Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 54, Issue 11–12, pp 767–775 | Cite as

Conforming to Masculine Norms: Evidence for Validity among Adult Men and Women

  • Andrew P. Smiler
Original Article

Abstract

Assessment of masculinity as an ideological belief system (MI) has become increasingly popular. Validation of MI measures and subsequent research has relied heavily on undergraduate samples. In the present study, convergent and divergent validity of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (Mahalik et al., Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4: 3–25, 2003) were examined among a convenience sample of 688 male and female adults who were divided into four groups (undergraduates, younger adults, middle-aged adults, older adults). Across groups, convergent validity was suggested by consistent relations with sexism, and divergent validity was suggested by consistent nonsignificant relations with masculine attributes. Results suggest that generalizations among male groups can be made with caution and that generalizations to women may be appropriate when the focal constructs are unrelated to women or femininity.

Keywords

Masculinity ideology gender sex differences sexism femininity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

My thanks to Carolyn Mebert, who taught me to always check my assumptions, Ellen Cohn for suggestions regarding data collection, and the other members of my dissertation committee. Thanks also to Monique Ward, Jim Mahalik, Ron Levant, and several anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and insights. Finally, my thanks to Meghan Basile, Steve McIsaac, Lynn Reingold, Heather Roy, and Allison Shupe for their help with data collection and data entry.

References

  1. Bauman, K. J., & Graf, N. L. (2003). Educational attainment 2000: Census 2000 brief. Washington, District of Columbia: US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-125.html).
  2. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohan, J. S. (1997). Regarding gender: Essentialism, constructionism, and feminist psychology. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 31–48). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Chu, J. Y., Porche, M. V., & Tolman, D. L. (2005). The adolescent masculinity ideology in relationships scale: Development and validation of a new measure for boys. Men and Masculinities, 8, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. David, D., & Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint for manhood and what it’s done for us lately. In D. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. 1–48). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Galambos, N. L., Petersen, A. C., & Richards, M. (1985). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale for Adolescents (AWSA): A study of reliability and validity. Sex Roles, 13, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham, S. (1992). Most of the subjects were white and middle class: Trends in published research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970–1989. American Psychologist, 47, 629–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hammond, W. P., & Mattis, J. S. (2005). Being a man about it: Manhood meaning among African American men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1990). On making a difference. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 1–21). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2003). The second shift (2nd edn.). New York: Penguin (first published in 1989).Google Scholar
  12. Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  14. Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levant, R. F., Hirsch, L. S., Celentano, E., Cozza, T. M., Hill, S., & MacEachern, M., et al. (1992). The male role: An investigation of contemporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325–337.Google Scholar
  16. Levant, R. F., Richmond, K., Majors, R. G., Inclan, J. E., Rossello, J. M., et al. (2003). A multicultural investigation of masculinity ideology and alexithymia. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to feminine norms inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. P. (2005). Development of the conformity to feminine norms inventory. Sex Roles, 52, 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCreary, D. R., Newcomb, M. D., & Sadava, S. W. (1998). Dimensions of the male gender role: A confirmatory analysis in men and women. Sex Roles, 39, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  23. Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male roles: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles, 30, 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminant validity of masculinity ideology. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after gender: Concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles, 50, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  28. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54, 1070–1077.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson, E. H. Jr., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543.Google Scholar
  32. Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Pleck, J. H. (1995). Masculinity ideologies: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 129–163). New York, New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  33. Unger, R. K. (1990). Imperfect reflections of reality: Psychology constructs gender. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 102–149). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Villemez, W. J., & Touhey, J. C. (1977). A measure of individual differences in sex stereotyping and sex discrimination: The ‘Macho’ Scale. Psychological Reports, 41, 411–415.Google Scholar
  35. Wade, J. C., & Brittan-Powell, C. (2001). Men’s attitudes toward race and gender equity: The importance of masculinity ideology, gender-related traits, and reference group identity dependence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. William T. Grant Commission on Work, Families, and Children. (1988). The forgotten half: Pathways to success for America’s youth and young families. Washington, District of Columbia: William T. Grant Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SUNY OswegoOswegoUSA

Personalised recommendations