» Articles » PMID: 27458394

Traditional Masculinity and Femininity: Validation of a New Scale Assessing Gender Roles

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2016 Jul 27
PMID 27458394
Citations 39
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Gender stereotype theory suggests that men are generally perceived as more masculine than women, whereas women are generally perceived as more feminine than men. Several scales have been developed to measure fundamental aspects of gender stereotypes (e.g., agency and communion, competence and warmth, or instrumentality and expressivity). Although omitted in later version, Bem's original Sex Role Inventory included the items "masculine" and "feminine" in addition to more specific gender-stereotypical attributes. We argue that it is useful to be able to measure these two core concepts in a reliable, valid, and parsimonious way. We introduce a new and brief scale, the Traditional Masculinity-Femininity (TMF) scale, designed to assess central facets of self-ascribed masculinity-femininity. Studies 1-2 used known-groups approaches (participants differing in gender and sexual orientation) to validate the scale and provide evidence of its convergent validity. As expected the TMF reliably measured a one-dimensional masculinity-femininity construct. Moreover, the TMF correlated moderately with other gender-related measures. Demonstrating incremental validity, the TMF predicted gender and sexual orientation in a superior way than established adjective-based measures. Furthermore, the TMF was connected to criterion characteristics, such as judgments as straight by laypersons for the whole sample, voice pitch characteristics for the female subsample, and contact to gay men for the male subsample, and outperformed other gender-related scales. Taken together, as long as gender differences continue to exist, we suggest that the TMF provides a valuable methodological addition for research into gender stereotypes.

Citing Articles

Randomised controlled trial of LGBTQ-affirmative cognitive-behavioural therapy for sexual minority women's minority stress, mental health and hazardous drinking: Project EQuIP protocol.

Pachankis J, Chiaramonte D, Scheer J, Ankrum H, Eisenstadt B, Hobbs R BMJ Open. 2025; 15(3):e086738.

PMID: 40032395 PMC: 11877267. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086738.


Young Bedouin-Arab Men's Ego and Pride: Do Traditional Masculinity and Positive Attitudes Toward Polygyny Shape Responses to a Wife's Refusal?.

Besser A, Zeigler-Hill V, Alhuzail N Behav Sci (Basel). 2024; 14(11).

PMID: 39594381 PMC: 11590876. DOI: 10.3390/bs14111081.


A multimodal understanding of the role of sound and music in gendered toy marketing.

Marinelli L, Lucht P, Saitis C PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0311876.

PMID: 39504306 PMC: 11540170. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311876.


"We are mothers, sisters, and lovers too": Examining young Black women's experiences navigating sex and sexual health.

Darko N, Wilson C, Oliver V Am J Community Psychol. 2024; 74(3-4):196-209.

PMID: 38736243 PMC: 11673438. DOI: 10.1002/ajcp.12753.


Masculinity, Meat, and Veg*nism: A Scoping Review.

Velzeboer R, Li E, Gao N, Sharp P, Oliffe J Am J Mens Health. 2024; 18(2):15579883241247173.

PMID: 38679967 PMC: 11057354. DOI: 10.1177/15579883241247173.


References
1.
Constantinople A . Masculinity-femininity: an exception to a famous dictum?. Psychol Bull. 1973; 80(5):389-407. DOI: 10.1037/h0035334. View

2.
Lippa R . Sexual orientation and personality. Annu Rev Sex Res. 2006; 16:119-53. View

3.
Banse R, Seise J, Zerbes N . Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Z Exp Psychol. 2001; 48(2):145-60. DOI: 10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.145. View

4.
Bem S . The measurement of psychological androgyny. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1974; 42(2):155-62. View

5.
Spence J, HELMREICH R, Stapp J . Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975; 32(1):29-39. DOI: 10.1037/h0076857. View