Gender-Role Stereotypes in the Bulgarian Family: Cross-Generational Transmission of Gender Attitudes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript - Gender-role stereotypes and attitudes in the Bulgarian family.  Comparative analysis by age factor - describes interesting empirical findings that concern generational transformation of gender attitudes in familial context. The data obtained widen the understanding of how gender ideology works in different age strata. The research combines quantitative and qualitative methods representing gender-role orientations, as well as their explanations of gender order in families. The sample covers different regions of the country, as well as urban and rural areas, making the findings more comprehensive and valuable. But the text needs to be improved.

1.      The title speaks of stereotypes and attitudes, and both are different phenomena in social knowledge. These terms are not differentiated by the authors. From the analysis of the data, there is a feeling that the authors often say about normative gender attitudes, not just gender stereotypes. Moreover, there are such concepts as gender schemas (S.L. Bem), gender beliefs, gender representations, gender ideology (R. Kalin). How the concept of stereotype chosen by the authors meets these ones? In the manuscript, the authors often operate with these terms synonymously. The questionnaire used in the research is not the established but constructed tool, for this study, and it raises some questions about its validity: What it actually measures, how the sentences were chosen to measure the content of stereotypes (attitudes / beliefs?) about male / female / spousal behaviour in family, and from which already used (established?) scales these sentences were borrowed? It is not clear for what purpose factor analysis was carried out (lines 175-177). Seeing the wording of the questions, no other fields, except for the behaviour of a man and the behaviour of a woman in the family, are covered by the questions. And there are only 10 sentences (4 for men’s and 5 for women’s behaviour, and 1 for domestic violence without gender specification named as “spousal violence”).

2.      The authors speak that they choose the regions for sampling on “unique folklore traditions” grounds. But they do not concern theoretically any functions, roles, and place of such traditions in Introduction. I may suppose that the authors consider folklore traditions as a reservoir of gender stereotypes. But it is not clearly expressed in the text. And what are the regional differences of such traditions? Are they essentially different, and how do they differentiate each other? How folklore traditions are rooted or reflected in the real social (familial) practises, how they determine these practises – what is the evidence of such determination? How these traditions meet with the dominant gender ideology and gender policy on societal and social (groups, communes, etc.) levels? Or the folklore means nothing essential with the real grounds for sampling, and the researchers simply want to cover different regions of the country? What are folklore traditions about in this research? It should be explained theoretically in the Introduction section if you mention it as a methodological feature. In lines 109-113 there are some notes about different family beliefs, but no comments concerning their gender aspect.

3.      In lines 139-131 it is said that five focus groups were held in each of 14 regions, but within commas one can count 6 criteria for groups – 1) people from village, 2) people from small town, 3) people from big city, 4) people under 20, 5) people over 50, 6) mixed (age?) group. Further in the Results section one can find data of 10 focus group. How many groups you really held and what is the composition of theirs? It should be clearly noticed: people under 20 in village, small town, big city? people over 50 in village, small town, big city? mixed (age?) group in village, small town, big city? In each of 14 regions? 126 groups? 70 groups? Why do you describe the data of 10 groups only in the Results? Questions arise due to a slipshod description of the research procedure.

4.      The (probable) explanation that due to close communication with the 50+ relatives the respondents of 29-40 demonstrate conservative gender beliefs in comparison with the persons up to 28 years of age is not convincing. The authors declare it but do not give any reference to other research or evidence supporting such explanation. There are studies (on the samples from the USA) demonstrating a trend toward an increase in conservative gender beliefs during a life span, but the grounds of such tendencies are seen in the impacts of societal factors in general.

5.      It is not clear which assumption is confirmed by the additional analysis of the average values of age in the selected age groups, which is presented in Tab. 5, and why these parameters are not included in sample description in lines 134-167?

6.      From Section 3.1.4 it is not clear what criteria are used for identifying two clusters of data, how these clusters are interpreted, and what clustering method was used.

7.      When presenting data of focus group, it is not understandable what culture of the person consists of and how gender relations (equality, disparity) are determined by the family or (family?) model? It is not clear where such conclusions, as in lines 256-258, come from, for they do not follow from the statements of the respondents.

8.      Considering that there is a group mixed in age from 19 to 55 years old, it is necessary to explain why the researchers widen the age interval if it is known that young people under 25 are not inclined to articulate their point of view in the presence of older people. And the data obtained in such a group should be analyzed as the dominating gender discourse in the region.

9.      In line 323 it is better to explain the meaning in which the slang term “backwards” is used – queer, stupid, or else, as in different contexts it has different meaning.

10.  It would be better if the authors summarize and generalize the statements of respondents, giving quotations as examples of discerned beliefs.

11.  The age differences in the content of normative gender attitudes in this research rather deals with the beliefs that have been formed in a certain socio-historical time in which a certain gender ideology was dominant, they do not reflect the age dynamics of such attitudes. To establish age dynamics of gender attitudes (stereotypes, beliefs, ideology, etc.) it is necessary to conduct a longitudinal study, not analyse different age groups. In the discussion of the results, it would be better saying about generational differences, not about the impact of age on gender representations, as it might seem from lines 359-360, 405-406, 422, 447.

Author Response

We have answered your questions attached in the file. We agree with all your comments, we await your feedback on whether to change the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study focus on an highly interesting research object, being the the gender beliefs crucial to understand social relations and, therefore, to locate how urgent is the educational change.

Method wise, it is suggested that the sample information, both in the qualitative and quantitative study is deepen, i.e.,  the inclusion and exclusion criteria and selection method. Also it is suggested to indicate the criteria underlying age categorization.

Regarding the quantitive instrument, was it developed by the research team? Was it adapted for bulgarian population?

Regarding the results, the difference between two groups are only the "activation of the stereotype" (217)? Also assumes that every young adult will constitute a family, whic may be an (heteronormative) stereotype itself (see also 429).

Also, in the affirmation "Over 50 years once they have established family relations, while women tend to develop these beliefs at a younger age (...)" -  the studies pointed are old and could not reflect actuality. Still, if the younsters pontuated lower in gender stereotypes and is adressed a instergeneracional model, arent' the 40´s and 50's group their parents age? Isnt' formal and informal education and/or public policies related to this interesting shift? How do they break the intergeneracinal cycle?

It is suggested to use conservative gender beliefs (or other) instead of the term "value of stereotypes" (247). It is also requeired to develop the idea of normative/age crisis (e.g., 412, 429).

Although the triangulated data is interessant, the data could be deepened, bringing other facts into discussion.

Only minor expressions are required to change, as "value of stereotypes",  probably an authomatic translation which can be doubtfull. Neverthless it is suggested a general revision of the text.

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive comments. All your suggestions are taken into account and can be included in the text. We would like your permission to make a correction.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx