parent if relationship
quality with their same-sex parent is low. However, biological parentchild
relationship quality did not consistently function as we anticipated. Instead of
higher levels of biological parentchild relationship quality leading to greater
attitude similarity, we found no association between biological parentchild
relationship quality and parentchild attitude similarity.
Like all studies, our work contains some limitations. For example, we
analyze a relatively small number of father-headed nontraditional families,
which makes us cautious about generalizing the findings about them.
Nevertheless, assessing fathering is essential to understanding parenting and
child socialization and it was important for us to include fathers in this
research. Also, we acknowledge that it would have been better to have more
comprehensive scales to assess the gender ideologies of parents and children.
As for the measurement of parentchild relationship quality, because reports
by the focal child are taken only at Wave 2, we cannot be certain if the
response is indicative of their relationship with the biological parent or step-
parent during the entirety of childhood and adolescence.
Other limitations include concerns about endogeneity, a lack of better
indicators of the processes at work in the intergenerational transmission of

attitudes, and the implications of our framework and findings for other types
of families. For example, we should be cautious about our assumptions
regarding the sources of ones gender ideologies. Gender ideologies may
very well drive decisions about family structures, relationship dynamics, and
educational pursuitsinstead of vice versa. Future work is well advised to
also fully investigate the extent to which our proposed mechanisms for the
intergeneration transmission of gender ideology operate as we anticipate.
A childs reports about how he or she developed his or her attitudes, better
indicators of (step)parents caregiving responsibilities, and information about
noncustodial parentstheir ideologies and relations with childrencould be
useful. Finally, an important direction for future research might include con-
sideration of how the intergenerational transmission of gender ideology may
be similar or different among other family forms including cohabiting fami-
lies, adoptive families, and families with same-sex parents.
In light of these limitations, this research advances understanding of the
socialization of children and the intergenerational transmission of gender ideol-
ogy. We consider new sources, impediments, and pathways of socialization
processes. We are unique in our focus on the effects of family structure as it
relates to the similarity between a biological parents gender ideology and a
young adult childs gender ideology, especially in our focus on stepfamilies,
stepparent influence, and nontraditional families headed by fathers. Our find-
ings emphasize the importance of biological parents attitudes in shaping the
attitudes of children and confirm that stepparents do not stand as gender role
models for their stepchildren. Our findings also emphasize the relevance of
contextual factors that include variations in the presence and absence of par-
ents, the composition of parentchild gender dyads, and parentchild relation-
ship quality. Despite significant shifts in gender ideology over the past 50
years, this study finds that a persons values toward a gendered division of
labor are likely to be derived from ones biological parents and that family
structure contexts are likely implicated in gender ideology changes across
cohorts. Future research should continue to analyze socialization processes and
the intergenerational transmission of gender ideology across family structure.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.

References
Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67, 1012-1028.
Astin, H. S., & Kent, L. (1983). Gender roles in transition: Research and policy impli-
cations for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 309-324.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood CA: Prentice-Hall.
Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social
problem. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Brewster, K. L., & Padavic, I. (2000). Change in gender ideology, 1977-1996: The
contributions of intracohort change and population turnover. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 477-487.
Brooks, C., & Bolzendahl, C. (2004). The transformation of US gender role attitudes:
Cohort replacement, social-structural change, and ideological learning. Social
Science Research, 33, 106-133.
Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral
outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137-154.
Cherlin, A. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Ciabattari, T. (2001). Changes in mens conservative gender ideologies. Gender &
Society, 15, 574-591.
Coley, R. L. (1998). Childrens socialization experiences and functioning in single-
mother households: The importance of fathers and other men. Child Development,
69, 219-230.
Cunningham, M. (2001a). Parental influences on the gendered division of housework.
American Sociological Review, 66, 184-203.
Cunningham, M. (2001b). The influence of parental attitudes and behaviors on chil-
drens attitudes toward gender and household labor in early adulthood. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 63, 111-122.
Faludi, S. (1992). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York,
NY: Anchor.
Fan, P. L., & Marini, M. M. (2000). Influences of gender-role attitudes during the
transition to adulthood. Social Science Research, 29, 258-283.
Fingerson, L. (2005). Do mothers opinions matter in teens sexual activity? Journal
of Family Issues, 26, 947-974.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Nord, C. W. (1985). Parenting apart: Patterns of childrearing
after marital disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 893-904.
Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development,
dynamics, and interventions. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L., & Dunham, C. C. (1986). Attitude similarity in three-
generation families: Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence?
American Sociological Review, 51, 685-698.
Hawkins, D. N., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2006). Parent-adolescent involvement:
The relative influence of parent gender and residence. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 68, 125-136.
Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. (2000). Diversity among stepfamilies.
In D. H. Demo, K. R. Allen, & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity
(pp. 173-196). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hilton, J. M., & Haldeman, V. A. (1991). Gender differences in the performance
of household tasks by adults and children in single-parent and two-parent, two-
earner families. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 114-130.
Inkeles, A. (1968). Society, social structure, and child socialization. In J. A. Clausen
(Ed.), Socialization and society (pp. 73-129). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Kane, E. W. (1992). Race, gender, and attitudes toward gender stratification. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55, 311-320.
Kane, E. W., & Sanchez, L. (1994). Family status and criticism of gender inequality
at home and at work. Social Forces, 72, 1079-1102.
Kapinus, C. A. (2004). The effect of parents attitudes toward divorce on offsprings
attitudes. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 112-135.
Kiecolt, J. K., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The long-term effects of family structure on
gender-role attitudes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 709-717.
Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Parenting and adolescents accuracy in perceiving
parental values. Child Development, 74, 595-611.
Kohn, M. L., Slomczynski, K. M., & Schoenbach, C. (1986). Social stratification and
the transmission of values in the family: A cross-national assessment. Sociological
Forum, 1, 73-102.
Krieder, R. M., & Fields, J. (2005, July). Living arrangements of children: 2001
(Current Population Reports P70-104). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Mandara, J., Murray, C. B., & Joyner, T. N. (2005). The impact of fathers absence
on African American adolescents gender role development. Sex Roles, 53,
207-220.
Martin, S. P. (2000). Diverging fertility among U.S. women who delay childbearing
past age 30. Demography, 37, 523-533.
McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2003). How do children exert an impact on family
life? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Childrens influence on family dynam-
ics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 207-220). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003). The family contexts of gen-
der development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12, 125-148.

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moen, P., Erickson, M. A., & Dempster-McClain, D. (1997). Their mothers daugh-
ters? The intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes in a world of changing
roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 281-293.
Risman, B. J. (1987). Intimate relationships from a microstructural perspective: Men
who mother. Gender & Society, 1, 6-32.
Royall, R. M. (1986). The effect of sample size on the meaning of significance tests.
American Statistician, 40, 313-315.
Sanchez, L., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood,
gender, and the division of household labor. Gender & Society, 11, 747-772.
Sassler, S., & McNally, J. (2003). Cohabiting couples economic circumstances and
union transitions: A re-examination using multiple imputation techniques. Social
Science Research, 32, 553-578.
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents
matter? American Sociological Review, 66, 159-183.
Szinovacz, M., & Harpster, P. (1993). Employment status, gender role attitudes, and
marital dependence in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 927-940.
Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender and
parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 368-378.
Thornton, A., & Young-Demarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes
toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009-1037.

0000 Family Structure and The Intergenerational Transmission of Gender Ideology

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

0000 Family Structure and The Intergenerational Transmission of Gender Ideology

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journalhttp://jfi.sagepub.

Family Structure and the Intergenerational Transmission of Gender

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.

Journal of Family Issues

Family Structure and 32(6) 709734

Daniel L. Carlson1 and Chris Knoester1

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Socialization can be defined as the process through which individuals acquire

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

responsibilities increases a single fathers intimacy and involvement with his

Gender Composition and the

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

In single-parent families, compared with two-parent families, heteroge-

ParentChild Relationship Quality

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

expected to lead to increased similarity in ideology. A childs emulation of

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

attitudes, it is important to recognize that gender ideology similarity or

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Predictors of gender ideology. Factors that may influence the association

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

All Family Structures (N = 837) Two-Parent Family Structures (N = 568)

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

8.64 8.64 8.98

Figure 1. Parentchild gender ideology similarity by gender composition, family

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Although we expected that the effects of parentchild gender heterogene-

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at Universidad de Navarra-Biblioteca on May 26, 2011

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen