Gender Prejudice Assessment Test
How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Not at all important
- Somewhat important
- Neutral
- Important
- Very important
- Not at all important
- Somewhat important
- Neutral
- Important
- Very important
- Not important at all
- Somewhat important
- Neutral
- Important
- Very important
Gender Prejudice Assessment Test - Description and methodology of the test
People who want to examine how qualities associated with authority and care are valued can use this questionnaire for structured self-reflection. The Gender Prejudice Assessment Test helps a respondent consider the profile produced by those judgments. This reflection can help examine how gendered expectations may shape the importance assigned to different qualities and invite questions about assumptions concerning leadership, competence, warmth, and interpersonal behavior.
What This Assessment Explores
Each item names a quality and asks how important it is, from supportive and compassionate to ambitious, decisive, independent, or dominant. The prompts cover action, authority, autonomy, and goal pursuit alongside responsiveness to others. Displayed dimensions indicate self-interest-oriented and caring/supportive behavioral tendencies.
The profile may prompt reflection on gender stereotypes; it is not itself a direct measure or proof of prejudice.
The two displayed dimensions are:
- Self-Interest Advancement (8-40) assesses behavior directed toward goals and interests; higher scores may indicate a stronger tendency toward autonomy and initiative, qualities traditionally linked to leadership and men. Lower 8-24; Moderate 25-32; Higher 33-40.
- Caring for Others (8-40) assesses caring and supportive behavior; higher scores may indicate empathy and readiness to help. Lower focus on care 8-24; Balanced care 25-32; Strong caring orientation 33-40.
Read independently, the bands describe each tendency's level; they do not establish a fixed personality type.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each prompt presents a quality or tendency and asks how important it is, using five choices from “Not at all important” to “Very important,” with a neutral midpoint. Responses produce displayed results for the two dimensions; the questionnaire does not document how answers are combined or weighted. Its self-report format captures stated importance rather than necessarily consistent behavior and can support reflection on gender bias.
Role Congruity Theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) provides a close frame: prejudice can arise when gender-role beliefs conflict with leadership expectations. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with this framework, while Cejka and Eagly (1999) and Eagly and Mladinic (1994) support the relevance of occupational images, attitudes, and competence judgments. These works provide conceptual and related empirical context for agentic and communal qualities; they do not establish this questionnaire's validity or provenance.
The questionnaire has no documented standardized norms or validation, so the bands describe levels rather than universal thresholds. Self-report is sensitive to context, self-awareness, and candor, so the result is best considered alongside reflection on attitudes and behavior.
- Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
- Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413-423. 10.1177/0146167299025004002
- Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1-35). Wiley. 10.1080/14792779543000002
Updated: