Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2015 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 16, No. 2, 000 1524-9220/15/$12.00

Measurement of Masculinity Ideologies: A (Critical) Review

Edward H. Thompson Jr. Kate M. Bennett
College of the Holy Cross University of Liverpool

Over the 20 years since Thompson and Pleck’s review of masculinity measures, much has changed with
respect to measurement of masculinity ideologies. In this review, we examine the theoretical foundations
and psychometric properties of measures of masculinity ideologies. We frame the review with a brief
discussion of the 2 distinct conceptualizations of masculinity ideologies, then provide a synopsis of the
16 measures that meet our selection criteria: have been used in empirical studies since 1995, were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

published in peer-reviewed psychology or gender-related journals, contain full presentation of psycho-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

metric properties, are not study-specific modifications of earlier scales, and focus directly or indirectly
on masculinity ideologies. We show that there are now 2 generations of measures. The 1st focuses on the
hegemonic, traditional masculinity ideologies in North America. The 2nd-generation theorizes local
masculinities and explicitly recognizes that different groups of individuals hold different standards. These
have begun to map the geography of masculinities for men of different birth cohorts, life stages, social
classes, sexual orientations, cultures, and racial/ethnic communities. We conclude by suggesting that
there is value for a 3rd generation of measures to capture the changing face of men’s gendered lives.

Keywords: masculinity ideologies

It has been 20 years since Thompson and Pleck’s (1995) review body of prescriptive and proscriptive social norms that sanction
of the measurement of masculinity ideologies, and much has men and masculinity performances. At the time, the term was
changed. Six of the 11 measures in the 1995 review are rarely or introduced to explicitly distinguish masculinities as social norms
never used, and new measures have been developed. Since the from the profoundly different construct of a gender orientation or
journal’s launch in 2000, an increasing number of the articles identity.
published in the Psychology of Men and Masculinity use one or The constructs gender orientation/identity and masculinity ide-
more measures of masculinity ideology, including 26.5% of the 49 ologies rest on two parallel but dissimilar conceptualizations of
articles in 2013. As important as the utilization statistics, theoriz- masculinity that have channeled psychological studies on men. To
ing within psychology is moving away from the 1980s and 1990s summarize: One perspective views masculinities as dispositions
discourse about the male sex role (for a review, see Smiler, 2004), and traits; the other conceptualizes masculinities as culturally
which was the theoretical foundation for most of the pre-1995 based (or normative) ideologies that promise men privileges and
measures. For these reasons, a new review of the measurement of some men more privileges than others. The first perspective, which
masculinity ideologies is warranted. Thompson and Pleck (1995, p. 130) referred to as the trait ap-
This review begins with a discussion of the theorizing behind proach, presents masculinity as a cluster of socially desirable
studies of masculinity ideology within the last 20 years. We then attributes thought to differentiate males and females and is mea-
present a thorough summary of the available instrumentation on sured by assessing traits via self-concept ratings such as the Bem
masculinity ideologies and point out areas in need of investigation. Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1981) and the Personal Attributes
We end by suggesting that there are advantages to questioning Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). The trait approach
which ideologies boys and men (might) adopt to promote greater
presumes that what differs is the degree to which individuals
equality across sexualities and genders.
exemplify idealized masculinity (and femininity).
The second perspective, referred to as the normative approach,
Theorizing Masculinity Ideologies emphasizes the social norms sanctioning men and recognizes that
Masculinity ideologies is the term Thompson, Pleck, and Ferrera there is no single standard for masculinity or an unvarying mas-
(1992; see also Thompson & Pleck, 1995) proposed to identify the culinity ideology. Thompson and Pleck (1995) proposed that “nor-
mative perspectives . . . view masculinity as a culturally based
ideology scripting gender relations, attitudes, and beliefs” (p. 130).
Theorizing since Thompson and Pleck’s (1995) review has located
Edward H. Thompson Jr., Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the societal-wide, regional, and local masculinity ideologies within
College of the Holy Cross; Kate M. Bennett, Department of Psychological
both cultural traditions and social practices (cf. Connell & Mess-
Sciences, University of Liverpool.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ed- erschmidt, 2005). From this perspective masculinity ideologies are
ward H. Thompson Jr., Department of Sociology and Anthropology, properties of particular times, places, and groups, not individuals.
College of the Holy Cross, 1 College Street, Worcester, MA 01610. They influence—although they do not wholly determine— how peo-
E-mail: ple think, feel, and behave in gender-salient matters. There may be


masculinity ideologies as culturally. they mentation that psychologists use to measure masculinity ideolo- are empirically distinct. or community. 1959) who have explicitly discussed DEX.2 Subsequent to Whorley and Addis. SocIN- Hacker. Gomory. are not a study-specific modification of earlier scales. for some men. Smalley. or local masculinity ideologies sides within the individual. the Russian Male Norms Inventory (Janey et al.. 1996. 1978).g.. 16 measures directly or indirectly assess masculinity munities. and one is hegemonic at some point. & Ku. what individuals learn and internalize is a belief system about masculinity and appropriate gender relations. 1983). traditional masculinity. and the Attitudes Toward Masculinity Transcen- “individual’s endorsement and internalization [italics added] of dence Scale (Moreland & Van Tuinen. 1995. our constructionist tradition of sociologists and psychologists (e. the Traditional Atti- & Ferrera..g. Smalley. 2005). ideologies. ideals of manhood and masculinity ideologies as cultural things— masculinity ideologies. Cook. doctrines. These were the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (Mahalik et 19. 2. When tudes About Men measure (McCreary. there have been two conceptualizations of ogy or gender-related journals. peer-reviewed psychol- For the last 20 years. masculinity beliefs refers to the set of norms that individuals have 1993a) and the Attitudes Toward Men Scale (Iazzo. and expectations that reflect the showed that between 2005 and 2013. Tovar-Blank. In sum. 19). societal-wide idealized blueprint (Brannon. 1986). Connell. Connell. 1992. 1995) have theorized that masculinity ideology re- 5. 1981. Pleck. 2005). Relationships Scale (Chu. Levant. we offer the 2012). the liams. focus on global. contain full presentation of psychometric properties. 2 cultural belief systems about masculinity and the male gender” (p. Kimmel. They are individually discussed in gender ideal for men and male roles” (p. have been used in empirical studies from 1995 onward. 1998). Studies have typically found that measures gies or the masculinity beliefs that reflect those ideologies. (e. ing to Pleck (1995). & Ramos. which stated that “masculin- linities since 1995. found that psychologists had confined their use to just four of the son & Pleck. Thomp. Richmond. the Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in ideologies construct Thompson and colleagues (Thompson. . we exclude trait- In addition. an ethnic community. we al. sometimes. however. PsycARTICLES. either traditional feminine ideology or attitudes toward women men and masculinity in the United States between 1995 and 2004 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 2008) and its revision (MRNI-A-r. & Aupont. a region. All are self-report instruments. 2012). Sonenstein. social The next section explains the selection criteria for the mascu- institutions. This model remains distinct from the or on masculinity beliefs that mirror masculinity trait approach to the gender orientation/identity construct. the construct masculinity ideologies—as cultural things and as individuals’ belief systems.. 1992) and its revision (MRNI-R. neither of which is rooted in the trait 3. 1995). 2007). Horn. approach. Thompson & Pleck. but there are 1. viewed from a normative approach. 131). & Courtenay. 2013). 2009). Accord. Levant et al. 1986). 2007. 2001) belief system launches a different construct than the masculinity and its revision (Luyt.. myths. 11 ideology measures identified by Thompson and Pleck (1995)1 In this review. Anderson. and masculinities bodies of ideas. and then each the most widely accepted forms of being a man as defined by the measure is critically summarized. the Machismo Measure (Arciniega. and the Measure of Men’s Perceived society. 4. yet researchers have documented that the same (Pleck. Saucier. and Pleck.. 1984).4 gender constructions within and. is a socially constructed use Likert-type rating scales. eight new instruments were developed3. at the same time that Thompson and Pleck (1995) introduced These were the Male Role Norms Scale (Thompson & Pleck. This was also the starting point in the ideologies and have been integral to empirical studies of mascu- Thompson and Pleck (1995) review. we define masculinity ideologies from the social and two new instruments. Hartley. Wil- individual-level belief systems about masculinities are studied. Levant. 2005). institutions (cf. Sonenstein. 1996). 2 THOMPSON AND BENNETT a dominant. the Meanings of Adolescent Masculinity Scale (Oransky & that identifies the cultural standards of manhood located in a Fisher. regional.. & following distinction: Masculinity ideologies remains the construct Tracey. search of four databases (PsycINFO. & Tolman. hegemonic masculinities are linity ideology measures reviewed in this article. Rather. masculinity ideology is not invariant across historical eras. and 4 These were the Male Role Attitudes Scale (Pleck. not individually. and societies. across groups. et al. the Macho Scale (Anderson. historical era. also commonalities across the history and geography of masculin- ities (cf. or in social groups and Inexpressiveness Norms (Wong. the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent (Levant. researchers working from close variants of social constructionism (e. In addition. com- In all.g. 1993a). 1995. Our inclusion criteria were as follows: culinities (cf. & Ku. 1976) for internalized and “constitute[s] a belief system about masculinity” proper manhood. argue that conceptualizing masculinity ideology as if it were a 3 These were the Male Attitude Norms Inventory (Luyt & Foster. based. p. and Google Scholar) for the terms masculinity ideology. were published in mainstream. There may be unique features when different masculinities are examined. Consistent with Thompson and Pleck (1995). and almost all ity. and two other pre-1995 measures had also been used. House.. or groups of men. of masculinity ideologies share less than half their variance with Whorley and Addis’s (2006) review of psychological research on This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 2008). In framing this review. the Brannon Masculinity Scale (1995) proposed that masculinity ideology can be thought of as the (Brannon & Juni. Consequently. Graef. 1995) introduced. 1951. social institution. target has shifted to the individual self. Pleck. Porche. Pleck the Male Role Norms Inventory (Levant et al. Hearn. the gender role strain paradigm. masculinity ideologies may overlap with ideologies based measures of gender orientation and review only the instru- about femininities and broader gender ideologies. Thompson & Pleck. These historically chronological order of their development and are summarized in and geographically rooted ideologies are now referred to as mas- the Appendix. 2013). & McMillan. 2003) and the Multicultural Masculinity Ideology Scale (Doss & Hopkins. 1957. 1 Thus. the starting point for the normative approach is that masculinity ideologies are Measures of Masculinity Ideologies external cultural standards. 1995. 2005).

& Mejia- devised to survey women’s attitudes about men. 1987. Grisanti. want. and Pleck (1985) constructed reliable subscales for the four theorized standards (see the Appendix). 2005). & Wrightsman. One point of departure from Thompson and Pleck (1995) is that The Brannon Masculinity Scale (BMS. we distinguish between measures that were purposely designed to has its roots in early sex role theory and was developed to measure This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. such as the Brannon Masculinity Scale was operationalized with two subscales: avoiding femininity and (Brannon & Juni.65 is fair.g.. The four-factor structure was confirmed in a items in a scale and sample size. We. “Most husbands consider their wives to be weak and witless creatures”). 110).70 is moderate... The “big wheel” standard was also codified posely designed to ascertain the masculinity ideologies that people with two subscales: being the breadwinner and being admired and had adopted. was operationalized in a generation measures chart the hegemonic. Tal- consistencies for the overall scale and subscales (e. and measures that were culture’s blueprint of what a man is supposed to be.. and fatherhood to manhood..g. and sexuality are negatively worded (e. and/or to the local target’s age. “A man always deserves the respect of much of Europe). 1984). all use a male noun as the anchor. Further research is needed to examine Iazzo’s premise that expe- 2011) and specific matters such as body esteem. and discriminat- ing. highly correlated with the full scale. psychometrically reliable.g. traditional masculinities single violence and adventure subscale.. They affirmed the AMS’s criterion validity and reexamined its 5 Interpretation of a Cronbach’s ␣ coefficient is based on number of component structure. or (normative male) alexithymia (e.. see the Appendix). The BMS provides no ments. Having some items address a young man or boy varies the particular people (e..... there were no measures pur. such as much of the Conformity to Masculine (p. David. 2003). Eisler & Skidmore. & Scott. and assessing a supposedly uni- Day. respected. Pivotal was the “no sissy stuff” standard. sexuality.g. & Fischer. The short form of the BMS (BMS-SF) is performances (e. Magovcevic noted that groups of women predicted to hold less favorable & Addis. ⬍7) and/or the sample size is larger. attitudes about women (e. Mahalik.g. Gable. Ponterotto and Ruckdeschel (2007. and behaviors arising as men try to conform to competing masculinity ideologies and/or manage gender role 2. the items remain relevant. Scoring reflects endorsement of the traditional mas- norms scripting specific traditional or nontraditional masculinity culinity expectations.. she Tylka. parenthood. O’Neil. assess personal norms (or the internalization of perceived mascu. marriage. and a healthy body define manhood than did women. MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 3 Restricting the review to measures directly or indirectly assess. The Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS. a scale comprises fewer items (e. Mexican Americans). 2003. Attitudes Toward Men Scale cause of the length of the BMS. Mahalik et al. sexual. 1993)..and standard: toughness and the male machine. marriage. Researchers using the measure report good5 internal operationalized masculinities (Levant et al. When dent. Cortina. versal standard (Mahalik et al. importance work. when a scale has 7–11 items in a sample of ⬍100: ␣ ⬎ . 2006. 2008. Subscales were constructed for between subscales (Levant et al. Thompson & Pleck. Sasse. Scale items generally theorized as applicable to all men within North America (and depict an adult man (e. manhood more than (dis)agreement with cultural ideologies. The majority of items for 3. reliably reproduce the seven subscales. McCreary. Hogue. standard. Male Role Norms Scale marriage.g. been systematically studied. 2004). in the past 20 years only the The Attitudes Toward Men Scale (AMS. Iazzo. . Table sample of women. thoughts. On the basis commented that even decades after the scale’s development. Second-generation measures direct attention to his wife and children”) and include both prescriptive and descrip- the geographies of traditional masculinities that are regional or tive declarations to represent mainstream masculinity values and local. & Wood-Barcalow.g.. & Dorsch. Walker. 2005. Wong et al. Be- 1. a reference group’s expectations about emo. to constructions scripting decision making and behavior for norms. Locke. It examines four major aspects of 2003. Avalos. Maltby and Day (2001) was derived by reducing the length of the BMS-SF. First. however.. ity. rience (or social practices) determines people’s attitudes about cle dysphoria.g. The BMS has been critiqued for redundancy physical and personal attributes. and designed to assess people’s (dis)agreement with the social norms succeed in doing. depression. for example. The final masculinity second-generation measures of masculinity ideologies. 1983) was BMS-SF has been used (e. It is based on Brannon’s (1976) analysis of American Norms Inventory (Mahalik et al. a five-factor structure best accounted for men’s 3) provide the following rule of thumb for interpreting a coefficient. age positively covaried with the perceived reveal men’s gendered experiences (e.g. 1995). Yoder. therefore. 1984) This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Brooks-Harris. 1992. concealing emotions. Levant et al. work. which have not Millan.80 is attitudes—the marriage and parenthood domains became indepen. Tokar.. yet several jointly tap appraisal of the importance of sexuality or men’s privilege. All items are descriptive state. but the BMS-SF does not tional control). Smith & Wi- adult men’s lives—marriage and parenthood. In 1995. The Included 16 Scales A major strength of the BMS is that its items address mascu- linities without comparison to women or men’s sexualities. 2000. Saucier. the “give ‘em hell” mandate. its small number of each domain. Another pair of subscales represented the “sturdy oak” A second departure is that we distinguish between first. 2003). Helms. Brannon & Juni.. which scripting masculinities. mus.75 is good.g. sexuality. With the the rule of thumb changes (cf. 1992). Men also more strongly agreed that work. 1986) “Men consider marriage a trap”). and esenthal. 2007. in feelings. Brannon Masculinity Scale strain. ␣ ⬎ . exception of younger men’s support for the importance of physical ing masculinity ideologies excluded instrumentation designed to and personal attributes. how “people actually feel about traditional American masculinity” linity ideologies). Thompson. 1986. keep the focus on the ideologies. Weinstein. & Singleton. Maltby & madge. excellent. These attitudes toward men—rape victims. battered wives— did indeed instruments were constructed to determine individual differences hold less favorable attitudes. ␣ ⬎ . and ␣ ⬎ . Heesacker. 1996.

model– data fit in a sample of undergraduate men and women and 21). factor loadings from each of the three original scales (see the 2010) supported the hypothesized seven factors. achievement/status. the MRNS identified three cultural standards Researchers have shown that endorsing nontraditional attitudes is that reproduce men’s power and privilege: expectations for men to related to health-conducive behavior (Wade. 2013. 2006). Sonenstein. and Good (2008) found a stronger internal consistency reliance. used the remaining 31 items. and discriminant validity measures of masculinity ideologies (Whorley & Addis. 4. (toughness norms). and resis- become self-reliant and be emotionally and physically tough tance to racism and sexism (Liu. McDonald reported a confirmatory factor analysis for a shorter version & Ho. The MRNI was amended (Levant & Fischer. 2004). the MRNI is one of the most commonly used the MRNS’s brevity. Levant.. expectations to men’s relationship satisfaction (Wade & Donis. the importance of tion. Male Role Norms Inventory There are a number of versions of Levant and colleagues’ Male 5. Hawes. 2000).” Pleck.56). the MRNI was built and revised in line with the Pleck. suggested referring to their shorter (MRNI-SF) that affirms the seven-factor solution with good version of the MRNS as the Masculinity Ideology Scale-21 (MIS. McCreary. and Thompson and & Richmond. and Poteat. and attitudes toward sex. Sonestein. heterosexism. Yielding another varia- anything perceived as feminine (antifemininity). 4 THOMPSON AND BENNETT of factor analysis. 2010. 1999. Lease et al. The were its strengths. and Rankin (2013) data fit (for model-fit criteria. Kilianski. and toughness subscales. Janey. 2006. Con.. the intentional selection of to be representative of the United States and other Western soci. and supporting the occurrence of fistfighting (violent toughness). 2013. 2002. Skolnick. By broadening the scope of measured masculinity norms to Demir. see Levant in his study of men’s transition to retirement. Janey. Thompson & short form (MRNI-SF) of the MRNI-R-r is used. & Savchenko. & Roemer. Bruch. Their subscales address the importance of being respected and in men. However. and Ku (1993a) clusters.. et al. Thompson and Pleck (1995) commented that In all its versions. Lisak. Çiftçi. Ro- ity. MRNI-R-r and MRNI-SF. the developers theorized seven standards underlying tradi. its limitations are no different than those of its seven types of norms assessed are empirically confirmed in the parent (the BMS). inine practices (antifemininity norms). and new items were developed. Reid. lected items from each dimension in the MRNS and added an item tional masculinity and developed the MRNI to assess men’s and concerning sexuality from the Stereotypes About Male Sexuality women’s endorsement of these norms (Levant et al. theorized structure (for a brief history of this measure. concomitant rather than a dimension of masculinity ideology 2005. & Boyraz. & Smalley. Williams. 1993b. & Roemer. and Wilchins (2011) . 1994) developed the gender role strain paradigm (see Pleck. fit index values in confirmatory factor analyses (Lease. heterosexual achieve status and others’ respect (status norms). Goncherova. Some subscales were This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. it iden- Appendix). al.. 2009). 2008. 2009. 2000). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the tified some ambiguous items to yield the shorter. e. both the three-factor ideology by averaging the 18 items from the restrictive emotion- (MRNS) and four-factor (MIS-21) models had nearly equivalent ality. Newcomb and The amended measure was revised into the MRNI-R (Levant et Sadava (1998) confirmed the MRNS’s three-factor structure. restrictive emotionality. Tokar. eight of the 39 MRNI-R-r items tap homophobia may make this Blazina. robust 39-item This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. sales. fear and hatred of homosexuals. & Settle. 2007). 2002). 1992). 1998) yielded a four-factor solution with good model– renamed (see the Appendix). and the gender role strain model attitudes toward sex and heterosexism. Having MRNS have been reported in a number of studies (see. Hall. and Snell (1998. discriminant.. subscale was dropped. construct validity. the disavowal of highest loading items from the MNRI-R. This matter is much less of an issue if the 21-item 2003. however. 2002. 2002. The MRNI-SF uses the three thinking things out logically (status/rationality). reliability estimate (␣ ⫽ . and eties prior to the second wave of feminism: avoidance of feminin. and Wilson (2013) excluded the negativity portraying toughness and independence (sturdy oak tough image). the nontraditional attitudes Barnes’ (2013) study of adult men reported a reliable and discrim. explicitly include the importance of sex. avoidance of femininity. It also aimed to Male Role Attitudes Scale (MRAS) to map boys’ attitudes toward include aspects of the male role not found in the BMS. self. address negativity toward sexual minorities. Sexual prejudice is usually regarded as theoretical Jakupcak. Fischer et al. 2007. Scale (Snell. In the measure’s original frames their research on masculinity ideologies. Gordon. Exploratory inating 12-item version based on the four items with the strongest factor analysis (Levant. and Ku (1993a. Oransky & Fisher. all versions of the MRNI Convergent. probably better operationalize the traditional masculinity standards thought stemming from the scale’s brevity. & Good. Jakupcak. Two decades earlier. Ojeda.g. such as societal masculinity norms. Wilkinson. Developed to assess norms rather than stereotypes.. Hasan. MRNS by Fischer. see also Fischer MRNI-R-r (see Levant et al. 1995). 2004. the large national sample’s heterogeneity. The authors se- form. Thompson & Whearty. 2007).and women-only samples. In the MRNI-R. & Hawkins.70) in a sample of Mexican American Also included was a 12-item nontraditional attitudes subscale. Wording of items was firmatory factor analysis could not reproduce the expected item modified to address “guys. Tull. Burridge. Gradman (1990). Male Role Attitudes Scale Role Norms Inventory (MRNI). Belk. Bascom. and predictive validities of the distinguish themselves from the BMS and the MRNS. Eddins. 1998) to reported a poor Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (␣ ⫽ . Kimmel. items from each MRNS subscale leaving it multidimensional. Rankin. university students. and expectations to avoid stereotypically fem. 1986). and the original version can yield reli- able subscales for traditional and progressive masculinities when total scores for the normative and nontraditional items are used. version of the measure heavily weighted toward assessing overt Dodson & Borders. Good. see Hu & Bentler. only three items Cracco. 2007. (Herek. Wade & Brittan-Powell. Table 1). aggression. 2006. and developed a composite measure of traditional masculinity When the MRNS was translated to Turkish. toward sexual minorities subscale. 2007) to address the lack of empirical support for the MNRI’s Variations of the MNRS have been developed. 2008).

Multicultural Masculinity Ideology Scale masculinity ideologies.59. 2013. see also Janey. Wong. African American. and sometimes similar.. Bond. The 11-factor structure was not reproduced ties as much as there are some etic (perhaps global) masculinities. Common across Russian and Iwamoto (2014) suggested that the CMNI-46 is not invariant Ukrainian men was their agreement with ideologies calling for across ethnic groups.. & Liu. 2011. yielded a nine-factor CMNI-46 with good data–model fit. 2006a.83) with the original . 2006a. The discriminant and convergent achievement and sexual responsibility components that Doss and validity of the MRAS are pluses (see. Doss and Hopkins detailed three emic sub. and intentions (e. of the same MMIS items in post-Soviet dedicated provider and Janey et al.58.87 in a racially diverse sample of high school (2013) found that young African American men reproduced the boys and girls in rural Illinois. 2008. & Williams. have demonstrated that a well-designed measure can yield impor- 2011). (2014) found that the hypermasculinity subscale was associated 2006. scale. with an acceptable data–model fit. Liao. e.70)—and a single emic subscale in the ture of the CMNI on the basis of their view that the reliability and African American sample—sexual responsibility (␣ ⫽ . The anchor the values and norms measured. evidence of a substantial variety of emic cultural masculini. 2010. Researchers using the MMIS Adolescent Males (e. 2008b. communities. behavioral and affective con- (MMIS. La Marche. Hsu and post-Soviet communities. Their stated intention was to also codify The developers of the Multicultural Masculinity Ideology Scale personal accommodation—that is. Mahalik et al. Mahalik. & Vovk. Tokar.” On the basis of samples of Chilean. Burns. Santana.” or approval of mainstream 6. the others direct attention scale developers recognized that although people behave in ways to “a man” or “male friends. Parent and Moradi (2009) reexamined the struc- sensitivity subscale (␣ ⫽ . Levant.60 for each of the with Black but not White men having exchanged sex with women different age groups) was used in waves of the National Survey of and men for money. & Silverman.. Levant et scales from the Chilean sample—an eight-item toughness sub. and . & Brammer. 2001. Epstein & Ward. The CMNI-11 (Mahalik. Hammer & Good. It was designed with item behavioral and affective conformity and are written as self-reports wording to represent central tenants of masculinity ideologies in about behaviors. The developers of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inven- tory (CMNI. 2007. Eftim. ideologies ad. & Settle. “It is best onto other cultures. Smiler. 2010) and shorter dressing Ukrainian’s men’s support for reserved sexuality and versions. 2008). Parent & Smiler. respectively). 2012). factors and items with the lowest loadings on their intended factor 2009) investigated the masculinity ideologies in post-Soviet soci. This suggests that the MRAS operationalizes a mainstream mas- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. However. and European American undergraduates. and Lauby O’Donnell.g. feelings..g. 2010. Smiler. 1998) initiated their work with the formity—to mainstream masculinity ideologies. second generation to keep your emotions hidden”).. Construct validity was sup- (distinctive) components for each cultural group. & Pleck. that comply with certain masculinities. Plitin. but distinctive. validity of the dominance subscale and the pursuit of status sub- Other cross-cultural use of the MMIS suggests that there is. most items examine of measures of masculinity ideologies. food. LaPollo. Marcell.. 2014. Cordova. an affectively uncomfortable with their own behavior. But the 7. see the Appendix). men to be providers and responsible sexual partners.49. 2005. broad masculinity norms (e. They also detailed Using confirmatory factor analysis on a sample of Canadian one emic subscale among the European Americans—a six-item undergraduates. . and it correlated strongly (rSB ⫽ . Doss & Hopkins. Wimer. The psychomet- Ukrainian—and exploratory factor analyses of the MMIS were ric properties of CMNI-46 have begun to be reported (Levant & expected to identify both etic and emic dimensions in the two Wimer.g. and Latino samples of adolescents. boys differentially disagree with the mainstream norms. 2011.. Tager. 2010. Liu & Iwamoto. The etic hyper. and this has been reaffirmed in internal consistency reliability as well as good discriminant and a number of studies since (see. They did. & Shea. Graef. ported at the outset for the CMNI and the discriminant validity of masculine posturing and achievement subscales have satisfactory its subscales (Mahalik et al. 2007) is Russian men’s emphasis on composed sexuality in their intimate based on the highest loading items from each of the CMNI sub- relationships with women. Its ety. “I like to talk about one or more cultures and to differentiate one cultural group from my feelings” and “I am miserable when work occupies all my another. exploratory factor analysis revealed etic (common) dimensions Exploratory factor analysis supported the operationalized 11- applicable to all three cultural groups and one to three emic factor structure (see the Appendix). 2013. they feel cognitively or African American. The MMIS is one the new. on average. Levant et al. Syzdek & Addis.. The CMNI in- critique that existing measures of masculinity ideologies impose cludes some prescriptive statements that assess endorsement of.g. Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.g. fact. subscales tapped Ukrainian men’s stoic protector and competitive which has led to the use of selected subscales (e. convergent validity. Burns & perseverance as well as parallel. Decker. Good. Iwamoto. 2010. Discarding the two questionable Janey et al.g. 2003) broke away from the practice of only measuring “cognitive conformity. Roberts-Douglass and Curtis-Boles scales. MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 5 reported an alpha of . and the two components include many Pisecco. Blazina. Muse-Burke. or the universality of Anglo American conceptions of masculinities cognitive conformity to. culinity that is somewhat directive for all adolescent boys.. e. and a five-item responsibility 2006b. subscale (␣s ⫽ . & Syzdek. & Kaut. 2010. A six-item version (␣ ⬍ . tant information about the meaningful ways that cultural mascu- The MRAS shows good predictive ability among European linities are divergent. 2007. Unique emic One criticism of the original 94-item CMNI was its length. (2006.. a five-item pose subscale. in scale were questionable (cf. Raj. Smiler. Pleck & responsible sexual partner components. All but four items use a common male noun (“a guy”) to attention”). Chu et al. Tager & Good. Their two samples differed— ethnic Russian versus ethnic subscales are similar in length (four to six items). 2006. across societies and American.43).. evidence also reveals that. Hopkins (1998) identified. al. 2005).. The focal point for these items is the respondent. Owen. 2010. 2003). or shelter. Sonenstein.

how important is it for you to be physically strong Although there has been limited research using the scale. Finally. 2013). hegemonic This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. and boys with tory. it shows and tough?” (d) “As a man. the developers explicitly located On average. Exploratory factor analysis questions addressing aspects of conventional masculinity—risk identified a three-factor—not the expected five-factor— underly. including hypermasculinity. Rice. 2014). Reilly.. “Men should [italics added] remain focused in what it means to be a man and part of what distinguishes men from difficult situations”). 6 THOMPSON AND BENNETT version. and financial control. Renner. Burns & Mahalik. or very true scale for the first question and not at all important. Researchers using the CMNI have demonstrated that whatever masculinity. and avoiding . 97). because they may have a capacity populations when masculinity ideologies vary by geography. This version has been used often (Hamilton & even if it means hurting other people’s feelings”). CMNI-55 (Owen.. Addis. Chu et al.g. “In a good dating relationship. Steiner. All scale items direct attention to “a guy” and are pre. But we are bidirectional finding that the AMIRS negatively covaried with puzzled by why the developers of the many versions of the CMNI boys’ self-esteem— boys with greater self-esteem disagreed with are keen to find (the) one version that can yield invariance across the norms tapped by the scale. Perez-Cabello. score for this unidimensional scale is on the disagree side of the McKelley.. scoring averages responses into a single index. Traditional Attitudes About Men pression in South Africa.. (2005) reported that the mean score (M ⫽ 2. Cordova. et al. own masculinity beliefs and reports of their behavioral. Never directly named. how important is it for you to control some evidence of convergent validity (Luyt. consistent with traditional masculinity ideologies in the TAAM. Morgan. Rochlen. Suizzo.. physical toughness. see also. Reardon & your emotions and never to reveal sadness or vulnerability?” (e) Govender. The scale is based on five them to”) or tap antigay attitudes. there also is the theoretical midpoint (cf. & Möller-Leimkühler.. Grounded in the theoretical paradigm that gender is a negotiated social category reproduced through McCreary et al. as evidence by their attitudes and beliefs about what This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. & Scaringi. controlling emotions (Question d: M ⫽ 2. “I think it’s important for a guy to go after what he wants. lower self-esteem take the effort to comply with impossible norms more seriously (Deborah Tolman. “Women should do as men tell masculinity ideology (cf. self-sufficiency. 2011) that supports the 11-factor structure and The developers (Chu et al. point scales (not at all true.g. Morrison. Mahalik. or very important for the remain- ing four). in terms of resisting as well as conforming to. & Thompson. Behavior Scale (see also Blazina.19). Vogel. original CMNI. and antigay (hetero)sexuality. the men rated being self-sufficient (Question b: M ⫽ their work in a normative perspective that conceptualizes mascu. 2007). 2012.. The Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale SD ⫽ 0. Risk taking (Question a: M ⫽ ization. 2. Easton. 2010) uses the two sented as either descriptive (e. 2005) proposed that the AMIRS yields subscales of similar lengths and a global score (cf. Hawes.. Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in important. Syzdek. 2008). It extends mapping the Men (TAAM). Berger et measures “the extent to which adolescent boys internalize [italics al. 2008a. Relationships Scale McCreary et al. & Green. personal communication. & O’Leary.28. how important is it for you to be structure and reliable subscales—public and private toughness. somewhat important. Male Attitude Norms Inventory study. but capture the extent to which gang members support traditional referred to throughout their article as Traditional Attitudes About masculinities. taking. and avoidance of femininity. Iwamoto et al. and there is evidence of the AMIRS’s convergent validity Gordon. (1993a. how important is it for you to not engage in activities determine how useful the MANI-II is in charting approval of that you think others might consider feminine?” Rated on four- traditional (hyper)masculinities. to resist the pressure of hegemonic masculinity. and life-course experiences (cf. 2012). 2010). was introduced. the scale is unlike most masculinity scales in its geography of masculinities to South Africa. Needed are studies outside of South Africa to “As a man. version is selected. added]. (c) “As a man. 1.. his. Consistent with the emphasis on resisting and conforming is the and cognitive conformity with societal masculinities. emotional restricted- ing structure. Hammer. reported factor analysis evidence of the scale being unidimen- 2012. 2005) is a second-generation measure that means that their sample of college men did not define their maps the extent to which boys align themselves with hegemonic personal norms about what it takes to be a man in terms fully masculinity within the contexts of their interpersonal relationships. & with both the MRAS and subscales in Snell’s (1989) Masculine Heimerdinger-Edwards. MANI-II (Luyt. Berger. Question a). 2009. it is an important measure in revealing people’s constitutes appropriate behaviors” within relationships (p. a little 9.87) and physically tough and strong (Question c: M ⫽ 2. highest loading items for each of the 11 factors from the original the guy gets his way most of the time”) or prescriptive statements CMNI and shows excellent concurrent validity (r ⫽ . some original items call attention rather than endorsement of statements representing societal-wide the subordination of women (e. 2014). This bidirectional observation warrants further 8.g. somewhat true. et al. affective.57) fell slightly below the theoretical midpoint. Like Pleck et al. Feb- ruary 9. Factor analysis also identified a three-factor women?” (b) “As a man.61). Connell. social. self-sufficient and always to try to handle problems on your own?” self-. 1994). Luyt and Foster (2001) introduced the Male Attitude Norms Inventory (MANI) to examine differing forms of masculine ex- 10. One-third of the items strategy of directly measuring personal norms (see Questions b– e) are from the MRNS and MRNI. 2013. Fallon.76) linities as culturally constructed and then acquired through social. sional.. 2013. 2013. Chu et al. A revision. the MANI aims to five “universal” expectations for men. (2005) created a unidimensional scale to assess social practices (cf. Aucote. Hsu & Iwamoto. a little true. The questions: (a) “Do you with most items reworded or new and all presented as prescriptive believe that taking risks that are sometimes dangerous is part of statements (e. 1987. close to being somewhat important. 2005).g. which (AMIRS. 2005. The mean 2012. The CMNI-22 (Smiler & Epstein. 1995).92) with the (e. 2013. ness.

communication. the devel- internally consistent. self-reliance. the developers of the Meanings of Adolescent Mascu- [reverse coded]). aggression. lerismo norms than strictly English-speaking Latino men. and Hetland (2014) found that the four normative standards were related to an increased likelihood of gay-related 12. provider. distinctive masculinities (cf. and only a few items contrast boys with girls or linity Scale (MAMS. and validity. for antifemininity. and nurturing behaviors and attitudes). to have a lot of gay friends”).99) were not viewed as should respect their elders” (caballerismo). the multidimen- ideals of an honored protector.”—no should always seem as manly as other guys that he knows”). They sional character of the MAMS will remain invisible. “A guy items about gendered standards and expectations for “guys. Otherwise.. MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 7 feminine activities (Question e: M ⫽ 1. Machismo Measure name-calling. developed a bidirectional Machismo Measure (MM) to reveal both traditional machismo (describing negative hypermasculine and 14. whereas the signifi- 11.g. All items except one call to attention “a boy. Ojeda and Liang (2014) The Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent (MNRI-A.g. and avoid. 2008) revealed of the extent to which men embody traditional masculinities as marked disagreement with machismo masculinity norms but strong personal norms..g. Arciniega. Convergent validity for the should be able to take teasing from his friends”).. a robust three-factor underlying structure emerged. (2005) reported no validity home language included Spanish were more supportive of the cabal- information. 2011. related to Mexican day laborers’ self-esteem. Mirandé. 2009) recognized a need focus on stereotypical femininity (e. July 18. toughness. Salcedo. especially Mexican American.g. 2010. (2014) found caballerismo positively This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. the AMIRS. Arciniega et al. Even though it was designed to chart frequently used to assess Latino. 2011. Oransky and Fisher (2009) established convergent validity of Casado. Similar to the developers of the MRAS. but subscale reliabilities were not uniformly opers’ role strain starting point reasoned that boys who model strong (see the Appendix).” most items are prescrip. Vaughan. Glass & Owen. & Wade. Anderson (2012) introduced her Macho Scale (MS) to represent The MM comprises two independent subscales supported by factor the pressures on Jamaican men to assert sexual dominance within analysis with items such as “In the family. related contexts such as sports. However. Oransky and Fisher designed A revision of the scale is available. covaries with positive and et al. not machismo. It is a measure of heteronormative and “The family is more important than the individual” or “Men attitudes toward Jamaican men’s sexual entitlement. McCreary et al. a father’s wish is law” a society that has between-groups disagreement on the legitimacy or “Real men never let down their guard” (traditional machismo) of this aspect of masculinity. Slaatten.g. Exploratory factor analysis of a pool of reworded and new age-appropriate masculinity norms for constant effort (e. heterosexism (e. 2009) in challenging the history in psychological the MAMS. Liang. LaFollette. positive as much as problematic behavior is encouraging. “It is embarrassing isolating emotionally detached dominance. “doing”) less conventional masculinities such as volunteering or authoritarianism. In a sample of Norwegian adolescents. What it means to be a man in Mexican American culture clearly emphasizes the values of being family centered (familismo). Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent cance of (negative) machismo is negligible. Macho Scale chauvinistic behaviors and attitudes) and caballerismo (describing positive. Some items from the adult MNRI (reviewed earlier) Rivera-Ramos & Buki. and new items were created to address adolescent. Oransky & Fisher. their scale to document adolescents’ adherence to four traditional. emotional restriction (e. chauvinism) and ignores the valued and desirable nonsports extracurricular activities. the MRNI-A was found to be boys internalize cultural ideologies as personal guides.. the MRNI-A-r (Levant et al. 2012). 2014). boys’ attitudes toward traditional societal-wide masculinity norms and Ojeda and Piña-Watson. and restrictive emotionality. “Boys should be allowed to kiss their fathers” MNRI-A-r. Steinfeldt. “It is weird for a guy to talk about his ture. Levant reported that caballerismo. The developers detail salient to what defines being a man (Donald McCreary.. The MM has become This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.. Based on a . and men whose further investigation. The TAAM is a succinct measure It is noteworthy that Latino men (Arciniega et al. (2008) joined others (e. it is a first. and the tive statements (e. “Chores like dusting and for a multidimensional measure of the masculinity norms that doing laundry are for girls”). “A guy ance of femininity (see the Appendix). On the basis of samples of American adolescents regard as legitimate. coping and troublesome behavior.. men’s the masculinity norms for a specific life stage. The measure’s predictiveness of men’s were reworded. Rigali-Oiler. The MAMS is MRNI-A-r was supported. and there is evidence of its discriminant suitable for older adolescents. (2012) noted the similarities between the Steinfeldt’s (2012) confirmatory factor analysis supported the three constellations of masculinity norms in the MRNI-A-r and the MAMS four-dimensional mapping in a sample of high school MRNS (reviewed earlier). family-centered. 2011).. In the tradition of theorizing that and Scottish boys (and girls). Levant et al. personal convergent and discriminate validity data. among boys the scale did traditional masculinity norms may be at higher risk of maladaptive not met the developers’ expectation for discriminant validity...g.. & generation measure that operationalizes the ideal of boyhood in the Tracey. Estrada. The developers discarded both the fear and hatred of homosexuals and nonrelational attitudes toward 13. achievement/status. Needed is evidence of the MAMS’s discriminant studies on men that concentrates on the negative characteristics of validity and which subscales best explain boys engaging in (or machismo among Mexican and Mexican American men (e.g. Meanings of Adolescent Masculinity Scale sexuality subscales from the adult MRNI as age inappropriate. and social teasing (e. longer “boys”— did not support the hypothesized five-factor struc. and it predictiveness of men’s behaviors warrants agreement with caballerismo masculinity norms. United States. feelings with other guys”). & Miller. in addition.g. Saez. football players. 2008) was designed to be an age-appropriate measure of active coping strategies among adolescent Mexican American men. and paternal figure. Anderssen. 1997.

Measure of Men’s Perceived The first generation of measures of masculinity ideologies. and expectations of The M2PIN subscales proved to be differentially predictive—for inexpressiveness in a variety of contexts (inexpressive/impassive). and less satisfaction with life. was the conviction that existing measures of masculinity ideolo. between data and the expected two-factor model. they constructed the Russian Male Norms disapprove of men who show emotion on their faces when talking Inventory (RMNI) from an exploratory factor analysis of a pool of with others”).. Attending to men’s perceptions of what feel jealous of other men who have”)—is introduced. do the views and behaviors of Russian men from ones that map how groups’ descriptive and injunctive norms different geographies or birth cohorts. supported by men from measures of masculinity ideologies. it is important to deter. we also need studies of whether grieve differentially (cf. example. especially among men from other team. MRNS. and the perceived injunctive norms that discour- information. 8 THOMPSON AND BENNETT sample of fathers from four purposefully select. inexpressiveness). “If I did not have children. Factor analysis identified norms. and vergent validity of the M2PIN and its two subscales was supported by iconic media portrays of manhood in Russia. The M2PIN is based on social psychology theories that have sex with her partner would not alter the measure’s internal call attention to the importance of social norms as guides for or consistency reliability. omitting kept attention on local. “Most men in this group bring up their feelings when ideologies developed in the West miss the capability to assess the talking with others” [reverse scored]) and another five items as- norms of masculinity in non-European American cultures. (2013) argued that existing measures of masculinity norms (e. male colleagues/classmates. More tions provide examples of “male childhood friends. and the instruc- reported a greater number of birth mothers of their children. Russian men from different geographies equally (dis)agree with the masculinities assessed. 2013) ought to be.g. (2013) reported construct and discriminant validity seek counseling.g. were developed to assess respondents’ agreement The premise for the development of the Measure of Men’s with the prevailing cultural standards on what manhood is and Perceived Inexpressiveness Norms (M2PIN. TAAM. It might prompt new instru- different generations and other non-European cultures. thereby showing that scales founded on influential other cultures (e. advanced 20 –30 years ago (i. Since 1995. such as the designed to capture the concerns men have about establishing their MRNI and CMNI. a two-component at least as measured. 299). male sports use of the measure is needed. BMS..g. including benevolent protection of tween personal norms and external norms (regarding emotional others and agentic self-defense (duty/reliability). family members. chiefly within families (privileges/pleasures). and MAMS) have extended psychologists ca- gies were not designed to chart the local norms scripting men’s pability to empirically assess ideologies about boyhood in the . “It is okay for a focus away from broad societal masculinity norms to men’s sense man to have outside children if he looks after them”) and a felt of the extant descriptive and injunctive social norms that their need to produce children (e. however. ploratory factor analysis of a pool of items. MRNI-A. some items may not be replicable in the MRNI-R.’s (2009) work revealing Russian and Ukrai. ily” (Wong et al. I would reference groups apply.g. men report positive psychosocial functioning.. age emotional expressiveness predicted self-reports of loneliness Given Janey et al. There is some evidence of the scale’s constraints on behavior. not personal. bystander interventions among some men and party-related sexual generation measure because it does examine regional (or White) aggression among other men or why younger and older widowers’ Russian masculinities. nian men’s differing masculinity values. studies have revealed that respon- (reproductive) status vis-à-vis other men. such as the question. “For a man. The a three-factor structure—men’s relational and family obligations developers also suggest that whenever there is congruence be- from the perspective of men.. the scale was expectation charted in other societal-wide measures. perceived descriptive norms predicted intention to (not) Janey et al. Wong et al. 2010). Item content aimed to positive correlations with (in)expressiveness scales within the CMNI capture Russian culture. p. Developed through ex. it is normal to ‘go to the left’” is reference group norms covary with scales based on broad societal a colloquialism about marital infidelity). munities more strongly supported the hypermasculine norms and had recently had the greatest influence on them. The scale has significant others expect regarding emotional (in)expressiveness good internal consistency reliability (see the Appendix). though they share less than 25% common variance. Russian Male Norms Inventory comprises five items assessing a group’s perceived descriptive Janey et al.. who represent Soviet and regarding sexual aggression or bullying explain self-reports of post-Soviet culture. four additional measures (the CMNI. The M2PIN 15. thus.5 years). “Most men in this group norm-based approach. Inexpressiveness Norms and MRAS). Emotional control is a traditional masculinity diverse communities (median age ⫽ ⬃40. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a good fit items developed from intensive conversations with Russian men.e. differ? We define the RMNI as a second. 2007. Wong et al. Respondents are first asked to identify the group of men who This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 2013. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. (2013) shifted their measure’s measure—entitlement to sexual dominance (e.. predictive validity: Men from lower socioeconomic status com. Using a sessing perceived injunctive norms (e. [or] male members of the fam- cultures. thus. Evidence of con- an examination of Russian research on men and masculinities..g. dents typically disagree with the importance of emotional control.. This begs mentation tapping other group-level masculinity norms. socioeconomically emotional control. however. The way the M2PIN is designed to assess specific group norms mine whether aspects of the codified Russian masculinities in the rather than broad societal norms distinguishes it from most other RMNI are etic rather than emic and. norms for masculinity per- the one item addressing a woman not having the right to refuse to formances. (College peers. Discussion and Conclusions 16. and colleagues emerged as the prevalent groups). Bennett. MRNI. men’s privileges. the AMS. Respondents next rate statements about the men in these groups.

yet texts. that this subscale better charts respondents’ disagreement with equality and women’s lesser privileges (e. it is United States should always be a man. disagreed with the principal that gender relations should strive to & Mohr. 1987. Wong.g.. separate-spheres arrangement that resonates with To illustrate.99) in two samples of college men that a respondent’s disclosure of their opinions about the norms (Thompson & Cracco.” “Men should be the leader equally possible that respondents are disclosing their disagree- of any group”).. It is the twofold way that masculinity ide. operationalized norms within a measure. the large body of empirical work using these views about experiences that involved the norms of interest. Arciniega et al. 2012). and as gerontologists we know this disclosure but behave differently inside a personal relationship. Researchers could interpret re. Doss & Hopkins. well “allow” his wife to read his face and ask “What’s wrong?” as man. They might prefer equal partner.. Rigotti.. But researchers work. Barnes. 2006). 2013). Wong et al. attention. quences remain largely uncharted questions and warrant research Most items within first-generation scales are worded as absolute This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.” The local and personal masculinity men perceive as normative or conform to. The older men. & the person’s internalization of such norms. & Hick. One could gathered from surveys rather than longitudinal or experimentally administer a masculinity ideologies measure followed by inter- designed studies. Smiler. 2008. ogies? We are not confident that they do both.g. 1986) and 3. masculinities. Futterman. and they warrant attention (cf. regarding the antifemininity standard. rules guiding men’s everyday lives are more complex and nu- The phrase “perceive as normative or conform to” raises an anced. and/or as evidence that the disagreed with the operationalized masculinity ideologies (cf. A re- gies. we do not know Masculinity ideologies are not easily operationalized by simple if the masculinity ideologies operationalized in most first. “One should not be able to tell how a the masculinity ideologies guiding gay men’s day-to-day lives man is feeling by looking at his face”). The seven of traditional masculinity ideologies (e. as masculinity ideologies. Which masculinities ward about what thoughts and memories were evoked by the matter.84 (SD ⫽ 0.89) in a sample of older men (Thompson.and spoken rules such as “One should not be able to tell how a man is second-generation measures are what middle-aged and older feeling by looking at his face. the evidence is that respondents very often evidence that the norms are desirable. MM. Yet these same men might not adhere to the ment with how well the subscale charts their personal stance inequality norms or enact them. 1995). “The President of the the cultural guidelines as operationalized. phrased. It might or might not. Or measures certainly has demonstrated that masculinity ideologies one could interview participants with high and low scores after- matter (see Levant. of masculinity ideologies are present and practiced in the culture Means for the antifemininity subscale (the importance of men by men in general without personally approving of the same norms avoiding activity and behavior perceived as feminine) were 3. patriarchal culture (Connell. 2014). is cognitive agreement with hegemonic traditional mas- ologies have been incorporated into psychological studies—as culinity norms distinct from cognitive conformity with the actual recognizable cultural norms within and across populations and as local and personal norms that seem to direct men’s lives (cf. A man in a long-term marriage may not to use in samples of adult men. 2011. Here is one example: Mean scores on individuals agree with the idea that the norms detailed in a measure the MRNS and its subscales can range 1 (disagree) to 7 (agree). MANI-II. Thompson & Pleck. 2006. come right out and disclose his immediate worries. Thus. 2008. do the ies that compare men’s views regarding hegemonic antifemininity existing measures of traditional masculinity ideologies that were standards with their nuanced personal norms.S. people’s self-reported or experimentally defined behavior. but he may Whorley & Addis. Speight. Meadows & Davidson. and to what conse.g.. ity ideologies have been developed outside the university setting. the MRNI) second-generation measures (the MMIS. Weseler. AMIRS. However. and geographies (e. for whom. uphold a sexist. 2010) This observation raises this question: Are these their ritualized interpersonal strategy for him to disclose. What we conclude is ologies reproduce gender inequality by normalizing gender in. and ing from the gender role strain paradigm typically propose that a college-age men growing up in the 1980s or 2000s commonly measure charts internalized beliefs (cf. RMNI. vary his developed with college-age respondents and have not been put gendered performances. their masculinity on working-class aesthetics (Clarkson. in fact. developed to chart the descriptive and/or injunctive normativeness In conclusion. This begs the following question: Can vant. Steinfeldt.08) and 3. O’Neil. 2006). He may measures age invariant? If life stage matters and affects what profess traditional masculinity values supporting emotional non- men perceive as normative. 1995. Too few measures of masculin- as normative— equally chart individuals’ own masculinity ideol.63 within a measure of traditional masculinity ideology also matches (SD ⫽ 0. men might agree that traditional masculinity ide. and resolve the extent to which the people sampled perceive the MS. 1998)? spondents’ scores on the same masculinity ideology measure as Despite what was theorized as normative within measures of evidence of people’s agreement that the cultural norms exist. One example: Straight-acting gay men are said to model statements. as if the rule applies equally across generations. Any man who defines remain uncertain.57 or having internalizing these cultural mandates? We cannot say (SD ⫽ 1. What is warranted are stud- ships and normalize women in leadership positions. it is our position that the study of masculinity of U. especially older men (cf. Re- important distinction. who grew up in the 1950s. Le- norms are personal values. MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 9 United States as well as people’s own masculinity ideologies and creatively designed research studies that use one of the measures reports of conformity to traditional U. 2014).S. how much they matter. con- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 2004). and M2PIN) introduce reliable instrumentation to operationalized masculinity standards as normative and/or as their begin mapping the geography of masculinities across nations and personal norms and then which of these latter two better explains regions and to illustrate the salience of local masculinity ideolo. Needed is a set of and too few studies using the measures have sought out the views . is the case (cf. himself as conventional and endorses conventional masculinity Most measures of masculinity ideologies were empirically ideologies might agree with this statement yet. chronicle what people perceive ideologies needs to be broadened. Even when the evidence is modest correlation coefficients viewer suggested the value of mixed-method studies. cultural standards—that is. Sobiraji. individuals’ own belief systems. the MRNS.

98 –104. (1984).1023/A:1018816929544 Turning points or gradual change? Ageing & Society. Connell. and older men (and women). http://dx. S.. (2006). a third generation of measurement instruments on relations with men’s emotional expression. 2612) linities across various groups from the distinctive (emic) mascu- Brooks-Harris.. (1998). Z. and causal theories on assess adult men’s family-based masculinities beyond earning willingness to report symptoms of depression. 829 – 859. 55. Suicide attempts http://dx. W.. T.x and emotional expression in older widowed & Heesacker.. N.doi.doi.31. G. & Settle. & Green. Masculinities. R. T. and recoupling after a wife’s 10. 289. 49 – D. the men’s families’ self-assessed welfare.2005.. The Adolescent have dramatically changed as both the hegemony of heteronorma.002 Ideology Scale: Validation from three cultural perspectives. “No sissy stuff”: Towards a theory of masculinity 10.1177/1557988307304325 among men? The (sub)scales within most existing measures of Burns. J.1016/j.2161-0045. L. middle-aged. Treatment type and emotional masculinity ideologies will not be sufficient to answer this ques. E. 31. queens”: Gay masculinity on Straight Acting. 14(1)..1037/1524-9220. http://dx. 61. control as predictors of men’s self-assessed physical well-being follow- tion. 273– self-esteem and.1.or second-generation measures were not designed to (2012). Psychological Documents.78. M.. Journal of Counseling Psy- masculinity ideologies is needed to isolate the masculinities that chology. diagnostic labels. 191–207. In D. Measuring masculinity in an Afro-Caribbean context. 563–580. and separation– deserve attention.doi. (2007).. Smiler (2004) similarly observed that the model of attitude change. M.1016/j. 369 –382. and other traditional masculinity J. and applications.1007/BF01548253 ination of within-group variability.1037/0022-0167. M. (2005). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 93–115. 8.2012 measures are necessary to ascertain adult men’s masculinity ide. Connell.. A scale for measuring attitudes about women) is the need to begin to distinguish common (etic) mascu- masculinity. R. & Settle. R.. A.2. This recommendation is consistent with Wong et individuation difficulties.. J.1.191 death.1521/jscp. Tylka. W. Men in traditional and nontradi- Bem. (1993).tb00194. Journal of Men’s Studies. The Body Appre. http://dx.2006. coparenting. 49.1402. G. 19 –33. The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. Career Development Quarterly. J..9.. 283–296.doi. A. 9. A.. L. & O’Leary. & Mejia-Millan.1007/s10608-006-9001-5 Burns. Blazina. Cordova.101 centered on family and being responsible and B. Palo tional careers: Gender role attitudes. Syzdek.002 Dodson. (2007). Journal of Social and respect for being a breadwinner or head of the household. D. As the field of studying men goes forward. Effects of gender. (2005). such as the way Ojeda and Piña-Watson (2014) information: The role of social anxiety. Gender and power: Society. W. ing measure is invariant across different groups of men (and MA: Addison-Wesley. ity. G.0102. A decade ago. 101–109. L..doi. Stanford. (2007). http://dx.doi. D.3149/thy. Following the lead of Doss and Bruch. How to achieve resilience as an older widower: 38. Changing linities that uniquely channel people’s lives in certain places and men’s male gender-role attitudes by applying the elaboration likelihood times. “Everyday Joe” versus “pissy. 285–297. ing treatment for prostate cancer. care work in later life. New Clinical Psychology. 191–204. A.98 2. L. M. & Tolman.1. The masculinities men live by Chu.19 Cortina. W.’s (2011) finding that even college men defined “a man” as dx. Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale: Development and valida- tive social worlds fades and the legitimacy of sexist gender Journal of Aging Doss.. M. & Tracey. . 2. 30. Reading. R. and sexual References politics. (2008b). measures are also needed that no longer problematize gay men. R. (1987).jaging. Brannon (Eds. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. New Brannon. Men and Masculinities. and resisting the treatment for prostate cancer. http://dx. (2010). 21.. the person. which we know that 55– 66. 1. 10. Journal of Applied Psychology. K.doi. http://dx. Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies..1501.doi. marital negotiation.55. Arciniega. M. retirement. A. M. E. http://dx. (1996).org/10. 54. 1– 49).). Bem Sex Role Inventory: Professional manual. 19. 719 –741. ogy.and family-based lives. Press. J. J. Shyness and toughness: Unique and moderated Hopkins (1998). toughness as a masculine role demonstrated that caballerismo protects Mexican day laborers’ norm.55 participants often disagree with. Journal of Counseling . Reilly. 14.49.. Y.191 Connell. Berkeley: University of California Social and Economic Studies. likely. R. K.1017/S0144686X09990572 among men with histories of child sexual abuse: Examining abuse . and job satis- study of masculinity ideologies would benefit from closer exam. Body Pisecco. (2012). E. (1976). tion of a new measure for boys.1177/0891243205278639 Psychology.. 347–356. Berger. (2002). http:// al. Most first.1037/0022-0167.doi. D. Gender & Society.1177/1097184X03257453 initiate new avenues of scholarship to better understand why and bitchy.3149/jms. CA: Stanford University Press. T. G. http://dx ciation Scale: Development and psychometric Bennett. http://dx. J. Gender ologies with regard to their work.doi. http://dx. antifeminin. & Juni. Cognitive bias in men’s processing of negative social healthy behaviors. V. Easton. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Toward a fuller conception of machismo: Development of a Rethinking the concept. J.. M. S. R.2007. M.3149/jms. A. Anderson.28 result in men (and women) engaging in personally and/or socially Bruch. http://dx. reproduction of inequalities between men and women as well as 6 –16. 35. & Wood-Barcalow. (2008a).org/10. (2013). faction. M. such as Role Conflict Scale for Adolescents: Correlates with masculinity ideol- the significance of fatherhood. S. Sexual functioning as a moderator The question we urge is this: What ideologies channel men’s lives of the relationship between masculinity and men’s adjustment following such that they are satisfied. Brannon. how much masculinities matter. Sex Roles. because they target attitudes toward dominance. C.doi.. http://dx.doi traditional machismo and caballerismo scale. M. Tovar-Blank. C. 28 –34. 439 – 457. & Hopkins. The Multicultural Masculinity Studies. P. C.. American Journal of Men’s Health. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory Avalos. Hegemonic masculinity: (2008).. Renner. M. & http://dx. and their interaction. The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint for man- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. S. loneliness. .1002/j. 78. (2006). G. L.1037/0021-9010. & Mahalik. 31.439 Blazina. J. http://dx. & Mahalik.06. socially engaged. R.5. gender role conflict. S. David & R. A. Journal of Men’s Studies. Eddins.doi. J. Addis. D. 10 THOMPSON AND BENNETT of nonuniversity young. tions is questioned. hood and what it’s done for us lately. (2005). (1981).doi. (1995). R.doi. (Document No. Porche.bodyim.doi. P. J. Some of the newer generation of measures help http://dx. Sex Roles. L.. the nontradi. More important than continuing to determine whether an exist. L. R. Cognitive Therapy and Research. The rela- tional masculinity ideologies scripting adult men’s lives certainly tionships between masculinity ideology. M. C. D. Burridge. T. (2007).

11. A. H. Understand- 37. T. Khuda. http://dx. http://dx.5. Minority stress. T. New Psychology of Men & Masculinity.37 examination of beneficial aspects of endorsement of masculine norms. & Vovk. 397– 406.1177/1557988313476540 tility. B. Hacker. U.doi child. D.1.2307/2571742 Janey.1037/a0023122 a0034548 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.. A. V. J. 56. Rigali-Oiler. Oliveros. M. 59 – 64.1037/ http://dx.doi. G.. MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 11 severity.007 ing masculinities: Social relations and cultural arenas (pp.1177/1557988313512861 . L. (2002). 6. 7. Gordon. E.2466/pr0 . and paternal involvement. A. M. Çiftçi. 137– & Good.. The new burdens of a0014440 Psychology of Men & Masculinity. The many faces of manhood: http://dx. E. Hogue.1037/a0019383 Norms Inventory.1037/a0028159 60 – 69. Explaining heterosexual men’s attitudes toward Counseling Psychology. (2003). B. & Iwamoto. 9975-7 Hsu. R. Psychological Record. S. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Child Abuse & Neglect..11.1998. Lanza.. http://dx. Hawes. . Masculine gender role stress: Philadelphia: Open University Press. 275–284. Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful Herek. Hypermasculinity and http://dx. 22.doi. (2010). A. H. L. Masculinity. . Kershaw. & Roemer. Lanza. H. B.doi.2307/348873 Culture. 603– 620. 18. gender role attitudes. structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Eisler. & Boyraz.doi.. Manhood in America: A cultural history. R. M.6. M. A. Society & Masculinities. S. (1996). http://dx. (1951).org/10.. & Ward. 37–56. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. http://dx menko. 93–108. N.. 33... Asian values. Current Direc- situations.275 work identity during the transition to 14. Reid. D. Examining masculine norms and Psychology of Men & Masculinity.doi. A. S. 138 –147.. the Conformity to Masculine Norms-46 across White and Asian Amer- Machismo and Mexican American men: An empirical understanding ican college men: Development and validity of the 10.x Scale. conformity to masculine role norms. D. http://dx..1111/ 58. 30. Mac an Ghaill (Ed. 371–378. A. L. R. (2010). and masculine gender Studies. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. V. (2013). Jampolskaja. (2011). 65. http://dx.doi. Plitin. T. M. 11. M.. K.doi. Vogel. W. & Good. J.. Muse-Burke. 573–579. and 5. http://dx. Development of the Russian Male . 11.doi.3149/ Hamilton. Tokar. http://dx.. 8. (2006). Psychology of Men & Masculinity. S. & Skidmore. The role of masculine a0028780 ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of Gordon. (2010). (2005).. P.doi. 251–261... (2013) Yoder. (2014). 108 –118. and depression among Asian American men. A. Journal of Kilianski.h. A. Psychological Reports.doi.. Kim. 457– 468. Hacker. J. 227–233.. American Journal of Men’s Health. J. 11. M.doi. S. D. D. Men’s help seeking: Examination of differences across community size. (1996). 97–106. 13.. Bond. 371–384. (2009).1037/a0019056 Kimmel. The construction and validation of Attitudes Toward Men 135–155. 3. a0017874 Psychology of Men & Masculinity. D. Family Living. A. Goncherova.4. Psychology of a0021477 Men & Masculinity. Larionov. J. M. Santa Monica..1111/j. 123–136. The role of masculine norms and chology of Men & Masculinity. acculturation. Kimmel. H. http://dx. Sex-role pressures and the socialization of the male women. Journal of Counseling Psychology. J.. D. J. Does work make the man: Masculine identity and 10.1998. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. A. 358 –367. 11. Relations of masculinity using the Multicultural Masculinity Ideology Scale.1471-6402. 65– tions in Psychological Science. W. B. (2013). M. ethnic identity.doi. Shipilova.1037/ peer support within a sample of incarcerated African-American males. (1983).org/10. (2009).137 social norms predicting gay men’s health risk behaviors.3149/jms. L. (2007). 380 –387.93 role conflict to men’s attitudes toward and willingness to seek career Janey. http://dx. 362–372. LaPollo.. Globalization and its mal(e)contents: The gendered Hammer. Psy. M. Liao. N. M. ogy of Men & Masculinity.. Positive psychology: An empirical 1524-9220. Glass. 15.). http://dx. 14. (2014). K.chiabu. & Heimerdinger-Edwards.1037/a0026813 sexual risk among Black and White men who have sex with men and Hartley. 1. Hawes. Perez-Cabello.doi. . R. More on 10705519909540118 the structure of male role norms. P. A. Psychol- using a gay sample. masculinity and masculinities. moral and political economy of terrorism. K. M. Gradman. Callands. T. (2000). & Singleton. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Gordon.. T.. relationship violence. J. . Testing for measurement invariance in Estrada.doi. Struc- http://dx. & Snell. A. K. (2013). Women as a minority group. B..1037/1524-9220. http://dx... Janey. & Mahalik. S.. 4. and income. (2011). 132–141. Structural validity Hearn.. J.1401.tb00147. S.1471-6402. 14. American Journal of Men’s Health. D. 303–318. New directions for the study of Hu. D. http://dx fear of emotions as predictors of men’s expressions of anger and hos- . E.. Latino father: The relationship among Maksi- counseling.2012. Marriage and Masculinity in post-Soviet Ukraine: An exploratory factor analysis.doi. A. L. Social Forces. Is masculinity dead? A critical account of the concepts of of Turkish version of the Gender Role Conflict Scale and Male Role . H. R. 319 –333. T. (1999). T. A. (2009). Masculinity ideology in Russian society: Factor structure and validity Graef. & Dyson. K. R. Sex Roles. http://dx. W. M. R. Divney. L. Exploring parent–adolescent commu. Good.1111/j. C.00051 Epstein.. E. http://dx.doi. M. http://dx. (1998). Behavior Modification. G. Sex Roles. Brabham-Hollis.3. masculinity... CA: Janey. 394 – 401.1080/ Fischer. Perez-Cabello. http://dx. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 56. & Roemer. Magriples. S. International Sociology.doi.. York: Free Press. Lisak.. http://dx. machismo. E. (1959).doi. & Owen. & Savchenko.doi. (2003).1177/02685809030183008 education.. 1–55. Iazzo.1177/01454455870112001 1467-8721. 283–293. .doi. (1957). S. J. S. L. T.doi..x tural Equation Modeling.. & Dyson.0102. F. D. Demir. .97 Examining masculine norms and health behaviors of young fathers Jakupcak. M. 15– Tokar. J..1037/ women and gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine identity. 202–207). T.. (1998). A. Psychology of Men & Masculinity.. and across race.doi. G.. J... and masculine norms.1016/j. Tull. T. S. 6.1959.. 14. V.. J. (1990). http://dx. M. The gender wage gap: nication about gender: Results from adolescent and emerging adult An explanation of men’s elevated wage entitlement. G. Masculine norms.1037/ Jakupcak.1037/ Hammer. (1987). Iwamoto.1037/ informal support on mental health in incarcerated men.doi. M. 19.2. A. & Liu. J. (2012).tb00163. M. W. In M. Journal of Men’s ideology. mental health. A... & Tracey. L.. http://dx. W. M..1037/1524-9220. & Lauby. RAND Corporation. & Kaut. A. (2010).4. 19 –22. 22. D. M. 9.457 Lease. Brabham.doi. & Bentler. The psychology of sexual prejudice. avoidant coping. http://dx. G. S. M.

S. V. B. Good. & Courtenay.. T. masculinity ideologies. http://dx. R. The male role: An inves. 208 – 472). Sonenstein. B. M. & Miller. S. (2006). 229 –251).doi. 3–25. & W.1007/s11199-007-9258-5 McCreary.. Cozza. (2003). 7.. Male Role Norms perceived normative health behaviors as predictors of men’s health Inventory–Short Form (MRNI-SF): Development. S..doi. Davis Luyt. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. http://dx.doi. (2005).doi Mahalik. (2008). Exploring the lives of Asian American men: Racial Levant. Williams.doi. R. L. B. Smalley. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied.3149/ Exploratory factor analysis and Roles.. Locke. http://dx. (2013). using the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. M. male role norms. K. P.8. Dimensions Levant. Rankin. . S.doi.. . Aupont.. http://dx.1037/1082-989X. F. R. D. K. 325–337. Ludlow. M.1037/1524-9220. The Normative Male Alexithymia gang culture. http://dx college men. American Journal of Men’s Masculinity. & Syzdek.doi. Psychological Methods. and measurement invariance across 10. L.. & Williams. Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Richmond. .1. http://dx McCreary.1037/1524-9220. 14. analytic investigation of structure.. K. F. 10. K.. men. G. Masculinity constructs as protective role traits.).doi. 9.1037/a0025034 among Asian American men. An evaluation of structural equation analyses.. Saucier. A. ... Psychology of Men & Masculinity. J.. B. (2011).org/10. 135. F. C. reliability... 60. C. Thymos: Journal of Boyhood culinity.1037/a0021014 Lease.. & Psychology of Men & Mas- Norms Inventory-Adolescent (MRNI-A).org/10. Schnedeker.83 muscularity and masculinity: Testing the associations among gender- Levant.1002/jclp. & Studies. 8. Thousand Oaks. http://dx.. . R. J. O’Neil. A. P. Hirsch. Initial validation of the Male Role Norms ity. Richmond. S. & Richmond. M. and the United States.. F. identity. D. S. (2011). F. http:// the Health Behavior Inventory-20 (HBI-20) and its relationships to W. 335– Levant.1037/a0017637 toward men and women.117 Studies. R.. R. W. D. J. M.. & Muscularity Scale in men and women. M. (2007).org/10. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. & Ho. R. R. B. Culture. Norwood. R. 44. of the male gender role: A confirmatory analysis in men and women.1177/1097184X11409363 373–383. W.46 Mahalik. Psychology of examine the relationship between men’s self-esteem and their attitudes Men & 229. J... H. 228 –238.. Development of the Conformity to Levant. Hall.1016/j.doi. (2002). 25–37..1501.7.. H. . E. Psychological correlates of attitudes toward Health. http://dx. Williams. Luyt. (1995). W.. (2005). confirmatory factor behaviors. F. M.. 354 –366. M. Talmadge. K. Hampton.. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. http://dx. J. W. Kurtz. 10.64 masculinity and attitudes toward seeking psychological help among Meadows. K. D.doi. Journal of Social Psychology. M. C. B. C. 2. The evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Male Role Development and psychometric evaluation. C... T. Bauserman. H. Salcedo. M. B.1037/a0020479 & Foster. Journal of Cross-Cultural 10. C. K... F. . http://dx. 143. 33– 43. 1–11. J. Burns.. 273– J.212 dx. Sexuality-related measures: A compendium (2nd ed. T. Hill. Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores Maltby.). M. F. 469 – masculinity ideology in South Africa. D. Eftim. M. & Richmond. Sasse. Sex Rummell. 14. New York: Basic Books. R.. Journal of Counseling Psychology. trajectories at the individual and group level in adolescent and young The Femininity Ideology Scale: Factor structure. 84 –105. G. R. F. 15. pp. CA: Sage. Scott. K.. Asian values. In R..1080/00223980109603703 (2010). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity Liu. H. D. 201–215. 7. Locke.1..doi. (2001). In 25–39.1177/0022022111432293 Liu. A cross. T. F.. D. Diemer. Colbow.9. N.1177/1557988313494408 McDonald. R.5. Psychology of Men & R.1037/a0031545 Gottfried. 57.2. The Male Role Norms Inventory.. L. http://dx. D.1037/1524-9220. G.1. House.1. K.. & Fischer. and gender role conflict among Latino men. F. Conformity to masculine norms.. 2201–2209.doi. Journal of Men’s Marcell. Fleming. A. G. L. (2007).. 46 –59. http://dx. Perceived racism. A new psychology of men (pp.. 64 – 82.49 Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R).doi. J. Schreer.2. T.1177/1097184X04264631 Levant. J. S. 64. http://dx. 351. http://dx . 8. D. E.doi. http://dx. F. (1998). S. The Masculine Depression Scale: (2008). R..1023/A:1018829800295 construct validity of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent-revised (MRNI-A-r). R.83 Health. Levant & W. M.1037/1524-9220. coping strategies. T. & Aupont. convergent adult males. H. T. (2011). An investigation into variations of in a clinical setting. 66. (2007).. Liang. (2012). 111–126.. Levant. F..3149/jms.doi. J.doi.20101 European American women and men. G.. & Rankin. and social contextual variation. & Sadava. 3. F.doi.3 tigation of contemporary norms. K.4. A.doi.1037/a0029102 Measuring the drive for muscularity: Factorial validity of the Drive for Levant. 10. & Addis.3149/thy. behaviors.. (2007). 83–94. cultural exploration of masculinity and relationships in men from Tur.doi.130 Associations of family and peer experiences with masculinity attitude Levant.2007. House.. R. B..107 Levant. http://dx. 83–100. Celentano. Maintaining manliness in later life: .1037/1524-9220. M.doi.. A.. A. Rankin. P. A review of research on masculinity http://dx. F. M. & Dorsch. Montes. M. http:// Scale: Measurement of a gender-linked syndrome. 81–95. and discriminant validity.. D. http://dx.. MacEachern. R. (2002). Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Masculinity and Levant.doi.3. D. R.. South African Journal of Psychology. Journal of Mental Health Counseling.1037/a0017044 .doi. B.doi. J.doi. Graef. L.. D. 12. R. M. http://dx. 26 – 41.02. Baggett. B. R. (2005). A. S. R. J. Applying a social identity paradigm to on the Male Role Norms Inventory—Revised (MRNI-R). H. & Smalley.6. Social Science & Medicine. K. Men and Masculinities. Levant. . M. J. M..035 gender.. (2011). M. D. & Day. Cook. T. 661– 674. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Smalley.3. & Pleck.1037/1524-9220. 130 –146. The drive for http://dx. American Psy. Davis. (Eds. R. and conflict. J. 12 THOMPSON AND BENNETT Norms 117–132. T. Sex Roles. & McMillan. W. 8. 61.1502. Journal of Men’s Studies.. Psychology of Men & Masculin- Noronha. Magovcevic. J. 31(3). 15.4. L.doi. gender role conflict. E. 212–224. R. J. & Davidson. R. 12. 11. 110 –120. S. Boyraz. R. (2006). Saucier. (1998). & Freitas.. . Masculine Norms Inventory. and Maltby..doi. J. Mahalik. Wimer.1037/1524-9220. (2007). attitudes. (1992). 107–118. J. E. Newcomb. (2013). 5. H. Smalley. S. K.1177/008124630103100301 Levant. H. 2. (2001). 765–776. The Male Attitude Norms Inventory-II: A measure of This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Psychology of Men & buffers and risk factors for men’s health. (2014). M. 565–587.... F. the construction of the male role among young African American and http://dx. (2004). D. Hegemonic masculine conceptualization in Owen. & Wimer. F. R.25 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.. D.. Sawyer.7.1080/00224540309598434 ideologies using the Male Role Norms Inventory. http://dx. (2003). Hasan. R. 6. and prejudicial attitudes. R. (1997). Using the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory to work with men Levant.. & Day. http://dx. peer group influences and substance use chologist.. & Scott. Journal of Gender. . http://dx. Yarber.. 4. Principles and practice in reporting key. Norway. K. R. A.doi.doi. N. Journal of Clinical Psychology.... Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Men and Masculinities. Cook. Rogers.. R. 49 –58. . Pollack (Eds. R.

12. B. (2011). J. Sonenstein. A. delineating masculinities. validity among adult men and women.1007/s11199-013-0279-y Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. F. The gender role strain paradigm: An update. 118 –128. Smiler. J. (1994).org/ 10. The Attitudes Toward effects of support for violence beliefs on masculine norms. J. Anderssen.doi. & Smiler.. Development and validation of the Masculine Roles. Gender Role Conflict Scale: College men’s fear of femininity. (2013). & Piña-Watson.doi.doi. R. 14. P. 13. Reardon. dx. 31. & Silverman.. 13–25. A. (2006a). New York: Springer Press. Maternal and Child Health Journal.. L. 12. D. 30. 481–501. and sexual behavior.doi. M. 753–770. 133–157). American of Urban Health. Paper presented at the Department of and homophobic behavior during adolescence. Bascom. M. masculinity ideology among Latino men. G. linity.1037/a0024186 (2013). C. C.. http://dx. 21. & O’Donnell. Newbury Park.9. P. Chrisler & D. P. Kimmel. Ohio State University. J. Journal Morrison. alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal con- 295–312). J.03. Measuring gender: Options and issues. http://dx.3149/jms. & Govender. .1007/BF01420798 Behavior Scale: A measure of behaviors stereotypically attributed to .9. K. (2013). Poteat. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis of the expectations of disgust: Men are low and women are high. 11–32). A. Psychology of Men & Mascu- Parent. W. B. & Ku. cultural worldviews culinities. 575–585.. Ethnocultural and gendered determi. (2013). http://dx. C.and 22-item intimate partner violence perpetration among young adult men.1007/s11524-006- Journal of Men’s Health.doi. N. Saez. http://dx. & Möller-Leimkühler. 17–28. http://dx. Hombres y machos: Masculinity and Latino culture. Hansen Rochlen. Journal versions of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory.0000011069. Decker. MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 13 Hegemonic masculinities and emphasized femininities. (2008). J.doi. Psychology of Manliness and prostate cancer screenings among Latino men. H.. 9. New York: Routledge.doi. 5. http://dx. http://dx. H.1993 in psychology: Gender research in general and experimental psychology . & Buki. 5. 17–32. M. Costanzo (Eds. C. The myth of masculinity. A. P.17 (1986).org/10. 69. & Pleck. http://dx. & Thompson. G. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 49(3). (Eds. & Liang. psychological well-being. F. P.1037/ http://dx. McCreary (Eds. (2010). Risk Scale: Furthering the assessment of depression in men. Suizzo. F. G. 175–189. M. Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psycho- of Men & Masculinity.doi.. A.116 Meanings of Adolescent Masculinity Scale. 767– http://dx. In R.. (1993b). 16. Psychology Affective Disorders. E. Pleck. 54. Journal of Research on Psychology.doi. A. J.. Raj. C. Cambridge. J. 57–72. K. (1995). 10. 288 –295. H. Gender attitudes and health risk Smiler. H. L. L. & Curtis-Boles. http://dx. Masculinity Transcendence Scale.tb01166. 55. K. & Hetland. C. S.2010 621– 632.). Journal of nants of coping among Mexican American adolescent men. http://dx. Sex Roles. Assessing the factor structures of the 55.doi. F. E.00682. Gender issues in nal of Adolescence.1540-4560. 15–26. E. Z. http://dx. Calas. R.1037/1524-9220. (2014). Jour- and its correlates. In T. A. aggression.1177/1097184X08322630 and risk perceptions among South African adolescent learners. 105.. J. 151.x sexual orientation questioning among heterosexual men. D. Masculinity ideology: Smiler. Ojeda. A. Its impact on adolescent males’ heterosexual relationships.006 Pleck.. Endorsement of male Masculinity. & Scaringi. Attitudes toward male 10.1080/13669877 symptoms of PTSD and cardiac-related health behaviors in male veter.. Development and preliminary validation of the Male Depression This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.1037/a0033293 . A. & Van Tuinen. Masculinity moderates the relationships between of Risk Research.. Factors influencing Sex Roles. J. culinity development in African American men: A retrospective study.doi. (2009). P.). M. C. In J.08. Slevin (Eds..133 a0029662 O’ http:// New York: Basic This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.. . J.1177/ 9061-6 1557988310363817 Skolnick. A.). L.doi. An overview of coefficient anti & K. & Wilchins. http://dx.. (2012). 335–350. (1993a).doi. http://dx.3. Caballerismo may protect against the 17. C.1. (1981). A. Sex Roles. N. M. Age matters: Realigning feminist thinking (pp. Sex Snell. (2010).1023/A:1013084923217 Smiler. (2008). A new psychology of men (pp. M. Rosales. http://dx. 950 –958. Aucote. Boulder. L. and life New York: Oxford University Press.. Ponterotto. (2006b).org/10.. 375– 408).jad. 335–345. Men and Mas. H. M. The psychology of men. R. 1. 10.doi. Psychology Smiler.x (Vol. (2001).org/10. M.doi. P. and Motor Skills. http://dx. T. L.doi. R. Sonenstein. Predictors of relationship satisfaction.. & Moradi.. R.doi. K. P. In E. C. A. Masculinities. 158 –165. (1997). Living the image: A quantitative approach to behaviors in urban African American and Latino early adolescents. 85–110).1037/ Ojeda. S. & Ruckdeschel.doi. (2011). A. http://dx. http://dx.. Masculinity ideology boys’ dating motives. http://dx.. 83. A.doi...1007/s11199-006-9118-8 10.doi. H. 425– 443. McKelley. J. L. M. (2013). 133–138.. & Wade. H... satisfaction among stay-at-home fathers. (2012). Helms. Conforming to masculinity norms: Evidence for Levant & W.doi. R.. masculinity ideology.doi.doi. http://dx. 324 –328. Adolescence.737823 ans.. CA: Sage. Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory and development of the 72– 88.. & Ku. The moderating Moreland. Sex Roles. Psychol- Men & Masculinity. CO: Westview Press.1037/a0013612 (2006). (2004) (2009). M. 9. “I wanted to get to know her better”: Adolescent Pleck.. http://dx. pp. Columbus. MA: MIT Press. B. M. L.). F. S. (2011). (1989). P. B.1016/j. A.1532-7795.1007/978-1-4419-1465-1_7 roles among adolescent males: A discriminant validity analysis. http://dx. Psychology of Men & Slaatten. 265–272. S. (2008).. 7–15. 50. David. The development and validation of the 116 –128. & Wrightsman..doi. M. G. http://dx. M. T. M. J. 15. Casado. sistency coefficients with psychological research 434 – 447. Socioeconomic status and a0020624 cultural predictors of male role attitudes among Mexican American men: Roberts-Douglass.. L.1111/j.1037/a0033734 to Masculine Norms Inventory-46 among women and La Marche. Psychology of Men & Mascu- O’Neil. Handbook of gender research Social Issues.1037/a0027642 logical concepts and measures of masculinity. & Fisher. L. Masculine gender roles associated with increased sexual risk and Owen. J. J.013 Ojeda. Jr.2013 of Men & Masculinity.1016/ I will no longer be a man! role of machismo on Mexican day laborers’ self-esteem. (1978. A. Journal of Men’s Studies. C. E.1037/a0033450 ogy of Men & Masculinity.2012. C.. 14. http://dx. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. M.. 296 –304.02279. Metric invariance of the Conformity linity. Psychology of Men & Mas- Santana. & Ku.1702. The Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. Oskamp & M. L. Exploring positive mas- ¿Son más machos? Psychology of Men & Masculinity. http://dx.adolescence social psychology (pp. (2009).doi. Fallon. Sonenstein. Steiner..1111/j. 997–1014. 11–29. H. V.doi.1007/s11199-006-9045-8 Pleck. & Good.. 10. L.1037/1524-9220. L. & Epstein. M. 15. Processes of . Gender role Parent. Altmaier & J. Perceptual Mirandé. B. Pollack ( 14. V. J. July).). 15. M. Sex Roles. H. (2007).4c Journal of In J. (2014).. culinity.1037/a0015481 role norms and gay-related name-calling.

). A. http://dx. Paper presented at the annual scientific meeting of the ment and psychometric properties. and intimate partner abuse in a clinical sample of men. & Hawkins.3149/jms.9. D. R. T. http://dx.. Psychology of Men & culinity. H. The Inventory of Subjective Masculinity Expe- American Behavioral http://dx. Sex Roles. Psychol. http://dx. Steinfeldt. Sex Roles. 6. (1995). review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities... 531– http://dx..1037/ odological trends.. E. (2000). 14.. H.1037/a0019133 (Appendix follows) . Content analysis of Psychology of Men & Masculinity (2000 –2008). male identity.doi.. Jr. Meaning of sexual performance Wilkinson.doi the male role and their correlates.4.1177/ riences: Development and psychometric properties. E. E. H. (2012). S. H. and 13. Jr. (1985). Journal of Counseling Psychology. http://dx. M. & Hickman.82 Thompson. 43. & Cracco. J. H. Y. 16(10). Older men’s social ences Documents. & Barnes. D. (2008). (2004). R. Thompson. November). D. (1986). 749 –767. & Helmreich.1. 5–24. Gerontological Society of America. (Manuscript No. masculine Whorley. dependence: Support for construct validity. L. T. K. and African American men’s health related attitudes and vance online (2010).org/ Spence. R. and male antigay attitudes.. & 271–280. 14.1023/A:1026695209399 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Washington. & Addis. J... J. http://dx. “Walking over ‘em”: An BF01544782 exploration of relations between emotional dysregulation.1601. Jr... H. New York: Basic Books. 288 –299. Measure Older Men Masculinity Ideology Scale: Factor structure. Austin: Univer- Q. (2010). research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant meth- ogy of Men & Masculinity. M. LaFollette. N. (2004). (1995). Sex Roles. The structure of male norms. J. J.98 comparison of masculine gender role norms.1007/ Tager. (1986). Sex Roles. J. W. E.doi. 13. J. E. http://dx. 533–543.. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. A new psychology of men (pp.236 Thompson.3149/jms. Masculinity and femininity: Their 10. 236 –255. L. Pleck. In R. J.. 9.doi. & Fischer. Psychology of Men & Masculinity.. S. 19. Masculinity Masculinity. Attitudes toward distress.5 psychological dimensions. Male reference group identity sity of Texas Press. (2012). Owen. Good. 14 THOMPSON AND BENNETT males and females. http://dx popular masculinity-related instruments measuring? Underlying dimen- . Jr. Psychology of Men & Masculinity.1037/a0035706 behaviors. (2005). http://dx. Jr. G. Y. (1992).6. Hickman. correlates. 170 –181. S. Sex Syzdek. J. D. Levant & W. 573– 607. G. & Thompson. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. M... M.1007/s11199-007-9303-4 attributional processes predict depressive symptoms in recent J. Ten years of psychological norms. A latent class regression What college men can normalize... male reference group identity female-dominated occupations. Bullying among adolescent football players: Role of masculinity and moral atmosphere. D. 264 –274. J. A.. G. 11. The Wong. Weseler.. (2013). (1978). E. H.1037/1524-9220. T. 129 –163).org/10. M. E.doi. C. J.. S. 775–786.1007/ a0017636 s11199-006-9120-1 Thompson. W.. Walker. (2014. Belk. E.264 and hockey violence. 649 – 658. 16. (2006). and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.doi. (2008).org/10.. 34. Speight. J.. Masculinity ideology. Social and Behavioral Sci.1037/1524-9220...doi. 5–16. Masculinity Studies. J. F. H. Shea. Adherence to masculine norms and Roles. J. The Stereotypes constructs. Jr.1903.doi.doi. C. http://dx. Ad.1007/s10608-009-9290-6 sions and their relations to sociosexuality.1037/a0026206 . http://dx. http://dx. Steinfeldt. Masculinity ideologies: A Wong. D. correlates. ante. S. 27. Boghokian. & Pleck. (2014). C. C. J. DC. Barnes.2. R. D. H. Masculinity. M. H. & Brittan-Powell.doi. S. http://dx. Journal of Men’s 000276486029005003 Studies. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 121–131. A. Sexual aggression in bars: Wong. J.1007/ Thompson E... & Addis... Vaughan. & E. Masculinity ideology. Horn. 33. Jr. 10. Rigotti. E. & Steinfeldt. dependence. http://dx. http://dx. C. Men and BF00289806 masculinities: Scales for masculinity ideology and masculinity-related Snell. (2013). 323–340. http://dx. P. Pollack (Eds. (2007).. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. E. 98 –108. 55. F.. M. 57. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. E. 13.doi.. Smith. J. S.. D. What are eight ployed men.doi.. 340 –353.1007/ About Male Sexuality Scale (SAMSS): Components.5 ideology and psychological strain: Considering men’s social stressors in Wade.. 82–96. 21. A.3149/jms. R. Sex Roles. 29. Wade. E. E. J. 233–239. Journal of Men’s Studies. Y.1. (2010). Sex Roles. & Mohr.1037/a0029104 5. Jr. (2000). C. H.. Jr.doi. reliability. analysis of men’s conformity to masculine norms and psychological http://dx. M. Gomory. L.1037/a0026645 romantic relationship quality among heterosexual and gay men. http://dx.1301.doi. D.doi .1037/1524-9220. dimensions of mas- among men with and without erectile dysfunction. S.1037/a0029244 Thompson.. R. http://dx.. Psychology of Men & Mas- Tager. & Donis. A.doi. M. consequences and counselor bias.doi. Psychology of Men & Weinstein. Authoritarian hegemony. BF02651094 cedents. J. & Futterman.. Y.doi. and of Men’s Perceived Inexpressiveness Norms (M2PIN): Scale develop- construct validity. http://dx.. Tokar. & Whearty. W. LaFollette. & Ferrera. M.doi.. 413– 427. & Pleck. 2746) participation: The importance of masculinity ideology. E. & Ramos.. 831– 847. C. & Wiesenthal. (2011). Journal of Men’s Sobiraji.doi.. 1.1007/BF00287952 Wong. M. & M. & Shea.doi.. 176 –183. L. Italian and American masculinities: A culinity. G. 11. Thompson.

87 Concealing emotions 16 ␣ ⫽ . & Pleck.76) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . 1st Pleck.09) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .29 (1. Attitudes Toward Men Adults 32 Yes Likert 4-point: Domains of men’s 89. 1985) Subscales No sissy stuff 17 3.94 (0.95 7 Scale (Brannon & Strongly properties and Juni.81c Big wheel 17 3.67 3. 1998.90 (0. Thompson. Male Role Norms Adults 26 No Likert 7-point: Masculinity 3.09 (0.76 0 Scale (Thompson & guidelines.90 4 (Brannon & Juni. generation Grisanti. Masculinity Ideology Adults 21 No Likert 7-point Masculinity — — ␣ ⫽ . 1998) (Appendix continues) . 1st 1984.74 Antifemininity 7 3.75) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . parenthood 13 37.86)c 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .83) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .81 Sexuality 7 22.79 2a.72 (0.80 Give ‘em hell 8 4.77 Admired and respected 16 ␣ ⫽ .79 The male machine 16 ␣ ⫽ .99 (0. Brannon Masculinity Adults 110 No Likert 7-point: Masculinity — — ␣ ⫽ .79 4 Scale (Iazzo.74 Study oak 16 4. Work 4 7.03) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .81 Toughness 16 ␣ ⫽ .82 (0.57 (1. 1st Good.66)c 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . 2013) generation 3b.76 3a. BMS Short Form Adults 58 No Likert 7-point Masculinity 3.86 3 Scale (Thompson & Strongly guidelines.29 (1.77 Violence and adventure 15 ␣ ⫽ . 1st strongly generation agree Subscales Avoiding femininity 16 ␣ ⫽ .57 (1. 1st strongly to generation agree strongly Subscales Marriage and This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.56) 46–230 ␣ ⫽ .67) 7–28 ␣ ⫽ . 1983) Disagree lives.76 Physical and personal attributes 8 22. 1986) disagree to generation strongly agree Subscales Status 11 3. 1st Barnes.74) 8–32 ␣ ⫽ .92 (9.08) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 15 Appendix Description of Masculinity Ideology Measures Items may Target Number focus on Focus and Scale/author(s) population of items women Type generation M (SD) Range Reliabilitya Subscales 1.62 (6. Male Role Norms Adults 12 No Likert 7-point Masculinity 3. Good.73) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .86 4 Scale-21 (Fischer & guidelines. generation Fischer.84 The breadwinner 15 ␣ ⫽ . Tokar. guidelines.99) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .81 Toughness 8 4.48 (3.72 2.62) 4–16 ␣ ⫽ .55) 13–52b ␣ ⫽ . & Snell. 1984) disagree to guidelines.88 (0.74b This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.62 (3.

51) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .83e Self-reliance through mechanical skills 3 4.88e Self-reliance through mechanical skills 3 4. generation 2010.07)e 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . & Ku.80 (1.24 (1.73 Violent toughness 3 3. Hall. disagree to guidelines..84 Toughness 4 4.74 (1.69 Nontraditional 12 — — ␣ ⫽ .14) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .33) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . Male Role Attitudes Adolescents 8 No Likert 4-point: Masculinity 2. & Smalley.92 Avoidance of femininity 7 4.52 Self-reliance 7 — — ␣ ⫽ . to disagree generation 1993a. 1994) a lot (Appendix continues) .75 Antifemininity 7 3. 1st Sonenstein.05 (1.89 Importance of sex 3 3.39) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .68 (1.92 (1.71 4.09) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .57 4a.83 Toughness 3 4.88 Avoidance of femininity 3 4. 1992) strongly generation agree This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.96e 7 revised (Levant. 2007) Subscales Restricted emotionality 7 3. 1998.60 (1.76 (1. MRNI-Short Form Adults 21 No Likert 7-point Cultural script and 3.54 Attitudes toward sex 8 — — ␣ ⫽ .87 5.57) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .00 (1. & masculinity Rankin. 1st Hasan. Subscales This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 1st Levant et al..88 4b.44) 1–4 ␣ ⫽ . Levant.34) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . 16 THOMPSON AND BENNETT Appendix (continued) Items may Target Number focus on Focus and Scale/author(s) population of items women Type generation M (SD) Range Reliabilitya Subscales Subscales Status/rationality 6 4.92 (1. Male Role Norms Adults 57 Yes Likert 7-point: Cultural script and — — ␣ ⫽ .23) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . Avoidance of femininity 7 — — ␣ ⫽ .56 0 Scale (Pleck. Williams.18)e 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . masculinity Rankin.90 Importance of sex 3 3.80 (0.86 Negativity toward sexual minorities 3 3.88 (1.77d Restricted emotionality 7 — — ␣ ⫽ .64 (1.17 (1. et al. Adults 39 No Likert 7-point Cultural script and 3.14) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .05)e 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .76 (1.52 (1.18 (1. MRNI-Revised. 2013) guidelines. Agree a lot guidelines. 1st generation Subscales Restricted emotionality 3 2.85 (1.78 Tough image 5 3. guidelines.79 Dominance 3 3.67 Aggression 5 — — ␣ ⫽ .56) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .32) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .75 Dominance 7 3.54 Rejection of homosexuals 4 — — ␣ ⫽ .85 Negativity toward sexual minorities 8 3. Smalley.36) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .22)e 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .19 (1.84d 8 Inventory (Levant & Strongly masculinity Fischer.52) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .44 (1.57) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .66 (1.28) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .75 Achievement/status 7 — — ␣ ⫽ .92e 7 (Levant.12) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .

56) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ .86) 0–12 ␣ ⫽ .88 Violence 6 10.65) 0–30 ␣ ⫽ .14 (3.84 Self-reliance 5 6. CMNI-46 (Parent & Adults 46 No Likert 4-point Personal norms. Adults 55 No Likert 4-point Personal norms.84 Primacy of work 8 1. CMNI-22 (Burns & Adults 22 No Likert 4-point Personal norms 25.64) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ .95) 0–12 ␣ ⫽ .64) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ .82 Violence 8 12. MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 17 Appendix (continued) Items may Target Number focus on Focus and Scale/author(s) population of items women Type generation M (SD) Range Reliabilitya Subscales 6.87 Dominance 4 5.54) 1–5 ␣ ⫽ .81) 0–18 ␣ ⫽ .63 (2.06 (2.56 (5.88) 0–12 ␣ ⫽ .92 (3.85 (2.69) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ .53)e 0–3 ␣ ⫽ . Conformity to Adults 94 No Likert 4-point: Personal norms.09 (0. 2003) to strongly agree (3) Subscales Winning 10 16.28 (0.26 (2.57 (0.21 (0.68) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ . 2009) 1st generation Emotional control 6 8.10)e 0–30 ␣ ⫽ .04) 0–12 ␣ ⫽ .63 (0.22 (0.06) 0–18 ␣ ⫽ . & Syzdek.58) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ .59 (4.89 (5.94 11 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.88 Playboy 4 5.87 Primacy of work 4 4.03 (0.96) 0–24 ␣ ⫽ .86e 11 2011) 1st generation Subscales Winning 10 1.76 Disdain for homosexuality 10 17. Multicultural Adults 35 No Likert 5-point: Masculinity Not 2 Masculinity Strongly properties and applicable Ideology Scale disagree to guidelines.59) 1–5 ␣ ⫽ . 1st generation 2007) 7c.91 (5.65) 0–33 ␪ ⫽ .84 (1. CMNI-11 (Mahalik.81 posturing Achievement 8 4.72 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.61) 0–30 ␣ ⫽ .41) 0–18 ␣ ⫽ . 2nd (Doss & Hopkins.06 (0.76 Disdain for homosexuality 6 11.72 7a.58 (3.05) 0–36 ␣ ⫽ .28) 0–24 ␣ ⫽ .26)e 0–3 ␣ ⫽ .52 (0. Masculine Norms Strongly 1st generation Inventory (Mahalik disagree (0) et al.64)e 0–282 ␣ ⫽ .46) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ .44 (2.28) 0–24 ␣ ⫽ .88 Self-reliance 6 6.81) 0–138 ␣ ⫽ .91 Risk taking 10 16.19 (2. 66.65 (3.46) 0–27 ␣ ⫽ . 1.45 (24.70 0 Mahalik.90 Pursuit of status 6 11.82 Emotional control 11 1. strongly generation 1998) agree Subscales (etic—common) Hypermasculine 13 2.83 Self-reliance 6 1.36) 0–15 ␣ ⫽ .43) 0–18 ␣ ⫽ .82 Power over women 9 0.88 9 Moradi.97 (3. 134.91 Winning 6 9.73 Dominance 4 1.41) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ ..05 (4. Adults 11 No Likert 4-point Personal norms.32 (0.65) 0–15 ␣ ⫽ .55 (12.90 7b. 12.52 (0.27) 0–66 ␣ ⫽ .89 (Appendix continues) .85 Risk taking 5 7. CMNI-55 (Owen.06 (6.88 Risk taking 10 1.98) 0–18 ␣ ⫽ .84 Violence 8 1.84 Power over women 9 10.99 (2.73 Playboy 12 1.73 Playboy 12 12.85 Primacy of work 8 8.64 0 Burns.26 (0.77 (1. 7.74 (6.38 (3.88 Emotional control 11 14.82 Power over women 4 3.66) 0–33 ␣ ⫽ . 2008a) 1st generation 7d.

96)f Ideology in lot to agree Relationships Scale a lot (Chu. 2008) Subscales Avoidance of femininity 8 4.1 (1. Smalley.88) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .70 Pursuit of status 6 1.39) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . Strongly guidelines. & Courtenay.85 Caballerismo 10 6.00 (1.82 ␣ ⫽ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.40) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ . Male Role Norms Adolescents 43 Yes Likert 7-point: Masculinity 4.95) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .78 8.88e 3 (Levant et al.97) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .70 (1..78e Self-reliance 8 4.2 (0.76)e 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .56 (1. disagree to generation Blank. Adolescent Adolescents 12 No Likert 4-point: Personal norms.07)e 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .50) 0–3 ␣ ⫽ . MRNI-A-revised Adolescents 29 No Likert 7-point Masculinity 3.99 (0. 18 THOMPSON AND BENNETT Appendix (continued) Items may Target Number focus on Focus and Scale/author(s) population of items women Type generation M (SD) Range Reliabilitya Subscales Disdain for homosexuality 10 1.06 (6.2) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . strongly 2008) agree Subscales Traditional machismo 10 3.75 0 About Men text 1st generation (McCreary.36 (1.32 (0. Traditional Attitudes Adults 5 No 4-point: See Personal norms.53 (6.26 (0.8) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .70 0 Masculinity Disagree a 2nd generation 23.85 9. strongly Williams. Tovar.81 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.80 (Appendix continues) .82 2 (Arciniega. Male Attitude Norms Adults 40 No Likert 5-point: Masculinity 89. Strongly guidelines.55 (0.87e Toughness 7 4.90 3 Inventory-II (Luyt. Control 12 46.12 (0. Machismo Measure Adults 20 No Likert 7-point: Masculinity — — ␣ ⫽ .74) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . Strongly guidelines. 2. 2012) guidelines.15) 9–45 ␣ ⫽ .07) 1–7 ␣ ⫽ .60 Restricted emotionality 11 4. & agree McMillan. 2005) 11.72 11a. disagree to generation Graef.78) 8–45 .05 1–4 ␣ ⫽ .96) 40–120 ␣ ⫽ .27)e 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . Saucier.68 Achievement/status 8 4. & Tolman.44 (0.93e 5 Inventory.38) 12–60 ␣ ⫽ .98 (5.99 (0.91)e 1–7 ␣ ⫽ . & Tracey. 2nd 2005) disagree to generation strongly agree Subscales Toughness 9 21. 1st generation Subscales Emotionally detached dominance 16 3. Porche. 2.77 (0. Sexuality 8 21.48 (6.07 (15. 1st Adolescent (Levant.28 (0.74 12.57) 1–4 ␣ ⫽ . 2005) 12–48f 10.71 Avoidance of femininity 6 5. 2nd Anderson.46 Aggression 8 4.

strongly 2nd generation Horn.98)g 7–28 ␣ ⫽ . Cordova.S.61 16. g Mean scores are from Steinfeldt. BMS ⫽ Brannon Masculinity Scale. c Means.72 15.99 (8. Dashes in cells indicate that data were not available.53 (0.61 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.72 3 Inventory (Janey Completely guidelines. d Alpha coefficients are from Levant and Fischer (1998).95) 5–25 ␣ ⫽ .79 (4.38) 8–40 ␣ ⫽ .50) 1–4 ␣ ⫽ . boys).16) 5–20 ␣ ⫽ . 2013) Subscales Descriptive norms 7 2. (Anderson. a See text for validity information. MASCULINITY IDEOLOGIES 19 Appendix (continued) Items may Target Number focus on Focus and Scale/author(s) population of items women Type generation M (SD) Range Reliabilitya Subscales 13. Russian Male Norms Adults 36 No Likert 4-point: Masculinity — — ␣ ⫽ .20) 13–80 ␣ ⫽ .79 Emotional restriction 7 16.56 (3.85 Note. Pisecco.. standard deviations. 2014 Revision received November 11. bMean scores and standard deviations are from Iazzo (1983).89 2 Perceived Strongly about Inexpressiveness disagree to masculinities. Gomory. 2014 Accepted November 20.21) 7–28 ␣ ⫽ . Meanings of Adolescent 27 No Likert 4-point: Cultural script. CMNI ⫽ Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. 2013) disagree to generation completely agree Subscales Duty/reliability 23 — — ␣ ⫽ . strongly 2009) agree Subscales Constant effort 7 17.75 Felt need to produce children 5 16. 1st Not 27–108 ␣ ⫽ .80 Social teasing 5 13.10 (0. Norms (Wong. 2nd et al. f Mean score and standard deviation are from Blazina.60) 1–4 ␣ ⫽ . e Mean scores. 2nd strongly to generation disagree strongly Subscales Entitlement to sexual dominance 8 19. Macho Scale Adults 13 Yes Likert 5-point: Masculinity 35.89 Injunctive norms 7 2. & agree Ramos.95 (2. Vaughan. (1985). 14.53) 1–4 ␣ ⫽ .82 2 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. and alpha coefficients are from Thompson et al. 2012) Agree guidelines. and alpha coefficients are for men (or U.92 Privileges/pleasures 9 — — ␣ ⫽ . alpha coefficients from Maltby and Day (2001).97 (2.06) 8–32 ␣ ⫽ . Measure of Men’s Adults 10 No Likert 4-point: Group norms 2.44 (5.80 4 Adolescent Strongly generation available Masculinity Scale disagree to (Oransky & Fisher. and Settle (2007). 2014 䡲 . standard deviations.76 Inexpressive/impassive 4 — — ␣ ⫽ . LaFollette. Received March 5.80 Heterosexism 8 23.30 (0. and Steinfeldt (2012). MRNI ⫽ Male Role Norms Inventory.15 (3.