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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The term “traits” is used to refer to measures such as the BSRI (Bem, 1974) and PAQ (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). These measures have been recognized as being limited to narrow, positive conceptions of masculinity (i.e., instrumentality) and femininity (i.e., expressiveness; Spence & Helmreich, 1980). They have also been referred to as measures of gender role orientation (Thompson & Pleck, 1995).
All non-undergraduate survey participants returned their surveys to the researcher in signed, sealed, postage-paid envelope to ensure confidentiality. To assess the possibility of fabricated surveys, data from the two waves of data collection were compared separately in a sex (2) by undergraduate student status (2) matrix. Mean differences were significant for 6 / 60 comparisons, twice the desired rate of α = 0.05, but no scale differed for more than one group. Across all measures, scale reliabilities were virtually identical when examined as a function of sex and student status.
References
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).
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
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.
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.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2003). The second shift (2nd edn.). New York: Penguin (first published in 1989).
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.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.
Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 259–265.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 70–78.
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.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male roles: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles, 30, 481–501.
Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminant validity of masculinity ideology. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 117–135.
Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after gender: Concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles, 50, 15–26.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
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.
Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54, 1070–1077.
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.
Thompson, E. H. Jr., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this manuscript was provided, in part, by NICHD grant T32 HD007109-26. The research described in this manuscript was performed in partial completion of the author’s doctoral dissertation at the University of New Hampshire.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smiler, A.P. Conforming to Masculine Norms: Evidence for Validity among Adult Men and Women. Sex Roles 54, 767–775 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9045-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9045-8