Advertisement

Stereotypes of single and married women and men in Turkish culture

  • Nuray Sakallı Uğurlu
  • Beril Türkoğlu
  • Abdulkadir Kuzlak
  • Anmol Gupta
Article
First Online:

Abstract

While it is natural for stereotypes of social groups to change over time and across various social contexts, there has been a lack of research investigating how marriage impacts specifically gender-based stereotypes. In Turkish culture, social status, roles, and stereotypes are highly dependent on marital status, and more so for women, who are labeled as “girls” until marriage. The present research seeks to examine how people picture men and women before and after marriage through free response. Specifically, undergraduates (N = 206) wrote down adjectives for single men, married men, single women, and married women. Adjectives were categorized using thematic analysis into stereotypes of appearance, personality traits, gender roles, and power. Single men were predominantly described with negative personality traits (e.g., womanizer, irresponsible, self-indulgent, and immature) whereas stereotypes of married men aligned more with traditional gender roles (e.g., father, breadwinner, and householder). However, participants stereotyped single and married men within similar power domains (dominant, masculine, and independent). On the other hand, single women were mainly stereotyped by their personality traits (e.g., fragile/pure) while married women were mainly described with their gender roles (e.g., self-sacrificing, mothering/nurturing) and positive personality traits (e.g., warm, mature). Additionally, participants described both single and married women as dominated, dependent, and resistant to power. Results are discussed considering sexism theory, system justification theory, and honor. Findings can be applied to understandings of how marriage may shape gender stereotypes in highly gendered, honor cultures.

Keywords

Gender roles Stereotypes Single women/men Married women/men Turkish culture 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Aktan, T., & Bilim, G. (2016). Contents of stereotypes toward woman subgroups: An investigation in the framework of stereotype content model. Nesne, 4(8), 147–182.  https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-04-08-01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: Toward a cognitive—Social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5(2), 219–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287932.
  4. Balkır, A. (1989). Women’s perception of themselves. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Ankara University, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Turkey.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolak-Boratav, H., Okman-Fişek, G., & Eslen-Ziya, H. (2017). Erkekliğin Türkiye halleri [manhood in Turkey]. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665–692.  https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.5.3.665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter, S., & Trentham, S. (1999). Subtypes of women and men: A new taxonomy and an exploratory categorical analysis. Society, 13(4), 679–696.Google Scholar
  10. Çelik, K., & Lüküslü, D. (2012). Spotlighting a silent category of young females: The life experiences of “house girls” in Turkey. Youth & Society, 44(1), 28–48.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10391636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceylan, S. (2016). Social psychological predictors of violence against women in honor cultures. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Ankara: Middle East Technical University, Turkey.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D., & Vandello, J. A. (2001). Honor and “faking” honorability. In R. Nesse (Ed.), Evolution and the capacity for commitment (pp. 163–185). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Copur, Z., & Koropeckyj-Cox, T. (2010). University students’ perception of childless couples and parents in Ankara, Turkey. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 1481–1506.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10361577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross, S. E., Uskul, A. K., Gercek-Swing, B., Alozkan, C., & Ataca, B. (2013). Confrontation versus withdrawal: Cultural differences in responses to threats to honor. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 345–362.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212461962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deaux, K., & Kite, M. E. (1993). Gender stereotypes. In F. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Handbook on the psychology of women (pp. 107–139). Westpot: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  17. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 991–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.5.991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dedeoğlu, S. (2000). Family and women’s labor in terms of gender in Turkey. Toplum ve Bilim, 86, 139–170.Google Scholar
  20. Dökmen, Z. Y. (1997). Relationship between working, gender, and gender roles with houseworks and depression. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 12(39), 39–56.Google Scholar
  21. Dökmen, Z. Y. (1999). Psychometric properties of the Turkish form of femininity and masculinity scales of BEM gender role inventory. Kriz Dergisi, 7(1), 27–40.  https://doi.org/10.1501/0000901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dökmen, Z. (2003). Mental health, locus of control, and gender roles in three groups of women differing in employment status. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 18(51), 125–127.Google Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4), 543–558.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.4.735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11(2), 123–136.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455870112001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-role stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 133–141.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gillespie, B. L., & Eisler, R. M. (1992). Development of the feminine gender role stress scale: A cognitive-behavioral measure of stress, appraisal, and coping for women. Behavior Modification, 16(3), 426–438.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455920163008.
  29. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.
  31. Glick, P., Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Akbaş, G., Metin Orta, I., & Ceylan, S. (2016). Why do women endorse honor beliefs? Ambivalent sexism and religiosity as predictors. Sex Roles, 75, 543–554.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0550-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 197–208.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.58.2.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Husnu, S. (2016). The role of ambivalent sexism and religiosity in predicting attitudes toward childlessness in Muslim undergraduate students. Sex Roles, 75, 573–582.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0639-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. İlkkaracan, İ. (1998). Women in cities and work life. In A. B. Hacımirzaoğlu (Ed.), Women and men in 75 years (pp. 285–302). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.Google Scholar
  35. Jost, J., & Banaji, M. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kandiyoti, D. (1978). Dimensions of psycho-social change in women: A comparison between genders and generations. (Unpublished associate professorship thesis). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University, Turkey.Google Scholar
  38. Kandiyoti, D. (1995). Patterns of patriarchy: Notes for an analysis of male dominance in Turkish society. In S. Tekeli (Ed.), Women in modern Turkish society (pp. 306–318). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  39. Kay, A., & Jost, J. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of "poor but happy" and "poor but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823–837.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kocacık, F., & Gökkaya, V. B. (2005). The problems of working women in Turkey. C.Ü. İktisadi İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 195–219.Google Scholar
  41. Özkan, B., & Gündoğdu, A. E. (2011). Turkish proverbs and idioms in gender context. Turkish Studies, 6(3), 1133–1147.Google Scholar
  42. Park, B., & Banchefsky, S. (2018). Leveraging the social role of dad to change gender stereotypes of men. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218768794.
  43. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rudman, L., & Phelan, J. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1164–1178.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sakallı, N., & Curun, F. (2001). Attitudes toward stereotypes about romantic relationship. Tecrübi Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 22, 31–45.Google Scholar
  48. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., & Akbaş, G. (2013). “Honor” and “violence against women in the name of honor” in honor cultures. Turkish Psychological Articles, 16(32), 76–91.Google Scholar
  49. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., & Glick, P. (2003). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 296–302.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552194. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sancar, S. (2009). Erkeklik imkansız iktidar: Ailede, piyasada ve sokakta erkekler [manhood as impossible power: Men in the family, market, and the street]. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.Google Scholar
  51. Sancar, S. (2012). Türk modernleşmesinin cinsiyeti: Erkekler devlet, kadınlar aile kurar [gender of Turkish modernization: Men establish state, women start family]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar
  52. Sapiro, V. (2003). Theorizing gender in political psychology. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jewis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 601–634). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sever, A., & Yurdakul, G. (2001). Culture of honor, culture of change: A feminist analysis of honor killings in Turkey. Violence Against Women, 7, 964–998.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010122182866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spence, J. T., & Helmrich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texsas Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stangor, C., & Schaller, M. (1996). Stereotypes as individual and collective representations. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 3–37). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sunar, D. (1982). Female stereotypes in the United States and Turkey: An application of functional theory to perception in power relationships. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13(4), 445–460.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002182013004004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sunar, D. (2002). Change and continuity in the Turkish middle class family. In E. Özdalga & R. Liljestrom (Eds.), Autonomy and dependence in family: Turkey and Sweden in critical perspective (pp. 217–237). Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute.Google Scholar
  58. Türkoğlu, B. (2013). Fay hattında erkeklikler: Çalışma ve işsizlik ekseninde erkekliğe bakış [Manhood on the fault line: Examining manhood under the frame of working and unemployment]. Mülkiye Dergisi, 37(4), 33–61.Google Scholar
  59. Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men and Masculinities, 14, 101–113.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson, T. (1996). Cohort and prejudice: Whites' attitudes toward blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Asians. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 253.  https://doi.org/10.1086/297750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology Department (Psikoloji Bölümü)Middle East Technical University (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)AnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Lawrence UniversityAppletonUSA

Personalised recommendations