929089

research-article2020
JCCXXX10.1177/0022022120929089Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyLee et al.

Article
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cultural Factors Facilitating

2020, Vol. 51(5) 333­–352
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
or Inhibiting the Support for sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022022120929089
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022120929089
Traditional Household Gender journals.sagepub.com/home/jcc

Roles

I-Ching Lee1 , Fei Hu2, and Wen-Qiao Li3

Abstract
Movement toward gender equality has occurred worldwide for the past century; nevertheless,
some people still strongly endorse traditional gender norms. We investigated the associations of
societal characteristics (gross domestic product [GDP] per capita and the gender empowerment
measure) and cultural characteristics, including Hofstede’s, Schwartz’s, and Welzel’s scores
(hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, person vs. social focus, mastery vs. harmony, long-term orientation,
uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity–femininity), with support for traditional household
gender roles. To reveal advantageous or disadvantageous conditions for support for traditional
household gender roles, we conducted a secondary data analysis with representative samples
(n = 59,713) of 41 societies collected by the International Social Survey Program. According
to the multilevel modeling analysis, individuals have lower endorsement of traditional household
gender roles in societies that value mastery and enjoy economic development (i.e., GDP per
capita), gender equality (measured by the gender empowerment measure), and personal focus.
Contrarily, individuals have higher endorsement of traditional household gender roles in societies
where hierarchy, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and masculine characteristics
are valued. Individual characteristics (women, work experience, education, big-city experience,
and younger generations) also predict lower support for traditional household gender roles.
In addition, gender differences in traditional household gender roles are larger in societies
with greater economic development and personal focus and lower emphasis on hierarchy and
long-term orientation. Finally, the national means of traditional household gender roles predict
concurrent social movement activities and gender equality at a later time. Potential mechanisms
are further discussed.

Keywords
personal vs. social focus, cultural characteristics, gender equality

Movement toward gender equality has occurred worldwide since the 19th century (Rupp, 1997).
Despite progress over such a long period of time, traditional gender norms are still robust and are

1
National Taiwan University, Taipei
2
National Chengchi University, Taipei
3
Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

Corresponding Author:
I-Ching Lee, Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei 10617.
Email: icl2018@ntu.edu.tw
334 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

reflected in many women’s lives across societies, such as in sex-selective abortion (e.g., in China,
Huang et al., 2016) and domestic abuse (30.0% of Indian women reported abuse by their hus-
bands in the past year, Kalokhe et al., 2017, and 47.2% of Indian women found such abuse justifi-
able, World Bank, 2016). Although many societies are changing in ways that allow individuals to
fulfill their potential regardless of their gender, ethnicity, or social status (Inglehart & Baker,
2000), some societies still socialize individuals to internalize society’s different expectations and
norms with regard to men and women (e.g., traditional gender norms, Allen, 1996; Spade &
Valentine, 2011). Understanding how cultural and societal characteristics may affect support for
traditional gender norms may be helpful in revealing the potential barriers that prevent individu-
als from realizing their potential (e.g., women who support traditional gender norms are more
likely to care for family members and are less likely to have a full-time job, and even if they have
a job, they earn less, Lee & Pratto, 2018).
Traditional gender norms specify appropriate behaviors for men and women. In the name of
tradition and cultural values, traditional gender norms legitimize unequal gender power and can
be considered a form of gender-based hierarchy. For example, according to these norms, women
are expected to take care of family members’ needs, whereas men are expected to support the
family financially. Consequently, many women are confined to the private home with limited
social interactions and rely on men for resources, whereas men are encouraged to form connec-
tions that may benefit not only the family but also themselves (e.g., success in personal careers).
It is not surprising that household gender norms place more restrictions and burdens upon women
than men (Constantin & Voicu, 2015) and that roles conventionally associated with women are
viewed as having less importance and status. As a result, the documented changes in the gender
system are asymmetrical, with many women entering men’s world (e.g., having jobs) but few
men entering women’s world (e.g., becoming full-time housekeepers or taking on feminine jobs,
England, 2010).
The gender socialization of norms and behaviors (e.g., the household gender roles) is well
studied in Western cultures (e.g., Blashill, 2011; Koenig et al., 2011; Lenton et al., 2009; Murnen
& Smolak, 2009; Reilly & Neumann, 2013; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002) but is relatively under-
studied in non-Western societies. Investigating gender norms and behaviors across Western and
non-Western cultures may reveal how traditional gender norms and behaviors may be supported
through cultural values and conventions. That is, gender equality ideals may interfere with local
culture and such interference may create tension in how members of these societies grapple with
gender equality ideals. Culture provides an interpretive framework for individuals to make sense
of the world, such as through cultural values and social norms. When social movements promote
gender equality ideals that are consistent (inconsistent) with the mainstream values and norms in
a given culture, the members of that culture are likely to accept (reject) such gender equality ide-
als. In Western societies, individual freedom and equality are core values (Inglehart & Baker,
2000), and gender equality ideals may seem consistent with these values (Schwartz & Rubel-
Lifschitz, 2009). However, gender equality ideals that derive from individualism and liberalism
may violate some traditional values in non-Western societies (e.g., family values in Chinese
societies; Hu & Scott, 2016). Consequently, gender equality ideals may be at odds with core
cultural values in non-Western societies.
Thus, our research aims to further knowledge about the gender socialization of norms and
behaviors in both Western and non-Western societies. To this end, we adopt an etic approach to
investigate traditional gender norms cross-culturally. Traditional gender norms are multifaceted
and crosscut at least two dimensions: power differentials between women and men and the areas
in which these roles manifest (Constantin & Voicu, 2015). Due to the complex nature of tradi-
tional gender norms, it is important to identify a scale with at least configural and metric invari-
ance across societies (Constantin & Voicu, 2015). We targeted traditional household gender roles
because they relate to the power differentials between women and men and the areas in which
Lee et al. 335

men and women are expected to fulfill their roles (men as breadwinners and women as house-
keepers). Constantin and Voicu (2015) found that items on traditional household gender roles in
the International Social Survey Program 2002 showed configural and metric invariance across
societies. Furthermore, because traditional household gender roles can be considered part of a
gender-based hierarchy, recognizing the power differentials between women and men may be the
first step in rejecting such gender roles. As expected, previous researchers have found that indi-
viduals who identify as feminists are more likely to reject traditional gender norms (among
women, Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010; among men, Silver et al., 2019).
Due to the lack of systematic investigation of the interactions between societal/cultural and
individual processes on gendered household roles, we drew insight from a theory of politicized
collective identity (Simon & Klandermans, 2001), and we targeted the first step in challenging
traditional household gender roles. That is, individuals need to be aware of the increased restric-
tions and burdens that traditional household gender roles place on women compared with men
(e.g., awareness of shared grievances, Simon & Klandermans, 2001) to reduce the support for
such roles. This step involves (a) individuals’ awareness of differential treatments based on one’s
gender and (b) awareness that such treatments are not properly justified. Societal and cultural
characteristics that increase awareness of such differential treatments or the recognition of such
treatments as unfair and unequal may be linked with lower endorsement of traditional household
gender roles.
In addition to the endorsement of traditional household gender roles, societal and cultural
characteristics may enlarge or diminish gender differences in the support of such roles. Drawing
insight from the research of Lee et al. (2011) on group-based hierarchy, socialization that encour-
ages women in particular to recognize gender-based interests (such as the looseness of the soci-
ety) or to embrace masculine roles may enlarge gender differences in traditional household
gender roles. Likewise, socialization that encourages men to embrace feminine roles may dimin-
ish gender differences in such roles. Although general support for and gender differences in tra-
ditional household gender roles could be statistically analyzed as independent components, the
cultural characteristics associated with gender differences in traditional household gender roles
are often associated with the level of general support in real-life phenomena. For example, if a
cultural characteristic encourages women to reject traditional household gender roles to a larger
degree than that it encourages men, the cultural characteristic would be associated with lower
support and larger gender differences in traditional household gender roles. Only when a cultural
characteristic is associated with women’s and men’s support for traditional household gender
roles to the same degree but in opposite directions is the cultural characteristic associated only
with gender differences in traditional household gender roles.
Previous researchers have observed that economic progress may generate systematic changes
in two distinctive value dimensions. One dimension is traditional versus secular-rational values,
and the other is self-expression versus survival values (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). That is, with
economic progress, individuals are more likely to adopt rational over traditional values (e.g.,
deference to authority) and emphasize self-expression and subjective well-being over necessities
(Inglehart & Baker, 2000). The more people support secular-rational and self-expression values,
the more likely they are to support gender equality (Yeganeh, 2017). Thus, if economic progress
is associated with the two distinctive dimensions, the support for traditional household gender
roles should be lower in societies with higher economic progress. Because traditional household
gender roles specify asymmetrical statuses for men and women (e.g., Croft et al., 2015), such as
more restrictions and burdens of household gender roles on women than men (Constantin &
Voicu, 2015), embracing values that reject traditions and emphasize personal well-being may
encourage women to be more likely to reject traditional household gender roles than their male
counterparts. In short, we hypothesize that gender differences in traditional household gender
roles should be larger in societies with higher economic progress.
336 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

Drawing insight from previous research that documented fundamental cultural dimensions
across societies (i.e., Hofstede, Schwartz, Welzel), we systematically examine cultural character-
istics that may be associated with support for traditional household gender roles. However,
research evidence for the associations between cultural characteristics and traditional household
gender roles is limited. Researchers have compared traditional gender norms in a handful of
countries that vary in specific cultural characteristics (e.g., An & Kim, 2007; Gibbons et al.,
1991; Milner & Collins, 2000). Because these countries may differ in several cultural character-
istics at the same time, it is difficult to pinpoint the associations between specific cultural char-
acteristics and support for traditional household gender roles.
We adopt a different approach by targeting a large set of countries and combining multiple
cultural indices identified by various researchers that tap into latent cultural dimensions to evalu-
ate the associations between cultural characteristics and support for traditional household gender
roles. To this end, we build upon Schwartz’s (1999) value theory, which identified three latent
dimensions of cultural values: (a) egalitarianism versus hierarchy, (b) autonomy versus embed-
dedness, and (c) harmony versus mastery.
The first dimension of cultural characteristics involves the way people consider the welfare of
others—specifically, whether others are considered moral equals or are individuals socialized to
hierarchical distributions of roles (Schwartz, 2004). Some societies may encourage their mem-
bers to view each other as equals, whereas other societies may instill in their members the idea
that appropriate relationships are hierarchical and that subordinates should show deference to
their superiors and comply with obligations and rules according to their roles (Hofstede, 1980;
Schwartz, 2008). This dimension has been captured by Hofstede’s (1980, 2018) power distance
score and by Schwartz’s (2008) egalitarianism versus hierarchy scores.
If societies encourage individuals to view each other as equals, individuals in such societies
may reject traditional household gender roles due to the differentially and often unequally defined
roles for men and women. Power distance scores across societies are associated positively with
managers’ support for traditional gender norms (Parboteeah et al., 2008) and gender-stereotypic
styles (e.g., task-oriented and directive behaviors, van Emmerik et al., 2010) and negatively asso-
ciated with the proportion of women on corporate boards (Carrasco et al., 2015). In short, we
hypothesize that support for traditional household gender roles should be higher in societies that
emphasize hierarchical values.
In addition, if societies encourage individuals to view each other as equals, they may encour-
age women to compare themselves to men and increase gender differences in the support for
traditional household gender roles. Guimond and his colleagues (2006, 2007) found that indi-
viduals in hierarchical societies (indexed by power distance) may compare themselves to same-
sex others, thus reducing gender differences in self-perceptions (e.g., relational interdependence
and independence/agency). It is possible that women in egalitarian societies may compare them-
selves with men and may be more likely to reject traditional household gender roles than their
female counterparts in hierarchical societies due to the additional burdens and restrictions of
these roles placed on women. If men in egalitarian societies support traditional household gender
roles as much as their male counterparts in hierarchical societies, probably because these roles
may benefit them in terms of more freedom and fewer obligations, gender differences should be
smaller in hierarchical societies than in egalitarian societies. Conversely, if men reject traditional
household gender roles as much as their female counterparts in egalitarian societies, gender dif-
ferences in these roles should remain the same as those in hierarchical societies. In short, we
hypothesize that gender differences in traditional household gender roles should be equal or
smaller in societies marked by hierarchical values and characteristics relative to societies marked
by egalitarian values and characteristics.
The second latent cultural dimension concerns a primary personal focus versus a social focus
(Schwartz, 2012), such as in Schwartz’s autonomy versus embeddedness values (Schwartz,
Lee et al. 337

2008) and Hosftede’s (1980, 2018) individualism-collectivism scores. In societies that prioritize
social focus, the cultural ideals are to fit in, to act according to one’s role and to promote others’
goals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In societies that prioritize the person, the cultural ideals are
to be independent, to be unique and to express the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Consequently,
members of cultures that promote social focus tend to define themselves by ingroups (e.g., fam-
ily) and value adherence to obligations, whereas members in cultures that promote personal focus
may value self-actualization, privacy, and freedom (Triandis et al., 1990).
The cultural characteristics of personal versus social focus may affect how people view tradi-
tional household gender roles through two potential processes. Both processes may affect the
levels of general support for traditional household gender roles and gender differences in such
support. The first process involves cost-benefit analysis and whether this analysis occurs on the
personal level or on the relationship level. If a person’s self is embedded in roles or relationships
with others (e.g., what is best for the relationship/family?), it may be difficult for the individual
to see the underlying status asymmetry of gender roles (e.g., Croft et al., 2015). Conversely, in
societies where cultural characteristics encourage individuals to think for themselves (e.g., what
is best for me?), women may be encouraged to be aware of the additional restrictions and burdens
that traditional household gender roles place on them. The second process is via the pressure of
others. Women in social-focused societies may be socialized to care more than women in person-
focused societies about proper social norms. The supporting evidence is from Amanatullah and
Morris (2010), who found that women (but not men) are less likely to bargain for themselves (to
be assertive) because being assertive may violate female gender roles, but men and women are
equally likely to bargain for friends. However, Carrasco and colleagues (2015) found that after
controlling for Hofstede’s other scores, individualism-collectivism scores were not associated
with the proportion of women on corporate boards. It is possible that these mixed findings are
due to the different outcome variables. Amanatullah and Morris targeted how men and women
evaluate and respond to a specific situation, whereas Carrasco and colleagues investigated the
actual proportion of women on corporate boards, which may be constrained by the corporate
structure and culture. Because we evaluate individuals’ support for traditional household gender
roles, which is more similar to Amanatullah and Morris’ outcome variable, we hypothesize that
the cultural characteristics of personal focus (in comparison to social focus) are expected to be
associated with lower support for traditional household gender roles. In addition, via either the
cost-benefit analysis or the pressure of others’ sanctions, both processes may reduce women’s
motivation to conform to traditional household gender roles more than men’s motivation in soci-
eties with personal focus (vs. social focus), and gender differences in the support for traditional
household gender roles are expected to be larger in these societies.
The third dimension, identified by Schwartz (2004), is the degree to which people manage
their relations to the natural and social world. In societies that value harmony (e.g., peace, pro-
tecting the environment), individuals may attempt to fit in and understand and appreciate the
world as it is. In societies that value mastery (e.g., values such as success and competence),
individuals are encouraged to change, direct, and exploit. It is possible that Hofstede’s masculin-
ity–femininity scores are also addressed in this dimension. According to Hofstede (2001), mas-
culinity–femininity is associated with a fundamental dilemma of the “relative strength of
nurturance interests versus assertiveness interests.” Societies that emphasize differential gender
roles and expect men to possess traits such as ambition, assertiveness, toughness, and the acquisi-
tion of wealth would be high on Hofstede’s (2001) masculinity–femininity score. Conversely,
societies that emphasize feminine traits for both men and women, such as being tender, caring,
and nurturing, would be low on Hofstede’s masculinity–femininity score. Societies that empha-
size active self-assertion, measured by Schwartz’s mastery score, may be similar to Hofstede’s
masculine societies, whereas fitting into the social and natural world, as measured by Schwartz’s
harmony score, may be similar to Hofstede’s feminine societies. If valuing feminine traits is a
338 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

key factor in men taking on feminine roles (e.g., household chores, acting as caretakers), it is
possible that men in these societies may support traditional household gender roles less than men
in societies that value masculine traits. Thus, we predict that gender differences in traditional
household gender roles should be larger in societies that emphasize masculine traits, including
mastery, consistent with Hofstede’s (2001) explicit definition of masculinity as “a measure of
gender role differentiation” (p. 285). Gender differences in traditional household gender roles
should be smaller in societies that emphasize harmony and feminine traits. However, we did not
have specific predictions of how this cultural dimension may be associated with general support
for traditional household gender roles.
Although Schwartz’s (2004) three cultural dimensions provide an initial framework for our
study of cultural characteristics, there are other cultural characteristics that may not be included
in the three dimensions. Two of these cultural characteristics are Hofstede’s (1980) uncertainty
avoidance and long-term orientation (Hofstede, 2001). Uncertainty avoidance indicates a soci-
ety’s intolerance of uncertainty or ambiguity. Because traditional household gender roles provide
individuals with clear behavioral scripts to follow, members of high uncertainty avoidance soci-
eties should be more likely to endorse traditional household gender roles. Uncertainty avoidance
scores across societies are observed to be positively associated with managers’ support for tradi-
tional gender norms (Parboteeah et al., 2008), managers’ gender-stereotypic styles (e.g., task-
oriented and directive behaviors, van Emmerik et al., 2010), and the proportion of female
managers (indexed by cultural tightness, Toh & Leonardelli, 2012) but not with the proportion of
women on corporate boards (Carrasco et al., 2015), most likely due to structural constraints. In
short, because traditional household gender roles provide clear behavioral scripts for people to
follow, we predict that uncertainty avoidance should be linked positively with support for tradi-
tional household gender roles but should have no effect on gender differences in support for tra-
ditional household gender roles.
Finally, if a society encourages its members to think beyond the present time, a person may
weigh the importance of the future and emphasize planning, hard work for future benefit, and
perseverance (Bearden et al., 2006). This cultural characteristic is captured by Hofstede’s long-
term orientation. During the development of Hofstede’s long-term orientation (initially used
interchangeably with Confucian dynamism), respect for tradition was considered a characteristic
of short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2001). However, Bearden and colleagues argued that long-
term orientation should be defined as “the cultural value of viewing time holistically, valuing
both the past and the future rather than deeming actions important only for their effects in the
here and now or the short term.” Two sets of evidence support Bearden and colleagues’ concep-
tualization of long-term orientation. First, Bearden and colleagues collected data and found two
subfactors of long-term orientation: respect for tradition and planning. The two subfactors were
positively associated with each other and were positively associated with consumer frugality and
personal ethics (Bearden et al., 2006). Hofstede (2001, p. 360) also found that people in high
long-term orientation societies are more likely to agree with the traditional gender role belief that
a “preschool child will suffer if the mother works,” consistent with Bearden and colleagues’ argu-
ment that respect for tradition is a characteristic of long-term orientation. Second, the current
long-term orientation scores are LTO-WVS scores (see Hofstede et al., 2010), which are mea-
sured by three items (thrift, national pride, and the importance of service to others; Hofstede &
Minkov, 2010). That is, people in high long-term orientation societies would find thrift impor-
tant, whereas they would find national pride and service to others not important. In measuring
LTO-WVS scores, respect for tradition is no longer an item for short-term orientation. People in
long-term orientation societies may endorse traditional household gender roles more than those
in short-term orientation societies, not only because these roles are traditional in the society but
also because following these roles symbolizes one’s sacrifice of “immediate gains” (e.g., per-
sonal enjoyment or choices) for “greater gains” (e.g., the welfare of the family or others). Due to
Lee et al. 339

the paucity of data on cultural characteristics, we explore the association between gender differ-
ences in traditional household gender roles and long-term orientation.

The Present Research

Our goal for the present research was to systematically test how societal and cultural character-
istics may be associated with women’s and men’s support for traditional household gender roles.
We expected that support for traditional household gender roles should be lower in societies with
more economic progress, more emphasis on egalitarianism values, more emphasis on a personal
focus, lower uncertainty avoidance, and lower long-term orientation (see Table 1). In addition,
because traditional gender norms place more restrictions and burdens on women than on men,
gender differences in the societies that encourage women to think for themselves and to be aware
of gender-based hierarchy were expected to be larger than gender differences in societies with
societal and cultural characteristics that encourage women to think for others and to conform to
the societal hierarchy. This should especially be the case in societies with more economic prog-
ress, more emphasis on egalitarian values, more emphasis on a personal focus, and more empha-
sis on control over the environment (see Table 1).
To examine the associations between cultural characteristics and support for traditional house-
hold gender roles, we targeted the “Family and Changing Gender Roles (FCGR)” module, which
includes information about gender roles and norms, collected by the International Social Survey
Program (ISSP Research Group, 2016). The ISSP Research Group hosted an international col-
laboration of 41 societies in 2012 (see the list of societies in Table 2). This survey used a stratified
multistage cluster-sampling design to obtain a nationally representative sample of adults aged 18
years and older.
We adopted multilevel modeling, specifying the first-level variable (e.g., participant sex) and
second-level variables (e.g., cultural characteristics) in accounting for individuals’ support for
traditional household gender roles. The cultural characteristics were used to model the intercept
(i.e., mean support for traditional household gender roles) and the slope of participant sex (i.e.,
the gender difference in support for traditional household gender roles) while treating other vari-
ables as control variables.

Method
Sample
The first dataset was used to analyze latent cultural dimensions and was compiled from Hofstede’s
(2018) scores, Schwartz’s scores (personal communication), and world value surveys (Welzel,
2014). The number of countries varied from 56 to 63. The second dataset was collected from
2011 to 2015; the sample characteristics are shown in Table 2. Missing data at Level 2 were
treated with pairwise deletion. In total, there were 59,713 individuals (31,998 females) across 41
societies. There were a minimum of 930 respondents in each society (see Table 1).

Measurement and Data Collection

Traditional household gender roles.  Five items pertaining to traditional household gender roles that
have implications for gender equality were selected. An example item is “A man’s job is to earn
money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family.” These items suggest that men are
expected to be successful (i.e., earning money), whereas women are expected to be relational
(i.e., motherhood). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted across nations (see detailed infor-
mation in Table 2). Among the five items, one item (“Both men and women should contribute to
340 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

Table 1.  Hypotheses and Potential Processes.

Support for household gender roles

Societal/cultural Gender
characteristics Potential processes Mean levels Finding differences Finding
Economic Increasing secular-rational Negative Negative Larger Larger
progress (GDP and self-expression values
per capita) over traditional and survival
values
Hierarchy/power Justifying unequal power in Positive Positive Smaller Smaller
distance over household gender roles,
egalitarianism encouraging intragender
comparisons over
intergender comparisons
Personal focus Cost-benefit analysis on the Negative Negative Larger Larger
over social individual level over the
focus relational level, less aware
of others’ pressure, such as
social norms
Mastery/ Women encouraged to N/A Mixed: Larger n.s.
masculinity embrace masculine roles + (masculinity)
over harmony may support household /− (mastery)
gender roles less, and men
encouraged to embrace
feminine roles may support
household gender roles less
Uncertainty Encouraging members to Positive Positive N/A n.s.
avoidance follow behavioral scripts
such as household gender
roles
Long-term Encouraging individuals to Positive Mixed: +/− N/A Smaller
orientation give up immediate gains for
“long-term gains”

Note. GDP = Gross domestic product.

household income”) was excluded due to low factor loading. The remaining four items loaded on
one factor, except in India (one item did not load on the factor). The item that had the lowest
loading in India (“A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and
family”) also had the lowest loadings in the samples across nations (see Table 2). However, we
kept this item in further analyses because it is the only item that probes men’s proper behaviors.
The confirmatory factor analysis also showed that the model was equivalent across cultures (see
the note under Table 2 for fit indices), consistent with Constantin and Voicu’s (2015) findings.
The items used a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher
scores indicate greater agreement with traditional household gender roles. In the exploratory fac-
tor analysis, missing data (such as those who responded “don’t know”) were pairwise deleted.

Economic progress.  We extracted data on the GDP per capita from 2007 (United Nations Develop-
ment Programme, 2009). The GDP per capita of Taiwan in 2007 was separately extracted from
the Taiwanese government’s report (National Statistics, Republic of China, 2019).

Cultural characteristics.  To indicate the general liberalism of the sociocultural climate (which implies
that people think for themselves and have self-concerns), we used S. H. Schwartz’s (personal
Lee et al. 341

Table 2.  Descriptive Analysis of Nations and Exploratory Factor Analysis of Traditional Household
Gender Roles.

Sample % Median age Years of Factor

Country size female (years) education Eigenvalue loadings 4-item a THGR
Argentina 950 53.3 42.5 12 2.13 0.64 0.70 3.42
Australia 1,457 55.3 53.0 15 2.47 0.72 0.79 2.61
Austria 1,177 54.8 48.0 10 2.37 0.73 0.77 3.09
Belgium 2,030 52.1 49.0 12 2.48 0.74 0.80 2.64
Bulgaria 984 58.4 54.0 12 2.09 0.63 0.69 3.26
Canada 937 39.4 60.0 15 2.59 0.74 0.82 2.41
Chile 1,534 61.7 47.0 12 1.88 0.58 0.61 3.35
China 5,918 47.9 48.0 9 1.71 0.51 0.55 3.28
Croatia 983 53.3 45.0 12 2.32 0.70 0.76 2.78
Czech 1,769 55.5 47.0 12 2.14 0.52 0.70 3.07
Denmark 1,397 50.7 46.0 15 2.31 0.72 0.75 1.91
Finland 1,117 56.5 48.0 12 2.44 0.64 0.78 2.27
France 2,295 64.4 51.0 12 2.47 0.72 0.79 2.52
Germany 1,722 51.2 50.0 12 2.62 0.78 0.83 2.41
Hungary 1,000 52.6 47.0 11 2.32 0.71 0.76 3.39
Iceland 1,020 48.3 48.0 14 2.28 0.72 0.74 2.21
India 1,474 33.7 38.0 10 1.42 0.34 0.37 3.54
Ireland 1,102 64.3 50.0 15 2.50 0.73 0.80 2.48
Israel 1,178 56.2 44.0 12 2.12 0.65 0.70 2.96
Japan 1,165 55.3 50.0 12 2.09 0.66 0.69 2.60
Latvia 1,000 58.4 45.0 12 2.14 0.64 0.71 3.44
Lithuania 1,168 58.9 49.0 12 2.03 0.54 0.67 3.15
Mexico 1,403 51.0 38.0 9 2.00 0.67 0.67 3.57
Netherlands 1,247 53.5 56.0 14 2.64 0.79 0.83 2.47
Norway 1,380 51.6 48.0 15 2.51 0.76 0.80 2.18
Philippines 1,200 50.0 40.0 12 1.74 0.60 0.57 3.73
Poland 1,111 54.1 48.0 12 2.39 0.70 0.77 3.05
Portugal 985 54.7 48.0 9 1.99 0.64 0.66 2.97
Russia 1,491 64.5 47.0 12 2.14 0.63 0.71 3.47
Slovakia 1,114 53.8 53.0 12 2.08 0.56 0.69 3.27
Slovenia 1,010 54.3 51.0 12 2.57 0.74 0.81 2.76
South Africa 2,438 60.5 40.0 11 1.93 0.62 0.64 3.13
South Korea 1,396 55.8 50.0 12 1.94 0.61 0.64 3.35
Spain 2,559 53.1 48.0 11 2.15 0.70 0.71 3.30
Sweden 967 54.6 52.0 12 2.60 0.75 0.82 2.09
Switzerland 1,223 50.1 49.0 13 2.26 0.69 0.74 2.90
Taiwan 2,054 48.9 44.0 12 1.68 0.52 0.53 3.03
Turkey 1,551 52.3 39.0 9 1.90 0.50 0.61 3.42
UK 932 53.5 53.0 11 2.36 0.70 0.77 2.65
US 1,295 54.4 46.0 12 2.26 0.67 0.73 2.81
Venezuela 980 54.3 37.0 12 1.97 0.66 0.65 3.27

Note. An exploratory factor analysis using a principal axis factoring method to extract factors was conducted. Due to the
one-factor solution largely observed across nations, no rotation method was imposed. A confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted on two randomly split samples with the paths set to be the same across societies. Due to the large sample
size (Sample I = 30,656 and Sample II = 31,098), the chi-square tests were easily inflated by the sample size. Instead, the
model fitness indices were used with absolute fit indices of AGFI and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
In both samples, the AGFI indices were .91 and the RMSEA was .02, indicating a good fit. THGR = Traditional household
gender roles, ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index.
342 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

Table 3.  Latent Cultural Dimensions Using Schwartz’s Scores, Hofstede’s Scores, and the Welzel’s
Emancipation Value Index.

Hierarchy/power Autonomous/ Mastery/

distance over individualism over masculinity over
Cultural scores egalitarianism embeddedness harmony
Power distance 0.73  
Hierarchy 0.79  
Egalitarianism −0.85  
Affect autonomy 0.89  
Emancipation value 0.90  
Individualism 0.75  
Intellectual autonomy 0.89  
Embeddedness −0.96  
Mastery 0.84
Harmony −0.82
Masculinity–femininity 0.30a
Uncertainty avoidance  
Long-term orientation  
Eigenvalue 1.88 3.88 1.46
a .70 .92 .61
K 63 56 63

Note. An exploratory factor analysis using a principal axis factoring method to extract factors was conducted. Missing
data were treated with pairwise deletion (K = no. of countries). All indicators were standardized before computing
the reliabilities/correlations and composite scores.
a
Due to the low loading of this indicator, masculinity–femininity scores were analyzed alone.

communication, November 1, 2009) cultural values, Hofstede’s (2018) national norms, and the
emancipation value index (Welzel, 2014). These three sets of measures include a large set of coun-
tries, are diverse in scope, and have been rigorously examined by other researchers. Schwartz pres-
ents seven orientations: intellectual autonomy, affect autonomy, embeddedness, harmony,
egalitarianism, hierarchy, and mastery norms. These seven orientations reflect three aspects of
human society: (a) the emphasis on different types of social structure (egalitarianism vs. hierarchy),
(b) the relations and boundaries between the person and group (intellectual or affective autonomy vs.
embeddedness), and (c) the relation between humans and natural resources (harmony vs. mastery).
We also included five of Hofstede’s scores: (a) individualism-collectivism assesses a society’s
emphasis on the separate self (individualism) versus the group (collectivism), (b) power distance
indicates individuals’ acceptance of unequal power distribution in organizations within a society,
(c) masculinity–femininity describes a society’s salient values for men (wanting to be the best vs.
liking what you do), (d) uncertainty avoidance indicates a society’s intolerance of uncertainty
and ambiguity, and (e) long-term orientation measures the extent to which a society values plan-
ning over self-enhancement. Due to the different scales used by Hofstede, Schwartz, and Welzel,
we standardized the scores before combining them.
We conceptually categorized the cultural characteristics and values into five dimensions (hier-
archy/power distance over egalitarianism, autonomy/individualism over embeddedness, mastery/
masculinity over harmony, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation; see Table 3). We
used Hofstede’s power distance index and Schwartz’s egalitarianism and hierarchy values to indi-
cate whether a society encourages its members to view each other as equals. The three indicators
loaded on the same factor (Eigenvalue = 1.88, absolute values of the loadings > .73; see detailed
information in Table 3) across all the societies collected in Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s data sets. In
addition, Schwartz’s autonomy versus embeddedness and Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism
Lee et al. 343

scores, along with the emancipation value index, were found to be the same factor (Eigenvalue =
3.88, absolute values of the loadings > .75). The indicators for people’s relations to the natural and
social world also loaded on the same factor (Eigenvalue = 1.46, absolute values of the loadings >
.29). However, due to the low loading of masculinity–femininity, this indicator was analyzed sepa-
rately. The remaining two indicators (long-term orientation, uncertainty avoidance) were only
collected by Hofstede, and each has a single indicator.

Demographic information and control variable.  Single items each evaluated respondents’ sex, age,
year of education, place of residence (e.g., big city, town or small city, farm or home in the coun-
try), marital status, and employment status. To allow for quantitative examination, the respon-
dents’ sex, residence, marital status, and employment status were dummy coded (female, coded
1; big city or not, once married or not, and currently employed or not). Following the CWC(M)
approach (Z. Zhang et al., 2009), we standardized the variables within the society and separately
recorded society-level mean scores for each demographic item. For example, the percentages of
women were recorded in each society (the society-level mean), and the dummy-coded variable
was standardized within the society. We also included a cool-water condition (Welzel, 2014) to
control for ecological hardship, from the hottest and driest countries (scored 0) to countries with
highly consistent precipitation and cold temperatures (scored 1).

Objective indicator.  To explore potential consequences of support for traditional household gender
roles, we tested the associations between traditional household gender roles, concurrent social
movement activities, and objective gender equality at a later time. To control for gender equality
at a previous time, we recorded a gender equality index in 2009 (gender empowerment measure,
United Nations Development Programme, 2009). We recorded a social movement activities
index from the World Value Survey documented at the same time (Welzel, 2014) as the tradi-
tional household gender roles data. To evaluate whether traditional household gender roles could
predict future gender equality and to avoid high collinearity using the same index, we recorded a
different gender inequality index in 2017 (United Nations Development Programme, 2019).

Analysis strategy.  We conducted multilevel modeling using HLM 7.0, specifying first- and sec-
ond-level equations. Because we were interested in how, in general, people support traditional
household gender roles and the differences between men and women in this support, we modeled
the intercept (i.e., mean support for traditional household gender roles) and the slope of partici-
pant sex (i.e., the gender difference in support for traditional household gender roles) while treat-
ing other variables as control variables.
Level 1: Yij = β0j + β1j (female) +β2j (work status) +β3j (years of education) +β4j (partici-
pant age) +β5j (residing in big city) + β6j (once married) + rij
Level II:
β0j = γ00 + γ01 (GDP) + γ02 (GEI) + γ03 (hierarchy) +γ04 (personal focus) + γ05 (mastery) +
γ06 (masculinity–femininity) + γ07 (uncertainty avoidance) + γ08 (long-term orientation) + γ09
(cool-water condition)
β1j = γ10 + γ11 (GDP) + γ12 (GEI) + γ13 (hierarchy) + γ14 (personal focus) + γ15 (mastery) +
γ16 (masculinity–femininity) + γ17 (uncertainty avoidance) + γ18 (long-term orientation) + γ19
(cool-water condition)

Results
We adopted a multilevel data structure (individuals embedded in societies) to examine whether
respondents’ immediate contexts (Level 1 variables) and societal and cultural characteristics
(Level 2 variables) predict their support for traditional household gender roles. The intraclass
344 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

correlation across nations was .19, suggesting that 19% of the variability in the support for tradi-
tional household gender roles is among societies. Correlations of predictors on the national level
are reported in Table 4.
Women were less likely to support traditional household gender roles (γ10 = −0.07, see the
13th row of the second column in Table 5), as were those who were employed (β2j = −0.07, see
the bottom fifth row of second column in Table 5), those residing in big cities (β5j = −0.03), and
those with more years of education (β3j = −0.15). Conversely, people who were older (β4j =
0.07) and those who were once married (β6j = 0.04) were more likely to support traditional
household gender roles. After controlling for personal characteristics, the overall support for
traditional household gender roles across samples was close to the midpoint (2.97 on a scale of
1–5, see the third row of the second column).
We further explored how support for traditional household gender roles may be accounted for
by societal and cultural characteristics. As expected, people who live in wealthier societies (γ01,
see the fourth row of the second column in Table 5) and in societies that emphasize personal
focus (γ04) tend to reject traditional household gender roles, whereas those who live in societies
that emphasize uncertainty avoidance (γ07) tend to support traditional household gender roles.
Although the findings are largely consistent with our hypotheses, there are two findings that are
mixed or unexpected. First, when entered alone, individuals in high long-term orientation societ-
ies (γ08) were more likely to support traditional household gender roles but were less likely to
support traditional household gender roles after controlling for other societal and cultural charac-
teristics (see the 11th row of the second and third column). Second, the values of mastery over
harmony (γ05) were consistently found to be associated with lower support for traditional house-
hold gender roles, in contrast to the finding on masculinity–femininity (γ06).
We also explored whether gender differences in support for traditional household gender roles
increased or decreased according to certain societal and cultural characteristics. Women were
found to reject traditional household gender roles more than men (γ10), especially in societies
with greater economic progress (γ11) and greater emphasis on personal focus (γ14) and in societies
lower in hierarchy (γ13) and long-term orientation (γ18). For example, the gender difference in
societies with high personal focus (1 SD above the mean) would be −0.115 (−0.073 + [−0.042]
x 1 = −0.115), the absolute value is larger than −0.031 in societies with low personal focus (1 SD
below the mean, −0.073 + [−0.042] x [−1]). No other cultural characteristics were found to be
significant after simultaneously controlling for other societal and cultural characteristics.

The Predictive Power of Traditional Household Gender Roles

To further explore how beliefs about traditional household gender roles (data collected around
2012) were related to social movement activities around 2012 and gender equality in 2017, we
ran two regression models with the gender empowerment measure in 2009 as a control, national
means of traditional household gender roles as the predictors, and the social movement index and
the gender inequality index as the criteria. As expected, national means of traditional household
gender roles predicted social movement activities roughly at the same time (B = −0.45, p = .04,
k = 22), whereas the gender empowerment measure was marginal (B = 0.39, p = .07).
Furthermore, national means of traditional household gender roles significantly predicted the
gender inequality index 5 years later (standardized B = .58, p < .001, k = 41), whereas a differ-
ent gender equality index at a previous time did not (p = .34).

General Discussion
By adopting an etic approach, our research is able to reveal cultural characteristics that may
facilitate or inhibit support for traditional household gender roles. In our findings, a set of
 Table 4.  Correlations Between National Indices.

National Big
indices GDP GEI DM1 DM2 DM3 MAS UAI LTO CWI Age Edu Work city Married
GDP 1  
GEI2009 .733** 1  
DM1 −.722** −.787** 1  
DM2 .799** .792** −.782** 1  
DM3 −.027 −.256 .416** −.265 1  
MAS −.187 −.313* .340* −.231 .220 1  
UAI −.386* −.302 .144 −.237 −.260 .021 1  
LTO −.099 −.147 .271 .052 −.117 .064 .021 1  
CWI .707** .614** −.580** .771** −.269 −.232 −.246 .155 1  
Age .474** .425** −.272 .559** −.013 −.069 −.106 .285 .669** 1  
Edu .761** .696** −.585** .717** −.234 −.309 −.257 .056 .812** .553** 1  
Work .651** .584** −.513** .454** −.206 −.220 −.132 −.120 .387* .094 .590** 1  
Big city −.435** −.311* .222 −.463** .145 −.120 .218 −.166 −.513** −.422** −.273 −.218 1  
Married .120 −.084 .168 .095 .102 .011 .003 .447** .352* .583** .180 −.021 −.188 1
Female .000 −.043 −.067 .046 −.229 −.101 .325* .020 .143 .140 .190 −.069 .240 −.039

Note. GDP = gross domestic product; GEI = gender empowerment index; DM1 = latent cultural dimension I (hierarchy vs. egalitarianism); DM2 = latent cultural dimension II
(personal vs. social focus); DM3 = latent cultural dimension III (mastery over harmony); MAS = masculinity–femininity; UAI = uncertainty avoidance; LTO = long-term orientation;
CWI = cool-water index; demographic characteristics such as age, education (edu), work status (work), residing in a big city or not (big city), once married or not (married), and
being female were recorded at the national level. The number of countries ranged from 38 to 41.
*p < .05. ** p < .01.

345
346 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

Table 5.  Multilevel Modeling of the Effects of Cultural Characteristics on Support for Traditional
Gender Norms.

Coefficients (with other

Multilevel modeling Coefficientsa,b indicators controlled for)b t ratios
For intercept (β0j) 2.968 (0.003)*** 3.056 (0.006)*** 525.11
  GDP per capita in 2007 (γ01) −2.4 x 10−5 (< 1 x 10−6)*** −2.2 x 10−5 (< 1 x 10−6)*** −44.82
  GEI in 2009 (γ02) −1.125 (0.044)*** −0.212 (0.057)c*** −3.73
  Hierarchy (γ03) 0.081 (0.006)*** 0.124 (0.008)*** 15.55
  Personal focus (γ04) −0.432 (0.008)*** −0.410 (0.014)*** −48.43
  Mastery (γ05) −0.070 (0.004)*** −0.107 (0.005)c*** −19.91
  Masculinity–femininity (γ06) 0.003 (0.0002)*** 0.004 (0.0002)c*** 18.57
  Uncertainty avoidance (γ07) 0.005 (0.0002)*** 0.003 (0.0002)c*** 14.04
  Long-term orientation (γ08) 0.0008 (0.0002)*** −0.001 (0.0002)c*** −5.74
  Cool-water index (γ09) −1.60 (0.05)*** −1.77 (0.04)c*** −40.99
For the slope of participant sex −0.073 (0.004)*** −0.071 (0.006)*** −12.19
(female coded 1, γ10)
  GDP per capita in 2007 (γ11) −3 x 10−6 (< 1 x 10−6)*** −3 x 10−6 (< 1 x 10−6)*** −6.49
  GEI in 2009 (γ12) −0.102 (0.044)* p = .27c −0.30
  Hierarchy (γ13) 0.016 (0.006)** 0.016 (0.010)* 2.10
  Personal focus (γ14) −0.042 (0.008)*** −0.041 (0.008)*** −4.92
  Masculinity–femininity (γ16) p = .625 N/A N/A
  Uncertainty avoidance (γ17) p = .458 N/A N/A
  Long-term orientation (γ18) 0.0005 (0.0002)** 0.0005 (0.0002)c* 2.89
  Cool-water index (γ19) −0.154 (0.051)** −0.172 (0.04)c*** −4.04
Controlling variables: individual level
  Work status (β2j) −0.068 (0.004)*** −0.070 (0.004)*** −17.67
  Years of education (β3j) −0.154 (0.004)*** −0.154 (0.004)*** −39.54
  Participant age (β4j) 0.068 (0.004)*** 0.064 (0.005)*** 14.05
  Residing in big city or not (β5j) −0.030 (0.003)*** −0.029 (0.004)*** −8.12
  Once married (β6j) 0.035 (0.004)*** 0.032 (0.004)*** 7.76

Note. Listed Level 1 control variables were all significant (ps < .001). Missing data were treated with listwise deletion
when entering predictors simultaneously. Country levels of individual characteristics are not shown (% female, % of
work status, average years of education, average participant age, % residing in big city, % once married). GDP = gross
domestic product; GEI = gender empowerment index.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
a
Controlling for demographic characteristics at the national level.
b
To avoid multicollinearity, predictors of correlations higher than .70 were not entered together (see Table 4).
c
Entered together along with the demographic characteristics at the national level, except for education years
(n = 54,894), with an acceptable proportion of missing data (8.1%). The scale is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).

societal/cultural characteristics are associated with lower support and larger gender differences
in traditional household gender roles, suggesting that these societal/cultural characteristics may
encourage women to reject traditional household gender roles more than their male counterparts.
Consistent with a theory of politicized collective identity (Simon & Klandermans, 2001), when
processes encourage individuals to think for themselves, whether these involve secular-rational
values, self-expression values, or personal focus, the subordinate group members (i.e., women)
are more likely to become aware of the restrictions and burdens that traditional household gender
roles place upon them (i.e., shared grievance) and to reject such roles. We found that individuals
residing in societies characterized by more wealth and personal focus (e.g., individualistic societ-
ies) may be more likely to reject traditional household gender roles, perhaps because such soci-
etal contexts encourage individuals to process and organize information in the self and the
Lee et al. 347

extended self (group membership formed according to one’s gender) as opposed to process and
organize information in the relationship and family in which self is embedded. These findings are
in line with previous research, such as the positive association between gender equality and indi-
vidualism (Hofstede, 2011; Sheridan et al., 2017).
Conversely, legitimizing ideologies may lead individuals to justify unequal treatment in tra-
ditional household gender roles. Societies offer multiple ways to legitimize traditional house-
hold gender roles, which may function similarly for men and women. For example, when
women and men are conceptualized as naturally different, traditional household gender roles
and gendered divisions of work seem just and proper (Budgeon, 2014; Connell, 1995). Societies
that emphasize hierarchical distributions of roles (Schwartz, 2004) may legitimize unequal
power in traditional household gender roles, consistent with previous research (Li, 2000;
Rudman & Fairchild, 2004).
Furthermore, some cultural characteristics may increase individuals’ motivation to endorse
traditional household gender roles. One such cultural characteristic is uncertainty avoidance,
not because this cultural characteristic legitimizes unequal power but because it makes its mem-
bers (both men and women) less likely to endure the uncertainty involved in rejecting these
roles. That is, when rejecting traditional household gender roles, individuals need to engage in
information processing and attempt to identify a different way of behaving (not as men vs.
women but as equal individuals); this process involves uncertainty. It is not surprising that
members of societies with strong uncertainty avoidance have a high need for clarity and struc-
ture and a low tolerance for deviant persons and ideas and consider deviations from norms
dangerous (Hofstede, 2011). Consequently, people in these societies may conform to traditional
household gender roles because of the fear of being viewed as deviants who may be under tre-
mendous societal scrutiny and sanctions. Our research provides supporting evidence that uncer-
tainty avoidance is associated with individuals’ support for traditional household gender roles
and that this cultural characteristic is not associated with gender differences in the support for
traditional household gender roles.
Despite the supporting evidence found in our research, there are unexpected findings involv-
ing long-term orientation, mastery over harmony, and masculinity–femininity. We observed that
men and women in long-term orientation societies tended to be more alike. According to
Bearden and colleagues (2006), long-term orientation is a cultural characteristic in which mem-
bers of a society process time holistically and possess the characteristics of respect for tradition
and planning. Although Bearden and colleagues conceptualize this dimension differently than
its original researcher, Hofstede, their conceptualization does not directly contradict the revised
perspective on this dimension by Hofstede and colleagues (Hofstede & Minkov, 2010; Minkov
et al., 2017). Hofstede and Minkov (2010) revised long-term orientation to reflect general think-
ing styles (virtue vs. truth; synthetic vs. analytical), whereas Minkov et al. (2017) revised long-
term orientation to be characteristic of the self (self-enhancement and self-stability vs.
self-reliance). The difference in the conceptualizations of long-term orientation between
Bearden and colleagues and Hofstede and Minkov is in the scope of the dimension, Bearden and
colleagues focus on time and time-related domains, whereas Hofstede and Minkov do not. We
find that the time-specific nature of the dimension (Bearden and colleagues’ conceptualization)
is more consistent with this dimension than other cultural characteristics (see Table 4; no sig-
nificant correlations were observed between long-term orientation and other cultural dimen-
sions). Furthermore, it is possible that in some societies, the tradition is equality, which reduces
support for traditional household gender roles. In other societies, the tradition is unequal gender
power, which increases support for traditional household gender roles. This possibility explains
why long-term orientation is not associated with general support for traditional household gen-
der roles in a specific direction once the hierarchy is controlled for but is associated with smaller
gender differences in such support.
348 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

Moreover, mastery over harmony and masculinity–femininity were not associated with gen-
der differences in traditional household gender roles. Instead, mastery over harmony was associ-
ated with less support for traditional household gender roles, whereas masculinity–femininity
was associated with more support for traditional household gender roles. These findings suggest
that Hofstede’s masculinity–femininity and Schwartz’s mastery-harmony are only similar at face
value, consistent with Schwartz’s (2009) finding but inconsistent with Steenkamp’s (2001) find-
ing. Individuals who reside in societies that emphasize control over the environment (mastery)
are less likely to support traditional household gender roles. It is possible that individuals in
societies that emphasize control over the environment may shape the environment according to
their abilities and skills (e.g., firms reaching out to new markets, Schwartz, 2009) and not be
constrained by the social norms. However, individuals in societies that emphasize masculinity
traits and characteristics are more likely to support traditional household gender roles. That is,
people in societies that stress highly masculine traits may comply with the gender hierarchy and
keep themselves in their respective gender framework (Hofstede, 2011; Pek & Leong, 2003),
such as dominant men (e.g., obtaining status, reputation, and wealth) and subordinate women
(e.g., taking good care of their family, N’Guessan, 2011). Such societies are likely to have rigid
gender frameworks, and people are expected to act according to their proper roles (Y. B. Zhang
et al., 2005).
Finally, societal changes often become possible when third parties or the larger societal atmo-
sphere are sympathetic toward such changes (Simon & Klandermans, 2001). The larger societal
atmosphere and individuals’ support for traditional household gender roles are reciprocal. In
terms of rejecting traditional household gender roles, if the government or its social policy identi-
fies with gender equality ideals, changes may be more likely. As seen in our research, support for
traditional household gender roles was lower in societies with gender equality (see Table 5). In
addition, general support for traditional household gender roles is associated with social move-
ment activities collected roughly around the same time. Although not all social movement activi-
ties are feminist in nature or directly related to traditional household gender roles, the significant
association suggests that societies allowing individuals to reject traditional household gender
roles may also encourage individuals to take actions in challenging the status quo. Furthermore,
support for traditional household gender roles predicts objective gender equality at a later time.
In short, the more that societies enjoy gender equality, the less likely individuals are to support
traditional household gender roles at a later time; likewise, the less individuals support traditional
household gender roles, the more likely societies are to enjoy gender equality and engage in
social movement activities to challenge the status quo.
We should acknowledge that despite the contribution our approach brings, it has some limita-
tions. First of all, by understanding societies using in a handful of cultural dimensions, it is inevi-
table that rich information may be lost and unexplored (e.g., why a specific household gender
role item did not load with other items in India? Is that due to their high levels of acquiescence?),
and some dimensions may be highly associated (see Table 4). Furthermore, we relied on previous
researchers’ works (i.e., Hofstede, Schwartz, Welzel) to derive latent cultural dimensions, and
may be limited by the robustness of these previous researchers’ works (e.g., lack of replication of
these cultural scores and Minkov’s critics of Hofstede’s scores in Minkov, 2018; single cultural
index in several dimensions). While we do not deny that there is a need for exploring each society
in depth and for the replication of the cultural scores, we do find consistent patterns in our find-
ings that suggest some usefulness of the latent cultural dimensions and our data.
The findings from the current research contribute to our knowledge of the long struggles in
gender equality movements. First, traditional household gender roles tend to establish more
restrictions and rules for women than for men. As shown by our research, three out of four items
related to traditional household gender roles specify only women’s proper behaviors (women
should not work, otherwise, children and family life suffer; all women should really want is home
Lee et al. 349

and kids), and one item specifies both men’s and women’s proper behaviors (men as breadwin-
ner, women as housekeeper). Moreover, when gender equality ideals are consistent with main-
stream cultural values, such as the fulfillment of one’s potential regardless of gender and race in
individualistic societies, gender equality movements are more likely to gain support. However,
when gender equality ideals are in conflict with mainstream cultural values or subcultural values,
such as in societies that value hierarchy, masculine traits, and uncertainty avoidance, it is difficult
to challenge traditional household gender roles. In these societies/subcultures, traditional house-
hold gender roles may implicitly guide people in choosing occupations or situations consistent
with these roles, such as women in “service work” (Liu, 1998) or part-time jobs, to allow women
to fulfill domestic obligations. These jobs often have limited opportunities for advancement and
offer relatively low income (Lu et al., 2009). Thus, although men and women may seem to have
equal rights and opportunities to fulfill their lives in these societies, their freedom and develop-
ment are still constrained by traditional gender norms, such as traditional household gender roles.
More broadly speaking, there are benefits of liberation from traditional gender norms for both
men and women. In traditional gender norms, men are often expected to be tough, competitive, and
successful. Such a “tough man” façade may lead to men’s difficulties in coping with stress, such as
heavy drinking or underutilization of medical resources (Addis & Cohane, 2005; Yang, 2010).
Liberation from rigid gender norms may assist men in recognizing and expressing their needs, feel-
ings, and emotions and may ultimately enhance their mental health (O’Neil, 1981). In traditional
gender norms, women are often expected to be family-oriented, subordinate, and caring. This “little
woman” façade may place roadblocks to women’s success in their careers. For example, successful
women are perceived to have deficiencies in their communality and are consequently penalized
(Heilman & Okimoto, 2007). These cultural pressures and societal penalties may decrease wom-
en’s motivation to fulfill their potential. By being liberated from traditional gender norms, human
beings can have greater flexibility and freedom to realize their potential and their dreams.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: This research was supported by a Grant from the National Science Council in Taiwan
(NSC101-2628-H-004-004-MY2) and a small Grant from National Taiwan University.

ORCID iD
I-Ching Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0520-4435

References
Addis, M. E., & Cohane, G. H. (2005). Social scientific paradigms of masculinity and their implications for
research and practice in men’s mental health. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 633–647. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jclp.20099
Allen, D. G. (1996). Knowledge, politics, culture, and gender: A discourse perspective. Canadian Journal
of Nursing Research, 28, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.2
Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive
negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 256–267.
An, D., & Kim, S. (2007). Relating Hofstede’s masculinity dimension to gender role portrayals in advertis-
ing: A cross-cultural comparison of web advertisements. International Marketing Review, 24, 181–207.
350 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

Bearden, W. O., Money, R. B., & Nevins, J. L. (2006). A measure of long-term orientation:
Development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 456–467. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0092070306286706
Blashill, A. J. (2011). Gender roles, eating pathology, and body dissatisfaction in men: A meta-analysis.
Body Image, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.09.002
Budgeon, S. (2014). The dynamics of gender hegemony: Femininities, masculinities and social change.
Sociology, 48, 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513490358
Carrasco, A., Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Laffarga, J., & Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. (2015). Appointing women to
boards: Is there a cultural bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 429–444.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Polity Press.
Constantin, A., & Voicu, M. (2015). Attitudes towards gender roles in cross-cultural surveys: Content
validity and cross-cultural measurement invariance. Social Indicators Research, 123, 733–751.
Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological
barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19,
343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789
England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24, 149–166. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0891243210361475
Gibbons, J. L., Stiles, D. A., & Shkodriani, G. M. (1991). Adolescents’ attitudes toward family and gender
roles: An international comparison. Sex Roles, 25, 625–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289568
Guimond, S., Branscombe, N. R., Brunot, S., Buunk, A. P., Chatard, A., Desert, M., Garcia, D. M., Haque,
S., Martinot, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2007). Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social
comparison processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1118–1134. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1118
Guimond, S., Chatard, A., Martinot, D., Crisp, R. J., & Redersdorff, S. (2006). Social comparison, self-
stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
90, 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.221
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The
implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.1.81
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. SAGE.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations. SAGE.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, 2, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G. (2018). Geert HofstedeTM cultural dimensions. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/
compare-countries/
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations software of the mind:
Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long- versus short-term orientation: New perspectives. Asia Pacific
Business Review, 16, 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381003637609
Hu, Y., & Scott, J. (2016). Family and gender values in China: Generational, geographic, and gender differ-
ences. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1267–1293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14528710
Huang, Y., Tang, W., Mu, Y., Li, X., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Li, M., Li, Q., Dai, L., Liang, J., & Zhu, J. (2016).
The sex ratio at birth for 5338853 deliveries in China from 2012 to 2015: A facility-based study. PLOS
ONE, 11, Article e0167575. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167575
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional
values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657288
ISSP Research Group. (2016). International Social Survey Programme: Family and changing gender
roles IV—ISSP 2012 (GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5900 Data file Version 4.0.0). https://doi.
org/10.4232/1.12661
Kalokhe, A., Del Rio, C., Dunkle, K., Stepenson, R., Metheny, N., Paranjape, A., & Sahay, S. (2017).
Domestic violence against women in India: A systematic review of a decade of quantitative studies.
Global Public Health, 12, 498–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2015.1119293
Lee et al. 351

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine?
A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0023557
Lee, I. C., & Pratto, F. (2018). Gendered power: Insights from power basis theory. In N. Dess, J. Marecek,
D. Best, & L. Bell (Eds.), The psychology of gender, sex, and sexualities (pp. 149–170). Oxford
University Press.
Lee, I. C., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based
hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137,
1029–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025410
Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., & Sedikides, C. (2009). A meta-analysis on the malleability of automatic
gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-
6402.2009.01488.x
Li, Y. H. (2000). Women’s movement and change of women’s status in China. Journal of International
Women’s Studies, 1, 30–40.
Liu, C. T. (1998). Female medical sociology. Fembooks.
Lu, L., Hsieh, P. H., & Pan, C. F. (2009). 職場性別公平現況與性別公平知覺對工作態度之影響－臺
灣全國樣本之分析 [The perception of gender equality and its impact on work attitudes in Taiwan:
Evidence from a national sample]. Journal of Management Practice and Principles, 3(3), 78–102.
https://doi.org/10.29916/JMPP.200909.0005
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implication for cognition, emotion, and motiva-
tion. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.98.2.224
Milner, L. M., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Sex-role portrayals and the gender of nations. Journal of Advertising,
29, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673604
Minkov, M., Bond, M. H., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov,
Y., & Mudd, B. (2017). A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New flexibility versus monu-
mentalism data from 54 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 52, 309–333.
Murnen, S., & Smolak, L. (2009). Are feminist women protected from body image problems? A meta-ana-
lytic review of relevant research. Sex Roles, 60, 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9523-2
National Statistics, Republic of China. (2019). National accounts. https://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=3
3338&ctNode=3565&mp=4
N’Guessan, K. G. (2011). Gender hierarchy and social construction of femininity: The imposed mask. Acta
Iassyensia Comparationis, 9, 185–199.
O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men’s
lives. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1981.
tb00282.x
Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. (2008). Managers’ gender role attitudes: A country institutional
profile approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 795–813. https://doi.org/10.1057/pal-
grave.jibs.8400384
Pek, J. C. X., & Leong, F. T. L. (2003). Sex-related self-concepts, cognitive styles and cultural values of
traditionality modernity as predictors of general and domain-specific sexism. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 6, 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.t01-1-00008
Reilly, D., & Neumann, D. (2013). Gender-role differences in spatial ability: A meta-analytic review. Sex
Roles, 68, 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0269-0
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash
in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
Rupp, L. J. (1997). Worlds of women: The making of an international women’s movement. Princeton
University Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some plications for work. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 48, 23–47.
Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J.
Soeters, & P Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures, Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective
(pp. 43–73). Brill.
352 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 51(5)

Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences. State
University-higher School of Economics Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Culture matters: National value cultures, sources, and consequences. In R. S. Wyer,
C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research, and application (pp. 127–
150). Psychology Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology
and Culture, 2(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel-Lifschitz, T. (2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in
values: Effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 171–185. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0015546
Sheridan, L., Scott, A. J., Archer, J., & Roberts, K. (2017). Female undergraduate’s perceptions of intrusive
behavior in 12 countries. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21711
Silver, E. R., Chadwick, S. B., & van Anders, S. M. (2019). Feminist identity in men: Masculinity, gender
roles, and sexual approaches in feminist, non-feminist, and unsure men. Sex Roles, 80, 277–290.
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis.
American Psychologist, 56, 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.56.4.319
Spade, J. Z., & Valentine, C. G. (2011). The kaleidoscope of gender: Prisms, patterns, and possibilities.
SAGE.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2001). The role of national culture in international marketing research. International
Marketing Review, 18, 30–44.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their children’s gen-
der-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 38, 615–630. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.4.615
Toh, S. M., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2012). Cultural constraints on the emergence of women as leaders. Journal
of World Business, 47, 604–611.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collec-
tivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-
3514.59.5.1006
United Nations Development Programme. (2009). Human development report 2009. Palgrave Macmillan.
United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human development reports: Gender inequaity index
(2017). http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/composite_tables/2018_Statistical_Annex_Table_5.xlsx
van Emmerik, H., Wendt, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2010). Gender ratio, societal culture, and male and female
leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 895–914.
Welzel, C. (2014). WVS 1 to 6 key aggregates (Version 1). http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSNews
Show.jsp?ID=367
World Bank. (2016). Women who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife (any of five reasons) (%).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.VAW.REAS.ZS
Yang, J. (2010). The crisis of masculinity: Class, gender, and kindly power in post-Mao China. American
Ethnologist, 37, 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2010.01272.x
Yeganeh, H. (2017). Cultural modernization and work-related values and attitudes. International Journal of
Development Issues, 16, 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDI-10-2016-0058
Zhang, Y. B., Lin, M.-C., Nonaka, A., & Beom, K. (2005). Harmony, hierarchy and conservatism: A
cross-cultural comparison of Confucian values in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Communication
Research Report, 22, 107–115.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical lin-
ear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695–719. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00036810500130539
Zucker, A. N., & Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2010). Minding the gap between feminist and attitudes: The behav-
ioral and ideological divide between feminist and non-labelers. Journal of Personality, 78, 1895–1924.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00673.x