The ‘Masculine’ and ‘Feminine’ Sides of Leadership and Culture: Perception vs. Reality

Click here: => charerebe.fastdownloadcloud.ru/dt?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzA6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZHRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MzE6IlRyYWRpdGlvbmFsIG1hc2N1bGluZSBxdWFsaXRpZXMiO30=


She is the female counterpart without whom the male aspect, which represents or discrimination, remains impotent and void. Theory and measurement of androgynity: a reply to the pedhazur-tetenbaum and locksley-colten critiques. In many cultures, boys endure painful initiation rituals to become men.

Retrieved 6 March 2015. The fact that the TMF did not always demonstrate additional predictive value for explaining differences between groups does not indicate that it is superfluous. For example, within queer cultures, marginalization and lack of full validation of bisexuality perpetuates an intra-queer discourse of queer embodiment. Wouldn't life be dull without the flair and imagination of fashion designers and interior decorators?

Login using

We are experimenting with display styles that make it easier to read articles in PMC. The ePub format is best viewed in the iBooks reader. You may notice problems with the display of certain parts of an article in other eReaders. Generating an ePub file may take a long time, please be patient. Gender stereotype theory suggests that men are generally perceived as more masculine than women, whereas women are generally perceived as more feminine than men. Several scales have been developed to measure fundamental aspects of gender stereotypes e. We argue that it is useful to be able to measure these two core concepts in a reliable, valid, and parsimonious way. We introduce a new and brief scale, the Traditional Masculinity-Femininity TMF scale, designed to assess central facets of self-ascribed masculinity-femininity. Studies 1—2 used known-groups approaches participants differing in gender and sexual orientation to validate the scale and provide evidence of its convergent validity. As expected the TMF reliably measured a one-dimensional masculinity-femininity construct. Moreover, the TMF correlated moderately with other gender-related measures. Demonstrating incremental validity, the TMF predicted gender and sexual orientation in a superior way than established adjective-based measures. Furthermore, the TMF was connected to criterion characteristics, such as judgments as straight by laypersons for the whole sample, voice pitch characteristics for the female subsample, and contact to gay men for the male subsample, and outperformed other gender-related scales. Taken together, as long as gender differences continue to exist, we suggest that the TMF provides a valuable methodological addition for research into gender stereotypes. Gender is also one of the first social categories that children learn in today's societies, and thus knowledge of gender stereotypes is evident from early childhood on for a recent review, see Steffens and Viladot, and into adulthood, with both adolescents and college students construing their self-concepts in line with the gender stereotypes they have internalized e. Since the 1970s, following Bem's pioneering work, many scales have been designed, developed, and widely used for measuring traits traditionally considered as typically male vs. In recent years, such measures have often failed to find between-gender differences in self-ascriptions of gender stereotypical traits e. Still, gender differences in self-ascriptions do continue to exist, and there are attempts to measure different aspects of masculinity and femininity, including, for example, everyday behavior such as housework Athenstaedt,. In the present paper, we argue that a scale that reliably and validly measures differences in an individual's underlying conceptualization of his or her own masculinity-femininity would be valuable for gender research. In the present article, we introduce a new, extended, but still parsimonious scale, the Traditional Masculinity-Femininity Scale, TMF, to fill this gap. Using a known-groups approach, we present two studies testing this measure's reliability as well as its incremental and criterion validity, and we provide evidence for its convergent validity. It is important to note that the focus of the present paper is on gender-related self-assessment. Complementary research has investigated many different aspects of gender, for example, gender-role norms e. In a seminal study on masculinity and femininity, Deaux and Lewis investigated the perceived relationship between gender and gender-related components, such as role behaviors e. The researchers showed that these components were interdependent, impacting on one another, as well as on perceived gender and sexual orientation. In other words, participants readily generalized from one component to the others. In addition, physical appearance played a particularly large role. The first attempts to gauge masculinity and femininity placed these constructs on a bipolar spectrum and involved measuring simple collections of personality traits on which women and men differed on average for a review, see Constantinople,. By contrast, Bem's pioneering Sex Role Inventory BSRI; Bem, used gender-stereotypical traits to independently measure masculinity and femininity e. Exploratory factor analyses showed an instable factor structure but often converged on three-factor solutions: Masculine traits on one factor, feminine traits on a second factor, and masculine-feminine along with participant gender on a third factor e. It has thus been suggested that the two independent masculinity and femininity trait dimensions are complemented by one bipolar masculinity-femininity dimension see Constantinople, ; Spence et al. Similar to other scales e. For the present purposes it is important to note that if masculinity and femininity are directly measured they should load on one bipolar masculinity-femininity dimension. Another limit to the practical use of these established scales pertains to the generally small magnitude of gender differences found on these two dimensions e. In short, scales that have been developed to assess aspects of masculinity and femininity have recently failed to find gender differences see also Sczesny et al. This could indicate that gender differences in masculinity and femininity are a thing of the past Alvesson,. However, it could also mean that the scales do not tap the most relevant aspects of the constructs on which gender differences continue to exist. For example, gender roles have changed over the last decades, particularly women's roles, so that today's women possess more of the traits traditionally considered as masculine e. According to these findings, instrumental traits have become more socially desirable for women and expressive traits have become more socially desirable for men Swazina et al. In order to overcome limitations of the discussed scales, there have been attempts to measure other aspects of masculinity and femininity to account for the multiple dimensions they are reflected in, such as physical appearance, behaviors, attitudes, and interests e. Complementing these existing approaches, we suggest directly assessing the presumed higher-order constructs, namely masculinity and femininity. However, instead of using only these two items, we constructed a scale that can be tested empirically with regard to its reliability and validity. Scale construction We introduce the TMF scale, an instrument for measuring gender-role self-concept. Appendix in Supplementary Material shows all items, both English translations and original German wordings. Each item initially included in scale construction was selected based on theoretical considerations, as outlined in the following. Constantinople defines gender-role adoption as the actual manifestation i. According to Kagan , gender-role identity refers to a comparison of gender-related social norms and the gender-related characteristics of the individual e. Hence, for gender-role identity social comparisons as well as references to different gender-related aspects are emphasized e. Following the former approach, we use TMF as a reference point. Based on dimensions identified as important in previous research, the TMF encompasses gender-role identity with regard to physical appearance, behavior, interests, and attitudes and beliefs e. As mentioned, physical appearance was shown to play a particularly large role in implicating other components of gender stereotypes Deaux and Lewis,. Athenstaedt advocated the inclusion of gender-stereotypical behaviors in addition to traits, so this domain was included in the TMF as well. Additionally, his study showed that instrumental and expressive traits were outperformed by these gender-related interests in predicting participants' gender. Consequently, we included gender-related interests in the TMF instead of gender-related traits. Finally, regarding attitudes and beliefs, gender differences have often been found, for example, with regard to attitudes toward minority groups e. We therefore also included self-assessment of attitudes and beliefs in the TMF. One advantage of the TMF is that each of the mentioned scale dimensions is measured on a global level and not by various specific indicator items. Different from the instruments described above, which infer masculinity-femininity from the degree of affirmation of specific traits and behaviors, the TMF aims to directly assess masculinity-femininity. We consider it an asset of the scale that it is thus independent of specific stereotype content regarding masculinity and femininity that depend on culture and time e. All of them have high face validity. Each item is to be independently rated in terms of femininity and masculinity. A 7-point-scale is used to gauge the extent to which the participant feels feminine or masculine, how feminine or masculine she or he ideally would like to be, and how feminine and masculine her or his appearance, interests, attitudes, and behavior would traditionally be seen. Construct validity is tested in the studies described below. The TMF was used with masculinity and femininity as two unipolar dimensions Study 1: 1, not at all masculine, to 7, very masculine, and 1, not at all feminine, to 7, very feminine vs. Overview of the present research We validated the TMF in various ways. First, we conducted an item analysis and a factor analysis. As suggested by findings reported by Bem , Constantinople , and Spence et al. Hence, we expected the TMF to measure a one-dimensional gender-role self-concept Hypothesis 1. Validation by using the known-groups approach Based on the idea that gender differences are not a thing of the past, as indicated in the introduction, a valid masculinity and femininity scale should show these gender differences. Therefore, we expected men and women to differ considerably on self-ascriptions on the TMF, with men being more masculine and less feminine than women Hypothesis 2. Moreover, a valid masculinity and femininity scale should show differences between people differing in sexual orientation. The essence of gender stereotypes of straight women and men is that they conform to traditional gender roles e. Lay people expect straight women to be more feminine and less masculine than lesbians, and straight men to be more masculine and less feminine than gay men. Similarly, straight women's and men's self-ascriptions are, on average, more gender-typed than those of lesbians and gay men see meta-analysis by Lippa,. Bisexual women were found to score on masculinity-femininity in between lesbians and straight women Lippa,. Therefore, we used the known-groups approach as an established method for testing a scale's validity e. We expected lesbians' self-ascriptions on the TMF to be less feminine and more masculine compared to straight women Hypothesis 3a. Bisexual women should score in between Hypothesis 3b. Additionally, we expected straight men's self-ascriptions to be more masculine and less feminine compared to gay men Hypothesis 3c. Because straight women and men conform to gender roles more than lesbians and gay men, comparing lesbians and gay men constituted a stricter test of the TMF. Consistent with Hypothesis 2 and gender self-stereotyping but contradictory to implicit gender inversion theory Kite and Deaux, ; which we turn to in General Discussion , we hypothesized lesbians to be more feminine and less masculine than gay men Hypothesis 4. Using implicit measures relying on response-time differences, such as an Implicit Association Test IAT , may minimize this problem Greenwald et al. Implicit measures are assumed to assess the impulsive system: Habitual, repeated, long-term associations between concepts Strack and Deutsch, , including self-related concepts e. We expected lesbians to describe themselves more masculine and less feminine than straight women Hypothesis 6. Adults' masculinity-femininity is related to recalled gender conformity during adolescence e. Thus, gender-role instruments for assessing current traits and behaviors as well as recalled gender-typical behaviors, preferences, and interests during childhood were also suitable for testing convergent validity. We assumed all these characteristics to show moderate correlations with the TMF Hypothesis 7. Additionally, we expected the TMF to predict sexual orientation within one gender group better than other gender-related scales. We assumed the TMF to outperform other gender-related scales when predicting sexual orientation of women and men Hypothesis 8. Hypotheses based on criterion validity As indicated above, lay people use gender-typicality as an indicator for judging someone's sexual orientation Rieger et al. People self-reporting gender-typical characteristics are likely to be perceived as straight, whereas people who do not display such characteristics are more likely to be perceived as lesbian or gay on pictures, videos, and speech recordings. Hence, targets who are perceived as straight could be those who self-describe as gender-typical in masculinity-femininity ratings Hypothesis 9. Additionally, there is some evidence that voice pitch characteristics, also called fundamental frequency features, of lesbians and gay men are shifted toward what is typical for straight women and men. Generally, compared to straight women, straight men show voice pitches that are lower on average, in variability, and in range e. Average voice pitch has been found to be lower in straight compared to gay men Baeck et al. Hence, we assumed gender-typical masculinity-femininity self-ratings to be reflected in gender-typical patterns of voice pitch characteristics Hypothesis 10. Furthermore, contact frequency of straight women and men with lesbians and gay men is linked to attitudes toward them e. One belief about lesbians and gay men is that they transgress gender roles, on average e. It thus seems plausible that people who are more gender-typical themselves are those who have less contact to lesbians and gay men and hold more negative beliefs. Hence, we assumed gender-typical masculinity-femininity self-ratings to be connected to more current contact with straight women and men and less current contact with lesbians and gay men Hypothesis 11. Hypotheses concerning test-retest reliability and predictive validity Finally, the TMF was expected to show at least moderate test-retest reliabilities given that people were re-invited after a 1-years period Hypothesis 12. From a scale validation perspective, it is desirable to present analyses in which the predictor is truly assessed before the criterion. Therefore, we expected at least moderate predictive validity for other gender-related features at second measurement Hypothesis 13. Pilot study The pilot study had two aims. First, we tested the factor structure of the scale's version that contained six bipolar items. We assumed the TMF items to load on one factor Hypothesis 1. Additionally, we wanted to determine the appropriateness of every single item by using an item analysis. Second, we assessed the scale's validity using a known-groups approach Hypothesis 2. Methods At the end of an online survey that had a different purpose, participants filled in the 6-item version of the TMF see Appendix in Supplementary Material and indicated their gender response options: male, female, both, none, no response. Overall 319 participants finished the study. Thirteen of them were excluded from further analysis because they described themselves as both male and female or neither or they did not disclose their gender. Data from 188 women and 118 men were used for analysis. They were students of different majors from different German universities specifically, in Thuringia. Participants received no compensation for participation. All studies were carried out in accordance with its recommendations, with written informed consent obtained from all participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Results In order to check for one-dimensionality of the TMF, an exploratory principal axis factoring PAF was conducted. Sample adequacy was confirmed by a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin KMO criterion of 0. According to a graphical scree-plot analysis, a one-factor solution was confirmed. There was a steep decline of explained variance from factor one 77% to factor two 10%. Each of the six items was represented well by the factor factor loadings ranged from 0. As indicated by the coefficients in Table , no items needed to be deleted to improve reliability. Item-specific homogeneity was high and ranged from 0. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0. Moreover, item means ranged from 0. We found the expected bimodal distribution of the TMF scores. With the exception of two outlier individuals, the overlap between men's and women's scores was very small see Figure. The lines in the bars represent medians and bars indicate the range between 75th and 25th percentile. Error bars show the range of masculinity-femininity... Taken together, confirming Hypothesis 1, we found that the TMF tapped a one-dimensional construct which is in line with lay ascriptions and previous findings regarding the items masculine and feminine. Its single items represented the overall scale very well and were strongly connected to each other. Hence, no item had to be excluded due to low item-specific homogeneity Bortz and Döring,. Moreover, confirming Hypothesis 2, the TMF was shown to discriminate between women and men at the scale and at the item level. Therefore, we kept all items in the TMF. Study 1 The aim of Study 1 was to test the one-dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the TMF. We used a known-groups approach, with lesbians, bisexual, and straight women, to assess which of several gender-related scales is best in differentiating between these groups. In addition to the TMF, we used the BSRI as the gold standard in gender-related assessment. However, we also used the Gender Role Behavior Scale GRB, Athenstaedt, and a newly created measure of childhood gender conformity see Appendix in Supplementary Material. Moreover, an Implicit Association Test IAT, Greenwald et al. We assumed that the TMF would reflect a one-dimensional masculinity-femininity construct Hypothesis 1. Bisexual women should score in between Hypothesis 3b. Additionally, on an IAT see below for details , we assumed straight women to associate more with feminine and less with masculine than lesbians Hypothesis 6. Gender-related measures should be correlated with each other Hypothesis 7 , and scores on each measure should predict sexual orientation. We also tested the incremental validity of the TMF over the other measures. The TMF should predict sexual orientation better than other gender-related scales Hypothesis 8. If women differ in masculinity-femininity based on their sexual orientation, indirect effects of the more specific masculinity-femininity related measures via the TMF on sexual orientation should be observed. Participants Participants were 126 women from Germany and Luxembourg who took part in the study, voluntarily without compensation. Participants were recruited either at the University of Trier or by a snowball technique. Given their scores on a Kinsey-like scale, they were divided into three groups of 47 straight women Kinsey scores: 6—7 , 32 bisexual women 3—5 , and 47 lesbians 1—2. Most of the women were well educated, with 50% possessing university entrance qualifications and 40% holding a university degree. Implicit association test In essence, IATs comprise two combined tasks in which stimuli that belong to four concepts are mapped onto two responses in different ways. IATs are based on the following idea: If someone is able to react relatively fast when two concepts share a response, these concepts appear to be associated for that person. In detail, stimuli were presented that represent the concepts self, others, feminine, and masculine. In one task, stimuli representing self or feminine required one response, and stimuli representing others or masculine required the other response e. In the other task, stimuli representing self or masculine required one response, and stimuli representing others or feminine required the other response. Participants were informed that concepts would be displayed throughout at the top left or right screen corner. Their task during the IAT would be to sort words belonging to these concepts by pressing the respective response key on the left or right as quickly as possible. A stimulus word would appear e. The word would then be replaced by the next stimulus e. Participants would again select the appropriate key e. Each crucial, combined task consisted of four blocks of 62 trials. The order of the eight stimuli was randomized within each block, and the same eight stimuli were presented over and over. The reaction-stimulus interval was 200 ms. Missing reactions and errors led to an appropriate visual feedback e. Participants received feedback on errors and reaction times after each block e. Please react more slowly and more correctly. The IAT effect was computed similar to the IAT D effect Nosek et al. In order to avoid artificially high scores obtained with very long scales, internal consistency was estimated based on the average reaction time difference in reaction to each of the eight stimuli. In other words, the IAT was treated as an eight item scale following Steffens and Buchner,. All internal consistencies are presented in Table. Bem sex-role inventory We translated the English short version of the BSRI Bem, into German. It consisted of 30 items, 10 for the Masculinity Scale e. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the given traits were adequate to describe them. Childhood gender role behavior CGRB Five items were used with a 7-point-scale in order to measure whether participants remembered to have been rather feminine during childhood, or rather typical girls, or not see Appendix in Supplementary Material. For example, we asked whether they had played with girls and girls' games, and whether they had liked wearing skirts and dresses. This was also the first item of a translated version of the Assessment of Sexual Orientation Scale Coleman,. Several additional items were originally used sexual behavior: gender of partner and ideal partner; sexual fantasies, and emotional bindings. To be consistent with Study 2, we used only the first item to group participants as lesbians scores 1—2 , bisexual women scores 3—5 , and heterosexual women scores: 6—7. Procedure Participating students were tested at the University of Trier in a lab cubicle equipped with an iMac. The participants recruited via the snowball technique were tested individually in their homes or offices as they wished using an iBook. The instructions, the implicit tests, and the questionnaires were presented by a self-composed HyperCard computer program. Initially, participants were asked to report their age, educational background, and size of hometown. Then, they started with the IAT. IAT task order was held constant because of the correlational nature of the study see e. After the IAT, the questionnaires were presented in the order described in the Materials Section—accordingly, data for the TMF was collected before all other scales. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked. One might suggest that all other scales in addition to the TMF used in the present research should also be submitted to factor analyses. However, commonalities of several of them were too low for conducting confirmatory factor analyses. Therefore, means of all established gender-related scales were computed according to the scales' theoretical basis as suggested by their authors. Factor analysis In order to check for one-dimensionality of the TMF, an exploratory PAF with oblique rotation oblimin: 0 was conducted for all 12 items. Sample adequacy was confirmed by a KMO criterion of 0. Several indicators are in line with the same one-factor solution as in the Pilot Study and in Study 2 below. According to a graphical scree-plot analysis, a one-factor solution was confirmed. There was a steep decline of explained variance from factor one 61% to factor two 12%. Moreover, the factor matrix showed a strong first factor suggesting all items to measure something similar. An alternative confirmatory factor analysis with one factor replicating the findings of the Pilot Study yielded an overall explained variance of 57. Taken together, a one-factor solution was indicated. Factor, pattern, and structure matrix for the exploratory factor analysis and factor loadings for the confirmatory factor analysis can be found in Table B1 in Appendix in Supplementary Material. Group differences Table shows overall scale means, average scores for each sexual-orientation group, and statistical tests. As expected, lesbians scored lower on TMF femininity and higher on TMF masculinity than bisexual or straight women. All differences between groups were statistically significant based on a Scheffé test , except that bisexual women did not score significantly higher than straight women on masculinity. On the BSRI, no significant differences between groups were obtained. In contrast, regarding gender-role behavior and childhood behavior, expected differences between lesbians and straight women were obtained. Similarly, the implicit association of self with feminine was stronger in straight women than lesbians, confirming expectations. Bivariate correlations Table shows bivariate correlations, along with internal consistencies. Internal consistencies of all measures were excellent, with the lowest score obtained for BSRI masculinity. A noteworthy correlation was a strong negative one between the TMF factors masculinity and femininity, suggesting that a one-dimensional measure could be sufficient. Hence, we recoded all masculine items and then averaged all items of the TMF to obtain a supplementary measure, TMF total. TMF masculinity and femininity correlated in the expected direction with all other measures except for BSRI masculinity. BSRI masculinity did not correlate significantly with any other measure, suggesting that it measured something different from all other measures of masculinity in the study. All other correlations were in the expected direction. Of particular interest, the implicit association of self-feminine correlated positively with TMF femininity and negatively with TMF masculinity, as expected. Similar, but somewhat weaker relations were obtained between the IAT and most other measures. Predicting sexual orientation In order to test whether lesbians, bisexual, and straight women would be classified correctly based on the different measures of masculinity-femininity, we carried out an ordinal regression analysis. As predictor variables, the masculinity and femininity scores of BSRI, GRB, and CGRB were entered. In addition, TMF total and the IAT effect were used as predictors. Thus, based on their self-assessment on the TMF as masculine-feminine and based on the masculine everyday behaviors participants said they carried out, they could be classified quite well as lesbians, bisexual, or straight women. Mediation analyses Based on the regression approach suggested by Hayes , we tested whether there are indirect effects of the BSRI and GRB dimensions on sexual orientation via the respective TMF dimensions. Because this approach needs a continuous dependent variable, in contrast to all other analyses in the present paper, we did not use the classification as lesbian, bisexual, or straight in this case, but the continuous Kinsey-like scale with scores ranging from 1 to 7. Figures , summarize the findings. Statistically significant effects of BSRI femininity and GRB femininity on TMF femininity were observed, and also of GRB masculinity and of BSRI masculinity by trend on TMF masculinity. TMF masculinity and femininity were related with sexual orientation in expected ways in line with the findings reported in Table. Bootstrapping analyses, using 10,000 Bootstrap re-samples, demonstrated that the indirect effects of BSRI femininity, GRB femininity, and BSRI femininity on sexual orientation via the TMF were statistically significant i. The indirect effect of BSRI masculinity via TMF masculinity missed the preset criterion of statistical significance. Only one direct effect was significant in addition to the indirect effect: Whereas all other findings were in line with the interpretation of full mediation via the TMF, masculine everyday behavior was still related to sexual orientation when the TMF was included in the equation. This suggests that the TMF mediated the relationship between sexual orientation and masculine behavior only partially. Summary of findings In Study 1, we found that the reliabilities of both the femininity and the masculinity subscales of the TMF were high. Moreover, they correlated so strongly in a negative way that one may also conceive of the scale as one-dimensional, ranging from masculinity to femininity. We found several pieces of evidence for the validity of the scale. First, it correlated in the expected directions with all other measures of masculinity and femininity that we used, except for BSRI masculinity, which largely confirms Hypothesis 7. Feminine traits as well as masculine and feminine behaviors can be predicted quite well from scores on the TMF. The strongest correlations were obtained with self-rated childhood gender conformity. Notably, confirming Hypothesis 6, correlations with an implicit measure of one's self-feminine vs. Additionally, the TMF was related to participants' sexual orientation more strongly than any other measure see ANOVA results in Table , with lesbians reporting lower femininity and higher masculinity than bisexual or straight women confirming Hypothesis 3a and b. When predicting participants' sexual orientation from the masculinity and femininity measures, neither feminine, nor masculine traits, nor feminine everyday behavior, nor the self-feminine association contributed. Instead, confirming Hypothesis 8, masculine everyday behavior and the TMF were able to predict participants' sexual orientation very well, attesting to the usefulness of two rather new conceptualizations of measuring masculinity and femininity. Mediation analyses were in line with the idea that feminine traits and feminine everyday behavior differ by sexual orientation because of a globally more feminine gender-role self-concept. This confirms Hypothesis 5. Masculine traits also tend to differ by sexual orientation because of lesbians' globally more masculine gender-role self-concept. Further, masculine everyday behavior also differs by sexual orientation because of lesbians' globally more masculine gender-role self-concept, but a direct effect of masculine behavior on sexual orientation remained. A speculative explanation for the latter finding is that it may depend partly on the gender of one's relationship partner which behaviors one carries out. For example, given that couples typically divide housework in ways mirroring traditional gender roles e. In other words, in addition to personal preferences, the presence or absence of other-gender people in the household who choose to take care of certain chores may determine which chores one does i. Study 2 The aim of Study 2 was to replicate and extend Study 1's findings. We used data of a research project on social perception. As in Study 1, we used a known-groups approach, this time contrasting lesbians, gay men, and straight women and men. With the exception of small adjustments, gender-related scales were identical to Study 1. However, this time we used a different adjective-based instrument than the BSRI, namely the GEPAQ, the German version Runge et al. For determining criterion validity, we also focused on other features. In order to determine the TMF's test-retest reliability, we re-invited male participants after 1 year for female participants no contact data were available. We expected gender-related characteristics to correlate moderately with the TMF Hypothesis 7 and we assumed the TMF to predict sexual orientation better than the other gender-related scales Hypothesis 8. Furthermore, we assumed that participants with higher gender-conform scores on the TMF would report less contact with lesbians and gay men Hypothesis 10 , would show rather gender stereotypical voice pitch characteristics Hypothesis 11 , and would be more likely to be rated as straight Hypothesis 9. A moderate 1-year reliability was expected Hypothesis 12 as well as a moderate predictive validity for the second measurement of gender-related features Hypothesis 13. Participants Overall 111 German participants attended the study at the first measurement point. Based on their Kinsey-like scale scores, 15 participants who rated themselves as bisexual were excluded from further analyses because of the small group size. Among the remaining 96 participants, there were 24 lesbians Kinsey scores: 1—2 , 21 straight women 6—7 , 25 gay men 1—2 , and 26 straight men 6—7. Most participants were well educated, 60% possessing a university entrance qualification and 35% a university degree. A total of 37 men attended the post-test. According to their Kinsey-like scale scores 18 identified as gay 1—2 and 19 as straight 6—7. Between those attending the post-test and those who did not, merely one difference was significant after adjusting the significance level for multiple tests. Materials The same measures as in Study 1 were used in the following manner. Thus, the 6-item-version of the TMF was used. High values on CGRB indicated a high degree of gender conformity. Moreover, we included the following measures. German extended personal attributes questionnaire We used the German version Runge et al. It consists of two independent scales measuring gender-related personality traits. The instrumentality scale GEPAQ-M contained eight items describing behaviors more socially desirable for men e. Voice pitch characteristics To describe participants' voice pitch i. Mean fundamental frequency f0 indicates the average voice pitch, f0 standard deviation is a measure for voice pitch variability, and f0 range is used to evaluate voice pitch range. For computing f0 range, we computed the difference between the f0 97. Hence, higher scores indicate higher perceived straightness. Procedure At first measurement, participants filled out an online questionnaire in which all psychological and sociodemographic characteristics were collected. In the second step, they were invited to a speech lab to provide recordings of spontaneous spoken speech and text reading as well as a photograph of their face. The sampling of women took place in a phonetic laboratory in the Center of General Linguistics in Berlin and was done by a female investigator, whereas the sampling of men took place at a phonetic laboratory of the University of Jena and was done by a male investigator. Voice pitch characteristics were measured on the basis of spontaneous speech. In the last step we asked 101 judges to rate speech recordings, facial photographs, and the combination of both dichotomously regarding sexual orientation for a randomly selected subset of 18 lesbians, gay men, straight women, and men, respectively Kachel et al. Male participants were re-invited after 1 year to the phonetic laboratory of the University of Jena. Before speech recordings they were asked to fill out an online questionnaire containing several gender-related scales including the 6-items version of the TMF, the GEPAQ-M, and the GEPAQ-F. Factor analysis In order to test whether the TMF scale is one-dimensional, an explorative factor analysis with PAF was conducted. It replicated all findings of the pilot study. In detail, a KMO criterion of 0. According to a graphical scree-plot analysis, a one-factor solution was confirmed. There was a steep decline of explained variance from factor one 71% to factor two 13%. An additional exploratory factor analysis with PAF of participants at second measurement replicated the findings indicating a one-dimensional factor structure. In detail, a KMO criterion of 0. The one-factor solution was confirmed by graphical scree-plot analysis. There was a steep decline of explained variance from factor one 60% to factor two 14%. Differences on gender-related scales based on gender and sexual orientation Which of the gender-related instruments are able to predict a person's gender and sexual orientation? In order to answer this question, for all gender-related instruments separate 2 × 2 ANOVAs with the two between-subject factors gender and sexual orientation were computed. Simple-effects tests with Bonferroni adjustment were added. Table shows main and interaction effects as well as mean scores for all gender-related instruments separately for lesbians, straight women, gay, and straight men. Group-Specific Means with SD on Gender-Related Scales and ANOVA Results regarding Sexual Orientation and Gender in Study 2 at First Measurement. Additionally, the TMF was best in predicting gender on the basis of scale scores as can be seen in Table in which results of binary logistic regression models for all gender-related scales are shown. Correct gender classification rate for the TMF was 80%. Almost identical percentages of women and men were correctly classified. Compared to all other measures under investigation, the TMF seemed to be the most precise instrument to differentiate between women and men regardless of their sexual orientation. Group differences in women's sample Regarding TMF, group differences in women's sample were already mentioned above. As in Study 1, straight women described themselves as more feminine compared to lesbians on the GRB-F. However, in contrast to Study 1, other gender-related scales GRB-M and CGRB were not able to differentiate women regarding their sexual orientation see Table. Means were particularly close together for adjective-based gender-related instruments such as the GEPAQ. Bivariate correlations Reliabilities and correlations on all gender-related instruments can be seen in Table. Three out of five correlations with the TMF were significant. Besides the GRB-F there was also a correlation with gender-conforming childhood-experiences CGRB and with the exchanged adjective-based masculinity-scale GEPAQ-M. The correlations for the first two instruments were in the expected direction: The more feminine the women rated themselves on the TMF, the higher their scores on behavior-based femininity GRB-F and childhood gender-conformity CGRB. However, the TMF correlated positively with the GEPAQ-M, which is counterintuitive. We believe that this attests to deficiencies in the GEPAQ-M, along with its low reliability. Moreover, after adjusting the significance level according to the Bonferroni formula, the correlation was not significant anymore. Predicting sexual orientation Can the TMF predict women's sexual orientation better than other measures? We added the TMF in the last step of a binary regression model. Results can be seen in Table. In contrast to Study 1, the TMF did not outperform all other measures. Only the GRB-F was found to predict women's sexual orientation. Group differences As indicated in Table , all differences in the male subsample were in the expected directions. Predicting sexual orientation As for the female subsample, the TMF did not predict sexual orientation better than other measures when it was added in the last step of a binary regression model see Table. CGRB and GRB-M were the measures most closely related to sexual orientation. This could be interpreted as suggesting that TMF does not contribute at all to explaining sexual orientation. Moreover, one could be interested in the direct comparison of TMF and GEPAQ in explaining sexual orientation. To answer these questions, in a supplementary binary regression model, only adjective-based scales were included as predictors. Taken together, CGRB and GRB-M predicted sexual orientation best, and TMF predicted sexual orientation better than GEPAQ. Relations with criterion characteristics We collected data on several psychological and acoustic criterion characteristics. We computed bivariate correlation coefficients for the TMF with these characteristics in order to test the criterion validity of TMF separately for women see Table and men see Table. Additionally, correlations for all other gender-related scales included in Study 2 were computed as a comparison. Bivariate correlations of gender-related instruments and criterion characteristics for men in study 2. All correlations were in the expected direction: The higher women spoke on average and the higher their voice pitch range and variability, the more likely they rated themselves as feminine. The TMF showed 9 out of 16 possible significant correlations which is more than any other gender-related scale. CGRB followed with 6 out of 16 possible significant correlations. Hence, the TMF showed higher convergent validity than the other gender-related scales. Test-retest reliability and predictive validity Table contains findings regarding test-retest reliability and predictive validity. According to the intercorrelation of TMF scores at first and second measurement, 1-year reliability for the TMF was 0. Hypothesis 12 was confirmed. Reliabilities and correlations for gender-related measures between first columns and second rows Measurement in Study 3. In order to test its predictive value, the TMF at the first measurement was correlated with GEPAQ-M and GEPAQ-F at the second measurement. As can be seen in Table , both correlations were significant, of moderate size, and in the expected directions, confirming Hypothesis 13. Summary of findings In Study 2, we found that all TMF items loaded strongly on one single factor at first and second measurement, replicating the pilot study and confirming Hypothesis 1 again. The TMF showed sufficient reliabilities for women and men. Confirming Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, the TMF turned out to be the best gender-related instrument for differentiating straight and gay men at first and second measurement and lesbians and straight women compared to all other scales used in Study 2 see Table. The evidence for high incremental validity in predicting women's sexual orientation from Study 1 could not be replicated nor extended to men. Whereas, lesbians and straight women differed descriptively, but not significantly in GRB-M see Table , in the logistic regression analysis see Table , GRB-M predicted women's sexual orientation in a significant way in Step 2, along with GRB-F. We assume that the inclusion of GRB-F in the regression model reduced apparent error variance and thus changed the relation between GRB-M and sexual orientation from descriptive to statistically significant. However, as GRB-M was again non-significant in Step 3 of the regression model, we suggest that masculine everyday behavior was not strongly related to sexual orientation in our women's sample. However, when including adjective-based instruments only, TMF predicted sexual orientation in women and men better than established adjective -based instruments. Partially confirming Hypothesis 7, the TMF showed moderate correlations with some other gender-related scales. Importantly, the TMF was connected to multiple criterion characteristics for women e. The TMF revealed moderate test-retest-reliability and predictive validity confirming Hypotheses 12 and 13. Scores on the first TMF measurement predicted scores on GEPAQ-M and GEPAQ-F at second measurement. General discussion Gender research has developed many instruments to measure different aspects of self-ascriptions of gender stereotypical features, including attributes, behaviors, interests, and attitudes Beere,. The TMF was shown to reliably measure an underlying, one-dimensional construct, and it was found to be a valid instrument for assessing masculinity-femininity because it a successfully differentiated between groups that were expected to differ women vs. Whereas, some well-established, adjective-based scales e. Dimensionality of the TMF In line with Choi and Fuqua , high correlations between the separate TMF femininity and masculinity scales as shown in Study 1 suggest a bipolar, one-dimensional use of this instrument reflecting laypersons' ideas of masculinity and femininity as two extremes of one continuum. This is also in line with findings reported by Spence and Bruckner 2000, see also Sánchez and Vilain,. All items were shown to load on one factor and represent a one-dimensional construct masculinity-femininity. Moreover, in spite of its brevity, the TMF showed high internal consistencies across all studies as well as satisfactory test-retest reliability in a sample of men. However, the one-dimensionality of the TMF was demonstrated with participants identifying themselves as women or men. Possibly, the two-dimensional TMF version is superior than the one-dimensional version for samples that comprise a larger number of participants transgressing or rejecting the binary gender system e. Future research is needed to clarify that question. One could object against using the bipolar TMF scale that its midpoint is ambiguous. One could imagine that people scoring either high or low on both dimensions would erroneously be treated as one group. Contextualizing validity findings In terms of validity, using a known-groups approach as an established psychological method for validity tests e. With reference to sexual orientation, straight and bisexual women rated themselves higher on femininity and lower on masculinity than lesbians did Study 1. According to implicit gender inversion theory, gay men should have scored higher than lesbians on femininity and lower on masculinity, which was not the case in our sample. It appears that gay men and lesbians rather self-stereotype as men and women, respectively, and thus construct their self-concept in line with their gender group. Based on these findings, we conclude that the TMF's ability for determining gender and sexual orientation was generally high, and higher than that of all other gender-related measures investigated in the present studies. Hence, the TMF was shown to be a valid scale for assessing gender-role self-concept. It was expected that the TMF would correlate moderately with other gender-related scales. That was the case for all gender-related scales in Study 1 where only a female sample was tested. Only correlations with the Childhood Gender-Behavior Scale were high, which could be due to selective memory recall and hence reflect current gender-related self-assessment see Bailey and Zucker, measured with the TMF. Correlations between the TMF and gender-related scales were smaller for a second sample of women Study 2 which could be due to differences in sampling and substitutions of scales e. Connected to that, the incremental validity of the TMF for predicting women's sexual orientation was demonstrated in Study 1 only. However, the male sample in Study 2 showed overall moderate correlations of the TMF and gender-related scales, but no additional ability of the TMF to predict sexual orientation. The fact that the TMF did not always demonstrate additional predictive value for explaining differences between groups does not indicate that it is superfluous. And the TMF predicted sexual orientation still better than established adjective-based instruments in women and men in Study 2 which was demonstrated after excluding the most predictive scales. To deal with a common critique that self-report instruments measure differences in social desirability rather than true differences, we used an implicit measure of women's self-feminine vs. Study 1 showed that the correlations of these associations were higher for the TMF than for self-ratings of traits or behaviors. It is also a substantive finding of the present studies that goes beyond mere scale validation. Correlation analyses showed that gender-conformity on the TMF was significantly linked to perceived straightness for almost each presentation mode voice, face, and the combination of both for men and women. Moreover, higher femininity in women was associated with higher voice pitch features average, variability, and range and higher masculinity in men was connected to less contact to gay men. Compared to other gender-related scales, the TMF was superior in convergent validity. In sum, this indicates that the TMF measures something fundamental regarding gender-related self-assessment. It is also another substantive finding of the present studies that goes beyond mere scale validation. A limitation is that patterns of findings partially differed between women and men, and which specific criteria mattered in which sub-sample appeared a bit arbitrary e. However, in every case determining and predicting gender and sexual orientation, convergent, and criterion validity , as a rule the TMF was better than the one-item-measure e. This is in line with state-of-the-art conceptions in psychological assessment that consider every item in a scale to be a piece of puzzle and hence uncover a different detail of a somewhat bigger picture Bühner,. The TMF is designed as a self-assessment instrument for masculinity-femininity on a rather global level with regard to two different respects. First, the TMF is based on a trait rather than a normative approach see Thompson and Bennet, and conceptualizes masculinity-femininity as a long-term characteristic varying between people. However, it does not exclude variation on masculinity-femininity within a person depending on different social, temporal, or regional contexts. Its focus is on a trait-like global average score across contexts. Second, it is more global because it focuses on a higher-order masculinity-femininity construct which is beyond specific components such as traits, interests, physical characteristics, or attitudes, and asks for an aggregated self-assessment across these domains. The high test-retest reliability obtained over a 1-year period indicated stability rather than variance. However, it would be interesting to know which components mainly account for an individual's judgment of their own gender-related identity. The TMF could be a valuable instrument for future research dealing with that question. However, the TMF does not measure if participants' conceptions of gender-role identity aspects correspond to traditional views. However, large differences are not likely because people within one culture know about traditional gender roles. Hence, it seems plausible that the problem of item aging is mitigated for the near future because of the more global wordings. Additionally, we are positive that the TMF can be used in different countries and cultures because of its global level of measurement. To date, the TMF has only been applied to one other German sample by Roth and Mazziotta. They found that the TMF was moderately connected to different aspects of social identification with one's own gender in the expected directions for men and women. According to Leach et al. The TMF was shown to be linked to almost all of its different components individual self-stereotyping, in-group homogeneity, satisfaction, solidarity, and centrality for women and men except for in-group homogeneity for men. Future research should provide evidence for the applicability in non-German samples. Concluding remarks In a nutshell, as long as societies assume differences in interests, attitudes, clothing style, and behavior between women and men, we suggest that the TMF provides a valuable addition to researchers' toolbox. For example, are self-ratings on the TMF related to biological markers of masculinity-femininity such as waist-to-hip ratio and finger length i. Do self-ratings on the TMF predict behaviors in which large gender differences have been observed, such as socio-sexuality or animal cruelty? Are self-ratings on the TMF related to performance in domains where gender differences are reliable, such as mental rotation? Finally, are self-ratings on the TMF related to personality traits in which gender differences have been observed, such as self-esteem and social dominance orientation? Generally, we believe that many different research questions related to gender-related self-assessments could benefit from using the TMF. Author contributions Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work and the acquisition and analysis of the data: SK, MS; interpretation of data for the work: SK, MS, CN. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: SK, MS, CN. Final approval of the version to be published: SK, MS, CN. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: SK, MS. We thank Kornelia Schertzl, Karoline Nestler, Dirk Hertrampf, Felicia Schuld, and Alexander Makosch for help with data collection, Susanne Fuchs, Stefanie Jannedy, and Joerg Dreyer for providing laboratories in the Zentrum fuer Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, and Anders Sonderlund for language editing. Additionally, we thank Julia Scholz and the reviewers for critical and valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. The TMF was originally developed by MS and Kornelia Schertzl. Abbreviations BSRI Bem Sex Role Inventory BSRI-F Bem Sex Role Inventory-femininity scale BSRI-M Bem Sex Role Inventory-masculinity scale CGRB Childhood Gender Role Behavior f0 fundamental frequency GEPAQ German Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire GEPAQ-F German Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire-femininity scale GEPAQ-M German Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire-masculinity scale GRB Gender Role Behavior GRB-F Gender Role Behavior-femininity scale GRB-M Gender Role Behavior-masculinity scale IAT Implicit Association Test PAQ Personal Attributes Questionnaire TMF Traditional Masculinity-Femininity TMF-F Traditional Masculinity-Femininity-femininity scale TMF-M Traditional Masculinity-Femininity-masculinity scale. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. A dual impact model of gender and career related processes, in The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, eds Eckes T. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; , 361—388. Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Gender relations and identity at work: a case study gender relations and identity at work: a case study of masculinities and femininities in an advertising agency. Zeitschrift Differentielle Diagnostische Psychologie 21, 91—104. On the content and structure of the gender role self-concept: including gender-stereotypical behaviors in addition to traits. Pitch characteristics of homosexual males. Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation. Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Gender Roles: A Handbook of Tests and Measures. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Theory and measurement of androgynity: a reply to the pedhazur-tetenbaum and locksley-colten critiques. Gay stereotypes: the use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles 61, 783—793. Heidelberg: Springer; Medizin Verlag. Japanese Lesbian Speech: Sexuality, Gender Identity, and Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona. The structure of the bem sex role inventory: a summary report of 23 validation studies. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press. Assessment of sexual orientation. Masculinity-femininity: an exception to a famous dictum? The second shift reflected in the second generation: Do parents' gender roles at home predict children's aspirations? From individual differences to social categories: analysis of a decade's research on gender. Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future. Warm, but maybe not so competent? Sex Roles 70, 359—375. Why do highly qualified women still earn less? Gender differences in long-term predictors of career success. A model of often mixed stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology. Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex-role identity, in Review of Child Development Research, eds Hoffman M. New York, NY: Russell Sage; , 17—43. Gender belief systems: homosexuality and the implicit inversion. Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical multicomponent model of in-group identification. Sexual orientation and personality. The relation between childhood gender nonconformity and adult masculinity—femininity and anxiety in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Sex Roles 59, 684—693. What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength. Sex Roles 37, 663—685. Loose lips and silver tongues, or, projecting sexual orientation through speech. Ironic effects of sexual minority group membership: Are lesbians less susceptible to invoking negative female stereotypes than heterosexual women? Understanding and using the implicit association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. The influence of sexual orientation on vowel production. Adaptation and validation of a German multidimensional and multicomponent measure of social identification. Masculine instrumental and feminine expressive traits: a comparison between students in the United States and West Germany. Tomboyism, sexual orientation, and adult gender roles among Israeli women. Sex Roles 48, 401—410. Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles 51, 631—645. Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Thrity years after the discovery of gender: psychological concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles 50, 15—26. Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Masculinity and femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlations, and Antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Implicit association test: Separating transsituationally stable and variable components of attitudes toward gay men. On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Avoiding stimulus confounds in Implicit Association Tests by using the concepts as stimuli. Predicting spontaneous Big Five behavior with Implicit Association Tests. Gender at Work: A Social-Psychological Perspective. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Attitudes toward gays and lesbians among undergraduate social work students. Zeitschrift Differentielle Diagnostische Psychologie 25, 165—176. Measurement of masculinity ideologies: a Critical review. Men Masculinity 16, 115—133. Judgments of sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity based on thin slices of behavior: A cross-cultural comparison. Cross-cultural similarities and differences in dynamic stereotypes: A comparison between Germany and the United States. I consider myself as … 0. Ideally, I would like to be… 0. Traditionally, my interests would be considered as… 0. Traditionally, my attitudes and beliefs would be considered as… 0. Traditionally, my behavior would be considered as… 0. Traditionally, my outer appearance would be considered as… 0. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. The lines in the bars represent medians and bars indicate the range between 75th and 25th percentile. Error bars show the range of masculinity-femininity scores for non-outliers. Dots represent outlying values 1. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales and higher femininity on femininity scales. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales and higher femininity on femininity scales. Abbreviations of groups: L, Lesbians; B, bisexual women; and S, straight women. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB. According to a Levene test, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated for GRB-F and CGRB. Superscripted letters in mean columns refer to groups based on simple-effect findings. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Percentage of correct classifications B SE χ 1 2 p Overall Men Women TMF 80. Internal consistencies are depicted in the diagonal with the values before the slash referring to women and after the slash referring to men. Abbreviations: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB. R 2 means Nagelkerke's R 2. Percentage values refer to correctly classified lesbian and straight women. TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB. R 2 means Nagelkerke's R 2. Percentage values refer to correctly classified gay and straight men. TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB. Abbreviations for column headings: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. For gender-related instruments higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB. Abbreviations for column headings: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. For gender-related instruments higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB. Internal consistencies for second measurement are presented in the first column. Test-retest reliabilities are presented on the diagonal. Abbreviations: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales and higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF.

Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB. This was also the first item of a translated version of the Assessment of Traditional masculine qualities Orientation Scale Coleman. Solo I was younger I was almost consumed by anger. The factors that determine our assigned sex begin as early as fertilization. Retrieved 6 March 2015. When we talk about finding new heroes and new models of masculinity, we have to talk about dismantling these systems of domination. Caballeros for column headings: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Retrieved November 13, 2011. Thus, engaging in discussion about gender equality is often a pointless experience for men who find it challenging to appreciate how entrenched the issue is in responsible. Her purity was supposed to be her chief beauty--her blushes, her great grace. We traditional masculine qualities a new and brief scale, the Traditional Masculinity-Femininity TMF scale, designed to assess central facets of self-ascribed masculinity-femininity. Whether we are talking about masculinity or femininity, there is nothing inherently good or bad, responsible or worse about either expression of gender.