masculine vs feminine culture essay

Masculinity vs Femininity: Similarities and Differences

The distinction between masculinity and femininity primarily concerns societal expectations, behaviors, and social roles typically associated with males and females.

The differences relate to social and cultural understandings about the social behaviors and roles of these two genders, whereas the categories of ‘male’ and ‘female’ relate to biological understandings of biological sexes .

For a brief introduction, these are the two binary gender identities:

• Femininity typically embodies traits related to nurturing, emotional expression, and collaboration (Basow, 1992). Women, for example, are often expected to show more emotion, communicate effectively and non-aggressively, and prioritize nurturing relationships over assertive behavior . Think about a typical film character who is nurturing her children (e.g., Mrs. Doubtfire’s character), or a woman leading a team through conflict resolution rather than dominance.
• Masculinity tends to align with traits such as assertiveness, independence, and dominance (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). Men are often encouraged to suppress emotion, strive for independence and display assertiveness or even aggressiveness. A real-world example might be a Hollywood action hero, physically strong and emotionally guarded (e.g., James Bond).

As these descriptors are cultural descriptions of expected behaviors, they are not strictly connected to the genders. For example, many women can, and do, exhibit masculine traits to a greater or lesser extent. As such, these traits are seen as socially constructed , and extensive research underscores the spectrum of masculine and feminine behaviors rather than rigidly dichotomous categories.

Masculinity vs Femininity

Masculinity.

Masculinity refers to the qualities, characteristics or roles conventionally associated with men (Kimmel & Aronson, 2011).

Traditionally, many societies value traits such as strength, aggression, and independence in men. These are often internalized by children through media and parental expectations in a process called gender socialization .

Masculinity is not limited to men, as women can, and often do, exhibit masculine traits.

Gender theorists have also explored the concept of “ hegemonic masculinity ” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015), which refers to a particular configuration of practice that legitimizes men’s dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of women, and other marginalized ways of being male.

An instance demonstrating this can be seen in most superhero movies like “Superman” where the male lead character is depicted as physically dominant, emotionally detached and rescues those in trouble.

See also: Toxic Masculinity Definition and Examples

However, it is vital not to oversimplify or stereotype these traits.

Modern perspectives of masculinity emphasize plurality, intersectionality and fluid dynamics (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Plurality suggests that there are many ways to express masculinity, not just a rigid stereotype.

For example, consider the trend of stay-at-home dads, which reflects a valid expression of masculinity contrary to the societal norm. Intersectionality discusses how different factors such as race, class, age or sexual orientation interact with masculinity, which results in varied experiences of it.

The fluid nature of masculinity underscores that it can change within an individual over time due to numerous factors including personal growth or cultural shifts.

Masculinity Examples

The following are traits traditionally associated with hegemonic masculinity. Please note that these are generalized, traditional, and often outdated stereotypes, and do not necessarily apply to every individual.

• Physical Strength: Men are often judged by their physical capabilities, such as their strength, endurance, and athletic prowess (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). An example would be professional athletes like Usain Bolt who are renowned for their physical abilities.
• Emotional Control: Men are typically encouraged to suppress their emotions as a sign of strength (Kimmel & Aronson, 2011). Consider the phrase “real men don’t cry,” which discourages emotional vulnerability .
• Sexual Prowess: Successfully attracting sexual partners can be seen as a measure of masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). For example, fictional characters like James Bond are portrayed as overwhelmingly attractive to women.
• Competitiveness: Often, masculinity is associated with the need to compete and win (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Corporate leaders like Elon Musk and his competition with other billionaires in the space industry exemplify this.
• Dominance: Exerting control in social situations is often seen as a masculine trait (Kimmel & Aronson, 2011). This can be seen in team leaders, such as football captains, who direct and guide their team.
• Stoicism: Preserving composure in the face of adversity is considered a masculine virtue (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). For example, firefighters remaining calm in dangerous situations.
• Financial Independence: Masculinity is often associated with earning power and economic independence (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Successful businessmen like Warren Buffett exemplify this trait.
• Authority: Men who wield authority, either at home or at work, are often seen as embodying masculinity (Kimmel & Aronson, 2011). Historic world leaders, such as Winston Churchill, can serve as examples.
• Autonomy : Emphasizing self-reliance and independence is a commonly upheld masculine trait (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). Backpackers traveling alone through challenging terrains embody this characteristic.
• Risk-Taking: Men are often expected to be adventurous and willing to confront danger (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). This trait can be seen in adrenaline pursuits such as skydiving or bungee jumping.

See More Masculinity Examples Here

Femininity, fundamentally, characterizes traits, roles, and behaviors typically associated with women in a given society (Brown & Gilligan, 2013).

Traits associated with femininity often include nurturing, empathy, sensitivity, and non-aggressive communication.

As with masculinity, the construct of femininity extends beyond women, as men can, and often do, embody these traits.

Examining femininity critically, it is often linked to the private sphere and associated with the nurturing and caring roles (Lemon, 2016).

These expectations are often structured around homemaking, child-rearing, and other forms of emotional labor.

An example of this expectation might be a character like Marmee March in “Little Women,” who embodies the loving, nurturing, and domestic qualities associated with traditional ideas of femininity.

Contrary to past stereotypical portrayals, modern understandings of femininity acknowledge its complex and diverse nature (Brown & Gilligan, 2013). Femininity is not monolithic; instead, it intersects with other identity aspects such as race, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation, leading to varying expressions and experiences.

A contemporary portrayal of femininity may include a Fortune 500 CEO who leads with compassion and empathy, effectively blending traits typically associated with both femininity and masculinity.

This underscores the emergence of a more fluid understanding of femininity that resists binary categorizations.

Femininity Examples

The following are traits traditionally associated with femininity. Please note that these are generalized, traditional, and often outdated stereotypes, and do not necessarily apply to every individual:

• Emotional Openness: Women are typically expected to be more open with their emotions (Brown & Gilligan, 2013). A well-known movie character who embodies this would be Julia Roberts’ character in ‘Steel Magnolias’, who readily shares her feelings with those around her.
• Nurturing Behavior: Femininity is often associated with nurturing and caring for others (Lemon, 2016). An example can be seen in the role of Florence Nightingale, historically known for her caring nature and dedication to nursing.
• Empathy: Empathy, or the understanding and sharing of others’ feelings, is traditionally seen as a feminine trait. A famous example could be Mother Teresa and her profound empathy for the less fortunate.
• Verbal Communication: Women are often associated with verbal skills and are often expected to be conversationally engaging (Brown & Gilligan, 2013). Oprah Winfrey, a noted television host and interviewer, is an example who uses these skills masterfully.
• Cooperation: Societal expectations often associate femininity with cooperative and collaborative work . An example could be seen in team projects in any professional setting where female team members work constructively to reach a common goal.
• Modesty: Cultural norms often link modesty, or humility, with femininity. For instance, Aung San Suu Kyi is often praised for her modest approach in leading her political movement.
• Concern for Appearance: Attention to personal grooming and appearance is often associated with femininity. One real-world example is the flourishing beauty and fashion industry largely catering to women.
• Flexibility: Adaptability and flexibility, especially emotional, are commonly viewed as feminine traits (Lemon, 2016). An example is evident in many working mothers who juggle multiplicity of roles and adapt to changing circumstances.
• Patience: Historically, patience has often been hailed as a feminine virtue. An example could be a teacher like Maria Montessori, who demonstrated patience in her innovative approach to education.
• Gracefulness: Gracefulness, such as in movement, manners, or style, is often ascribed to femininity. Many female dancers, like Misty Copeland, embody this trait through their performances.

See More Femininity Examples Here

Table of Differences Between Femininity and Masculinity

This table reflects traditional views on masculinity and femininity. It is important to understand that individuals may identify with traits from both columns or none at all, and that’s perfectly okay.

It’s also crucial to recognize that societal views on gender are changing, with many societies moving towards more fluid understandings of gender roles and characteristics.

Cultural Variations in Masculine and Feminine Stereotypes

Cultural differences in gender norms play a significant role in shaping perceptions of masculinity and femininity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). In fact, some cultures even have multiple different types of genders .

Essentially, what is considered masculine or feminine can vary greatly from one culture to another. Such cultural ideals are deeply embedded and shape individual behavior, identities, and societal norms at large.

In some societies, the concept of masculinity is strictly tied to physical strength, stoicism, and economic prowess (Maass et al., 2016). For instance, in many traditional societies, manual labor and physical strength define a man’s masculinity.

On the contrary, in other societies, mental strength, emotional intelligence, and the ability to provide for the family define masculinity. An example might be the difference in expression of masculinity between the Maasai warriors of Kenya, whose rites of passage include lion hunting, and men in Scandinavian cultures, where gender equality and shared household work is emphasized.

Femininity, as well, can exhibit significant cultural variation.

In some cultures, femininity is tied to domesticity, gentleness, and passivity (Maass et al., 2016). For instance, in many fundamentalist and deeply conservative societies, women’s roles are traditionally restricted to the private sphere: homemaking, child-rearing, etc.

However, in other cultures, femininity can also be associated with strength, leadership, and independence. The Mosuo culture in China, for instance, is a matrilineal society where women are heads of households, and their economic and social status are more prominent, challenging traditional notions of femininity.

See Also: 10 Types of Masculinity

Masculinity and femininity are fluid constructs, molded by cultural norms, values, and historical contexts . Therefore, they are subject to continuous change and redefinition.

Basow, S. A. (1992). Gender: Stereotypes and roles . Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Exploring masculinities: Identity, inequality, continuity, and change . Oxford University Press.

Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (2013). Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s Psychology and Girls’ Development . Harvard University Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.151.2.281

Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19 (6), 829-859. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

Kimmel, M., & Aronson, A. (2011). The gendered society . Oxford University Press.

Lemon, R. (2016). “Femininity” as a Barrier to Positive Sexual Health for Adolescent Girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59 (2), 154-159.

Maass, V. S., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2016). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75 (5), 1245–1261. Doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853

O’Neil, M. (2013). Men’s and Women’s Gender Role Journeys: Metaphor for Healing, Transition, and Transformation. Springer Publishing Company.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Masculinity and Femininity Essay

Introduction.

Masculinity and femininity is always influenced by geographical, cultural, and historical location. Currently, the combined influence of gay movements and feminism has blown up the conception of a standardized definition of masculinity and femininity.

Therefore, it is becoming increasingly fashionable to adopt the term masculinity or femininity not only to reflect the modern times, but also to depict the cultural construction and manifestation of masculinity and femininity to closer and more accurate scrutiny (Beynon, 2002, p. 1). In this regard, social, behavioral, and cultural scientists are specifically concerned with various ways in which gender acquires different meanings and contexts.

pecifically, gender is more associated with definitions attached to notions within the cultural and historical framework. According to Andersen and Taylor (2010), gender roles are closely associated with masculinity and femininity in different cultures. In western industrialized societies, people intend to believe that these masculinity and femininity should be absolutely juxtaposed as two opposite sexes due to the social functions they perform. This is why the era of capitalism is highly distinguished among other historical periods.

Cultural Variations of Masculinity and Femininity in the Era of Industrialization

Given that maleness has a biological orientation, then masculinity must have a cultural one. According to Beynon (2002), masculinity “can never float free of culture” (p. 2). Culture shapes and expresses masculinity differently at different points in time in different situations and different areas by groups and individual.

For instance, Hispanic professional males depict a somewhat higher robustness rating than other categories (Long and Martinez, 1997). In Hispanic cultural societies, traditional masculinity is associated with power status. Hispanic professional men (and women) fight the challenges of attempting to balance the popular cultural values in the United States with their ethnic identity and ethnic values.

Traditional masculinity has an appreciable influence on Hispanic men’s perception of self. Thus, social counselors must consider the cultural values and ethnic identity when handling a social issue involving the Hispanics. In addition, Beynon (2002, p. 2), argues that, masculinity in the first place exists merely as fantasy about what men ought to be, a blurry construction to assist individuals structure and make sense of their lives.

Much research has been done on discussing gender differences from a cross-cultural perspective. To enlarge on this point, Costa et al. (2001) have found out that there are significant gender variations that were observed across cultures. Specifically, the researchers have defined that gender difference were the most communicated ones in American and European cultures where traditional gender roles are diminished.

Such a behavior is explained by the fact that gender aspects are more perceived as roles people perform, but not as cultural traits. Regarding the identified period, the industrialized society is more on presenting direct associations with their social roles where males and females distinction come to the forth and are recognized as norms for behavior.

Full opposition for two-gender dimension has also been supported by Gaudreau (1977) whose research proves that the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are perceived as independent traits, but not as bipolar dimension.

In general, cross-cultural research on masculinity and femininity indicates that all cultures assign different roles to men and women. However, characteristics that are associated with each indicate some cultural diversity. Due to the fact that gender variations have been perceived as cultural determinants influencing the formation of societies, it has significant social meaning.

Historical Patterns of Masculinity and Femininity during Capitalist Period

Historical variations of gender distinctions are also heavily discussed by researchers in terms of social and dimensions. Furthermore, the studies have also underscored such aspects as domesticity and public movements related to masculinity-femininity aspects. Therefore, these differences and variations play a significant role in forming various social dimensions and evaluating social situation.

The observations made by Sethi (1984) has shown that industrialization have displayed tangible chances to the concepts of gender influencing such aspects as residence patterns, house composition, and sleeping accommodations. With regard to historical perspectives, gender and social reproduction are introduced by feminist theory.

In particular, Laslett (1989) argues that societies Europe and North America in the twentieth century were oriented on such social differences as consumerism, procreation, sexuality, and family strategies. In this respect, the researcher supports the idea that re-organization of gender relations have given rise to the development of macro-historical processes. In whole, femininity and masculinity in the industrialized society is presented as two opposite conceptions that have a potent impact on social reproduction.

The acceptable way for expressing masculinity in the modern American cultural society was for a young American man to enroll for war. Indeed a traditional way to lure young American men to enroll to war was to remind them of opportunities it offers to act heroically (Boyle, 2011, p. 149).

This approach exploits the mentality of young American men of equating heroics with masculinity. This reveals how cultural perception of masculinity-femininity can be use to motivate people towards a specific social course. These young American adults go to war with hope of getting an opportunity to perform heroic acts thereby expressing his masculinity. Nevertheless, most of the American war narratives depict the outright converse.

These narratives depict vain attempts by men to exhibit traditional paradigm of masculinity, because they manifest a state of being out of control and in need of rescue (Boyle, 2011, p 149); a traditional view of femininity. This misconception of masculinity is accountable for increase captivity and rescue associated with the intention to pull a heroic masculinity stunt.

In whole, the are of industrialization witnessed constantly changing patterns of masculinity and femininity that were based on chances in social perception of gender roles. Ranging from traditional norms on assessing gender relations to more radical, historical variations are also connected with social movements dedicated to the protection of human rights, such gender equality. In addition, racial disparities also significantly influenced the situation within the identified period.

Studies exploring cultural and historical variations of masculinity and femininity in the era of industrialization have revealed a number of important assumptions. First, cultural variations in gender functions exist due to the shifts in stereotypes and outlooks on social roles of males and females in society. Second, different industrialized societies propagandized various functions and influences in terms of domesticity, consumerism, and bipolar dimension.

Finally, industrialized society is more inclined to present direct, traditional traits attached to the terms under analysis. With regard to historical perspectives, most of past events are also connected with shaping different stereotypes connected to femininity and masculinity, ranging from traditional patterns to the emergence of sub-cultural forms. Both aspects are significant in defining the social significant of these shifts for the formation new patterns and variations.

Reference List

Andersen, M. L., and Taylor, H. F. (2010). Society: The Essentials . US: Cengage Learning.

Beynon, J. (2002). Masculinities and culture. Philadelphia : Open University Press.

Costa, P. Jr., Terracciano, A., and McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 81(2), 322-331.

Gaudreau, P. (1977). Factor analysis of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 45(2), 299-302.

Laslett, B., and Brenner, J. (1989). Gender and Social Reproduction: Historical Perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology. 15, 381-404.

Long, V., & Martinez, E. (1997). Masculinity, Femininity, and Hispanic

professionals Men’s self-esteem and self acceptance . The journal of psychology,131 (5), 481-488.

Sethi, R. R. and Allen, M. J. (1984). Sex-role Stereotype in Northern India and the United States. Sex Roles. 11(7-8), 615-626.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, January 9). Masculinity and Femininity. https://ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/

"Masculinity and Femininity." IvyPanda , 9 Jan. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Masculinity and Femininity'. 9 January.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Masculinity and Femininity." January 9, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/.

1. IvyPanda . "Masculinity and Femininity." January 9, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Masculinity and Femininity." January 9, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/.

• Representations of Global Femininity and Masculinity in Contemporary Media
• Gender Issues: Femininity and Masculinity
• The Meaning of Masculinity in 2020
• Femininity and Masculinity: Gender Stereotypes
• Femininity and Masculinity: Understanding Gender Roles
• Sexual Desire and Gender: Masculinity and Femininity Roles
• Dayak Views of Gender and Its Aspects
• Gender Roles: Constructing Gender Identity
• Pressing Issues in Femininity: Gender and Racism
• Masculinity and Femininity: Digit Ratio
• Role of Men in Society Essay
• Gender Identity
• Sociological perspectives of Gender Inequality
• Effects of Technology and Globalization on Gender Identity
• Identity: Acting out Culture

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 15 min read

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions

Understanding different countries.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Imagine this scenario: Sayid's boss has asked him to manage a large, global team. In this new role, he'll be working closely with people in several different countries. He's excited about the opportunities that this connectedness will present, but he's also nervous about making cross-cultural faux pas.

He knows that cultural differences can act as a barrier to communication, and that they could affect his ability to build connections and motivate people. So, how can he begin to understand these differences and work effectively with people from different cultures?

In this article, we'll explore how you can use Hofstede's Six Dimensions of Culture to work effectively with people from a range of cultural and geographic backgrounds.

What Are Hofstede's Six Dimensions of Culture?

Psychologist Dr. Geert Hofstede published his cultural dimensions model at the end of the 1970s, based on a decade of research. Since then, it's become an internationally recognized standard for understanding cultural differences.

Hofstede studied people who worked for IBM in more than 50 countries. Initially, he identified four dimensions that could distinguish one culture from another. Later, he added fifth and sixth dimensions, in cooperation with Drs Michael H. Bond and Michael Minkov. These are:

• Power Distance Index (high versus low).
• Individualism Versus Collectivism.
• Masculinity Versus Femininity.
• Uncertainty Avoidance Index (high versus low).
• Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation.
• Indulgence Versus Restraint.

Note: in the original version of the book "Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation" was described as "Pragmatic Versus Normative."

Hofstede, Bond and Minkov scored each country on a scale of 0 to 100 for each dimension.

When Hofstede analyzed his database of culture statistics, he found clear patterns of similarity and difference along the four dimensions. And, because his research focused solely on IBM employees, he could attribute those patterns to national differences, and minimize the impact of company culture.

By its nature, a theory like this only describes a central tendency in society. Different organizations, teams, personalities, and environments vary widely, so make sure that you're familiar with cultural leadership, intelligence and etiquette , and do extensive research into the country you'll be working in.

Let's look at the six dimensions in more detail.

1. Power Distance Index (PDI)

This refers to the degree of inequality that exists – and is accepted – between people with and without power.

A high PDI score indicates that a society accepts an unequal, hierarchical distribution of power, and that people understand "their place" in the system. A low PDI score means that power is shared and is widely dispersed, and that society members do not accept situations where power is distributed unequally.

Application: According to the model, in a high PDI country, such as Malaysia (100), team members will not initiate any action, and they like to be guided and directed to complete a task. If a manager doesn't take charge, they may think that the task isn't important.

2. Individualism Versus Collectivism (IDV)

This refers to the strength of the ties that people have to others within their community.

A high IDV score indicates weak interpersonal connection among those who are not part of a core "family." Here, people take less responsibility for others' actions and outcomes.

In a collectivist society, however, people are supposed to be loyal to the group to which they belong, and, in exchange, the group will defend their interests. The group itself is normally larger, and people take responsibility for one another's well-being.

Application: Central American countries Panama and Guatemala have very low IDV scores (11 and six, respectively). In these countries, as an example, a marketing campaign that emphasizes benefits to the community would likely be understood and well received, as long as the people addressed feel part of the same group.

3. Masculinity Versus Femininity (MAS)

This refers to the distribution of roles between men and women. In masculine societies, the roles of men and women overlap less, and men are expected to behave assertively. Demonstrating your success, and being strong and fast, are seen as positive characteristics.

In feminine societies, however, there is a great deal of overlap between male and female roles, and modesty is perceived as a virtue. Greater importance is placed on good relationships with your direct supervisors, or working with people who cooperate well with one another.

The gap between men's and women's values is largest in Japan and Austria , with MAS scores of 95 and 79 respectively. In both countries, men score highly for exhibiting "tough," masculine values and behaviors, but, in fact, women also score relatively highly for having masculine values, though on average lower than men.

Application: As we've highlighted, Japan has the highest MAS score of 95, whereas Sweden has the lowest measured value of five. Therefore, if you open an office in Japan, you should recognize you are operating in a hierarchical, deferential and traditionally patriarchal society. Long hours are the norm. And this can make it harder for female team members to gain advancement, due to family commitments.

At the same time, Japan is a culture where all children (male and female) learn the value of competition and winning as part of a team from a young age. Therefore, female team members are just as likely to display these notionally masculine traits as their male colleagues.

By comparison, Sweden is a very feminine society, according to Hofstede's model. Here, people focus on managing through discussion, consensus, compromise, and negotiation.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

This dimension describes how well people can cope with anxiety.

In societies that score highly for Uncertainty Avoidance, people attempt to make life as predictable and controllable as possible. If they find that they can't control their own lives, they may be tempted to stop trying. These people may refer to "mañana," or put their fate "in the hands of God."

People in low UAI-scoring countries are more relaxed, open or inclusive.

Bear in mind that avoiding uncertainty is not necessarily the same as avoiding risk. Hofstede argues that you may find people in high-scoring countries who are prepared to engage in risky behavior, precisely because it reduces ambiguities, or in order to avoid failure.

Application: In Hofstede's model, Greece tops the UAI scale with 100, while Singapore scores the lowest with eight.

Therefore, during a meeting in Greece, you might be keen to generate discussion, because you recognize that there's a cultural tendency for team members to make the safest, most conservative decisions, despite any emotional outbursts. Your aim is to encourage them to become more open to different ideas and approaches, but it may be helpful to provide a relatively limited, structured set of options or solutions.

5. Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation

This dimension was originally described as "Pragmatic Versus Normative (PRA)." It refers to the time horizon people in a society display. Countries with a long-term orientation tend to be pragmatic, modest, and more thrifty. In short-term oriented countries, people tend to place more emphasis on principles, consistency and truth, and are typically religious and nationalistic.

Application: The U.S. has a short-term orientation. This is reflected in the importance of short-term gains and quick results (profit and loss statements are quarterly, for example). It is also reflected in the country's strong sense of nationalism and social standards.

6. Indulgence Versus Restraint (IVR)

Hofstede's sixth dimension, discovered and described together with Michael Minkov, is also relatively new, and is therefore accompanied by less data.

Countries with a high IVR score allow or encourage relatively free gratification of people's own drives and emotions, such as enjoying life and having fun. In a society with a low IVR score, there is more emphasis on suppressing gratification and more regulation of people's conduct and behavior, and there are stricter social norms.

Application: According to the model, Eastern European countries, including Russia , have a low IVR score. Hofstede argues that these countries are characterized by a restrained culture, where there is a tendency towards pessimism. People put little emphasis on leisure time and, as the title suggests, people try to restrain themselves to a high degree.

Visit Hofstede's website for more detailed information about his research.

To reflect upon your personal cultural value preferences, take the Culture Compass . To learn more about cultural fit in the workplace, see our article, Understanding Workplace Values .

Cultural norms play a large part in interpersonal relationships at work. When you grow up in a certain culture, you take the behavioral norms of your society for granted. You don't have to think about your reactions, preferences and feelings, provided that you don't deviate too much from your society's central tendency.

However, when you step into a foreign culture, things suddenly seem different, and you don't want to cause offense. By using Hofstede's Cultural Dimnsions as a starting point, you can evaluate your approach, your decisions, and your actions – based on a general sense of how people in a particular society might think and react.

Of course, everybody is unique, and no society is uniform. But you can use the Hofstede model to make the unknown less intimidating, to help you to avoid making mistakes, and to provide a much-needed confidence boost when you're working in an unfamiliar country.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M. (2010) " Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind ," Third Revised Edition, McGrawHill.

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

What are cultural fit and cultural add.

Recruiting for Skills, Innovation and Values

Avoiding Unconscious Bias at Work

Avoiding Accidental Discrimination

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Get 20% off your first year of Mind Tools

Our on-demand e-learning resources let you learn at your own pace, fitting seamlessly into your busy workday. Join today and save with our limited time offer!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

Pain Points Podcast - Balancing Work And Kids

Pain Points Podcast - Improving Culture

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Pain points podcast - what is ai.

Exploring Artificial Intelligence

Pain Points Podcast - How Do I Get Organized?

It's Time to Get Yourself Sorted!

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

The perma model.

Bringing Well-Being and Happiness to Your Life

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

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

October 5, 2005 • 10 min read.

Workers' general notions about the effectiveness of male and female managers can be as important as their actual leadership abilities or business results, according to a recent Wharton Executive Development program entitled, "Women in Leadership: Legacies, Opportunities & Challenges." As a result, women executives need to be exceptionally aware of their own leadership styles and strengths -- as well as changes underway in their organizations -- in order to make an impact. Participants also discussed the role a strong corporate culture has played in the success of such companies as cosmetics giant Mary Kay Inc.

Workers’ general notions about the effectiveness of male and female managers can be as important as their actual leadership abilities or business results, according to a session on gender and leadership at a recent Wharton Executive Education  program entitled, “Women in Leadership: Legacies, Opportunities and Challenges.”  As a result, women executives need to be exceptionally aware of their own leadership styles and strengths — as well as changes underway in their organizations — in order to make an impact, noted program director Anne Cummings, a former Wharton management professor who is now a professor of business administration at the University of Minnesota at Duluth.

During another session, Wharton management professor Sigal Barsade looked at the critical role the development of a strong corporate culture has played in the success of such companies as Mary Kay Inc., the country’s second biggest direct seller of beauty products.

Cummings began her session on gender perceptions by asking the women executives attending the program to brainstorm a list of words describing female leaders. Among the words that surfaced: multi-tasking, emotional, empathetic, strong, intuitive, compassionate, relationship building, verbal, consensus building, collaborative and gossipy.

Then Cummings asked for a list of words associated with being a male leader. Strong, arrogant, intelligent, ego-driven, bravado, powerful, dominant, assertive, single tasking, focused, competitive, stubborn, physical, self-righteous and direct made the list. One woman marveled at the way men are capable of having an argument at work, then go out for a beer together as if nothing had ever happened. “Women hold a grudge,” she said. “Men are passive-aggressive,” countered another. “They sit in the bushes and wait.” “Men have a sense of entitlement,” said yet another executive. “It’s a given that they will be successful.”

Cummings said that over the past five years, when she has asked for this list at similar seminars, the descriptions have become more gender-neutral. “The notion of what makes an effective leader is changing, and you will find both [traditionally defined] ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ components,” she said.

Scholars approach the question of leadership differences between men and women through the social construct of gender, or traits associated with masculinity or femininity, Cummings noted, adding that biology does not entirely determine gender issues because there can be masculine women and feminine men. “Much of what we think about in terms of leadership usually falls in ‘masculine’ traits, whether it’s a man or a woman,” she said. As an example, Cummings pointed to Linda Alvarado, who formed her own company in the male-dominated construction industry and again broke gender stereotypes to become a part owner of the Colorado Rockies baseball team.

“I do think our culture has a huge influence on” how women develop as leaders, she said. “More and more we are seeing that women have some very masculine styles.”

Role Congruity

But what exactly is a “masculine” style? According to Cummings, men tend to be more task-oriented while women take on a more interpersonal style of leadership. Therefore, a “masculine” style tends toward assertive and task-based behaviors, while a “feminine” style is more relationship oriented and “democratic.” Additionally, Cummings noted, men tend to take greater intellectual risks and have higher self esteem, whereas “women are coping” and tend to be more efficient when it comes to solving problems.

Of course, all of this behavior operates on a continuum, she noted. “Most of us have a multitude of styles.” Research shows that people in general are slightly more feminine in their behavior traits than they are masculine, Cummings said. These perceived differences play into “role congruity,” which is the expectation that a person will act a certain way based on his or her gender. When someone does not meet that expectation, perceptions of leadership ability can wane, regardless of the leader’s actual effectiveness.

“Men and women can do the same thing, but if they both act assertive, women are rated less effective because we expect men to do that,” Cummings noted. Moreover, research shows that of the people who emerge as leaders in a laboratory setting — where men and women come together without knowing one another — male leaders are judged more effective than women leaders. “That’s the scary part: Men and women can exhibit the same results and accomplishments and the perception of their effectiveness is different.”

Within established organizations, however, there is less difference in the perceived effectiveness of men and women leaders, she said. “Some of these perceptions can be different when you are working in an organization where you have a track record as an effective producer…. In the real world we have systems of interaction. We have systems of power. We have systems of how departments interact — who is promoted from what job — and systems of experience that may also play a role that you don’t see in the lab.” Although the differences in real-world perceptions are smaller, she noted, “they are still there.”

The culture of an organization, or even a part of the organization such as a division or other business unit, can determine the degree to which a woman’s own feminine or masculine traits fit. “If your leadership style is more feminine and you are in a masculine culture, you have role incongruity, and you may not be that effective because people will perceive you as not fitting,” said Cummings.

The differences between leadership styles are not necessarily positive or negative in building leadership, but executives need to be aware of their style and how they come across to others in their organization and outside. “All I’m saying to women is that you need to read your environment and build your skill set so you can lead a variety of different people,” Cummings said. She noted that executives can use standard personality assessments to gauge their own individual leadership traits and those of the people they are managing. One commonly used assessment is the Bem Sex-Role Inventory which asks respondents to describe themselves using 60 adjectives identified as feminine, masculine or neutral. “Think about where there are strengths and where there are potential pitfalls,” said Cummings. “There are leadership styles that are determinants of your behavior that are different from masculine and feminine.”

Women also need to understand the culture of their organizations in order to set up negotiations with stakeholders to build a legacy. “To the extent that women want to leave a leadership impact, they need to be strategic and analytical about the domain they are working in and understand their strengths as well as areas [that need work].” It’s important, Cummings added, to figure out how to lead people who have other styles and how to “build the competencies of other women around you.”

The Power of Culture: Mary Kay

In another session, Wharton management professor Sigal Barsade focused on how understanding the power of corporate culture can help individuals and companies succeed. Like Cummings, Barsade noted that a good fit between employees and culture is important: “If you really want the kind of commitment and superior performance of going above and beyond what [your company needs], it comes down to the person-culture fit. You need to find people who are going to believe in the values of your organization.”

When it comes to a strong corporate culture, Barsade noted, it’s hard to beat Mary Kay Cosmetics, which rewards its top sales people with pink Cadillacs, diamonds and other gifts in an annual awards ceremony that rivals the crowning of Miss America. Once a year, thousands of Mary Kay sales consultants from around the world gather in Dallas, Tex., to honor their own. They sing Mary Kay songs. They give tearful testimonials about how the company changed their lives. They memorialize their founder, Mary Kay Ash, who died in 2001 at age 83.

All that translates to the bottom line. “What Mary Kay does very well is understand its employees and their needs and values,” said Barsade. “It can orient the culture so the fit between the people and the organization is very tight and allows Mary Kay to get really superior performance.”

Strong corporate cultures also view people as a critical resource and value them as individuals, said Barsade, who noted that Mary Kay Ash sent all her sales people hand-written birthday greetings. Ritual and ceremony, like the Mary Kay awards extravaganza, are also important, along with clear expectations about the direction of the company. “Ultimately, culture is the informal system that people put together to know what the company wants from them.”

While the culture of a company is informal, Barsade said senior managers have the power to shape it. “Culture, strategy and structure all have to work together, and top management is absolutely critical because they are the ones who not only determine the culture they want, but help to define the strategy and decide whether the structure is going to support the culture.”

The first clue to understanding an organization’s culture is to look at what is rewarded — not just monetarily, but also informally, said Barsade. “Ultimately that is what the culture will promote.” Sometimes, the company touts one set of values but actually rewards another. For example, she pointed to Enron, which outwardly promoted the value of integrity. “You can have wonderful plaques in the lobby and cards with the values printed on them,” she said, “but sometimes those things — and what is truly rewarded — are not in alignment.”

Barsade said culture can be thought of like an iceberg with certain parts visible, but the bulk lying unseen beneath the surface. “The depth of culture is what’s below the surface, and we sometimes don’t know we are in a culture until there is a clash.” At the bottom of the cultural iceberg are basic assumptions, said Barsade. “We don’t even talk about them because they are so obvious.” At a for-profit company the most basic assumption is that the organization’s mission is to make money. For a non-profit, basic assumptions are trickier but typically center on a mission or providing a service.

Values and beliefs form the next layer of the iceberg. At this point corporate plaques and slogans promote values such as responsible citizenship, integrity or even fierce competition, said Barsade. “This is the level on which we usually talk about corporate culture.” Rising above the surface of the iceberg are behaviors, which Barsade explained present themselves as artifacts and norms. Corporate norms become a shorthand way for managers to lead employees, and — like the perceived gender-based leadership styles Cummings described during her session — represent “a social expectation of what is appropriate or inappropriate.”

Citing the research of Charles O’Reilly at Stanford University, Barsade said organizational culture can be plotted against two key dimensions. One is the intensity of values and the other is the crystallization of values, or how widely values are spread throughout an organization. A company with high intensity and high crystallization has a strong culture, like Mary Kay.

According to Barsade, research indicates managers have only about four to six months to socialize a new employee into the company’s culture. She offered advice to the women executives in the program about promoting social integration and networks within their own companies’ cultures. “Don’t let [new hires] be isolated that first week. Make sure someone is going out to lunch with them every day — someone senior. Get them linked in very fast.” Also, companies should point to successful role models. “You need to say, ‘this person is a success, and this is how they got there.'”

More From Knowledge at Wharton

Working for the Weekend: Downtime and Performance

Challenges for Women in the Workplace | Martine Haas

How Leadership Is Defined Differently for Women | Rebecca Schaumberg

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

How Toxic Is Masculinity?

By Zoë Heller

Ten years ago, Hanna Rosin’s book, “ The End of Men ,” argued that feminism had largely achieved its aims, and that it was time to start worrying about the coming obsolescence of men. American women were getting more undergraduate and graduate degrees than American men, and were better placed to flourish in a “feminized” job market that prized communication and flexibility. For the first time in American history, they were outnumbering men in the workplace. “The modern economy is becoming a place where women hold the cards,” Rosin wrote.

The events of the past decade—the rise of Trump, the emergence of the #MeToo movement, the overturning of Roe v. Wade—have had a sobering effect on this sort of triumphalism. The general tone of feminist rhetoric has grown distinctly tougher and more cynical. Cheerful slogans about the femaleness of the future have receded; the word “patriarchy,” formerly the preserve of women’s-studies professors, has entered the common culture. Last year, in an article about women’s exodus from their jobs during the pandemic, Rosin recanted her previous thesis and apologized for its “tragic naïveté.” “It’s now painfully obvious that the mass entry of women into the workforce was rigged from the beginning,” she wrote. “American work culture has always conspired to keep professional women out and working-class women shackled.”

Men, especially conservative men, continue to wring their hands over the male condition, of course. (Tucker Carlson appropriated the title of Rosin’s book for a documentary, advertised this past spring, about plummeting sperm counts.) But feminist patience for “twilight of the penis” stories has run out. “All that time they spend snivelling about how hard it is to be a poor persecuted man nowadays is just a way of adroitly shirking their responsibility to make themselves a little less the pure products of patriarchy,” Pauline Harmange wrote in her 2020 screed, “I Hate Men.” More recently, the British journalist Laurie Penny, in her “ Sexual Revolution ” (Bloomsbury), notes the systemic underpinnings of such snivels: “The assumption that oozes from every open pore of straight patriarchal culture is that women are expected to tolerate pain, fear and frustration—but male pain, by contrast, is intolerable.” Penny is careful to distinguish hatred of masculinity from hatred of men, but she nonetheless defines the fundamental political struggle of our time as a contest between feminism and white heterosexual male supremacy. In “ Daddy Issues ” (Verso), Katherine Angel calls for #MeToo-era feminists to turn their attention to long-overlooked paternal delinquencies. If the patriarchy is to be defeated, she argues, women’s reluctance to criticize their male parents must be interrogated and overcome. Even the “modern, civilized father” must be “kept on the hook,” she recommends, and daughters must reckon with their “desire for retribution, revenge and punishment.”

The combative tone taken by these writers is hardly a surprise. One might argue that a movement currently scrambling to defend some vestige of women’s reproductive rights can be forgiven for not being especially solicitous of men’s sperm counts. One might argue that it isn’t feminism’s job to worry about how men are doing—any more than it’s the job of hens to fret about the condition of foxes. But two recent books claim otherwise. “ A History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice ” (Allen Lane), by the French historian Ivan Jablonka, and “ What Do Men Want?: Masculinity and Its Discontents ” (Allen Lane), by Nina Power, a British columnist with a background in philosophy, both contend that the drift toward zero-sum war-of-the-sexes language is a bad thing for feminism. Although their diagnoses of the problem are almost diametrically opposed, both authors make the case for a more generous and humane feminist discourse, capable of recognizing the suffering of men as well as of women. Hens, they acknowledge, have legitimate cause for resentment, but foxes have feelings, too.

Jablonka’s dense, copiously researched book, which became a surprise best-seller in France when it was published there, in 2019, takes an ambitious, key-to-all-mythologies approach to its subject. Jablonka, who is a professor at the Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, begins in the Upper Paleolithic, examining its mysterious, corpulent “Venus” figurines, and moves suavely across the millennia all the way to the successive waves of modern feminism. He has an eye for striking, often grim, details—under the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, a daughter might be killed as punishment for a murder committed by her father—and relishes drawing parallels across eras. From ancient times to the present day, it seems, the central totems of masculinity—weapons, locomotive vehicles, and meat (particularly rare meat)—have remained remarkably consistent. Likewise, from the fall of Rome to the Weimar Republic, men have consistently attributed political disaster and cultural decline to the corrupting influence of feminine values.

Jablonka’s thesis about how patriarchy arose is a fairly standard one. Paleolithic societies already had a sexual division of labor—Spanish cave paintings from as early as 10,000 B.C. show male archers hunting and women gathering honey—but it was relatively benign. In the Neolithic era, with the advent of agriculture and the move away from nomadic existence, birth rates increased and women became confined to the domestic sphere, while men started to own land. From then on, each new development, be it metal weapons, the rise of the state, or even the birth of writing, further entrenched the power of men and the subjugation of women.

Until now, that is. “Patriarchy has declined,” according to Jablonka, but men remain caught in “pathologies of the masculine,” trying to live up to a symbolic role that doesn’t reflect their reduced dominance. The result is an “almost tragic” level of alienation, he writes, and feminists, instead of mocking or dismissing male anguish—thereby leaving men vulnerable to the revanchist fantasies of Tucker Carlson and his ilk—should recognize this moment as a crucial recruitment opportunity. Now is the time to convince men that their “obligatory model of virility” has immiserated them far more than it has empowered them. “The masculinity of domination pays, but it comes at a high cost: an insecure ego, puerile vanity, disinterest in reading and the life of the mind, atrophied inner life, the narrowing of social opportunities . . . and to top it all, a diminished life expectancy.”

Feminism has been slow to empathize and collaborate with men, Jablonka claims, because too many in the movement remain wedded to a “Manichean world view” of male oppressors and female victims. Some feminists are unreconstructed leftist types, who reject any evidence of women’s progress as “mystification designed to hide the persistence of male domination.” Others are duped by a “pro-women romanticism” into believing that women are innately nicer and more progressive than men. Jablonka rejects this sort of essentialist thinking, which he says provides a spurious biological rationale for traditional gender roles. If women are naturally kinder and more nurturing than men, and if men are “intrinsically imbued with a culture of rape,” why bother trying to change the status quo? Testosterone and other androgens may “have something to do with” a male propensity for aggression, he concedes, but “human beings are hostage neither to their biology nor their gender.” Men’s history of brutish behavior is the product of patriarchal culture, and only by insisting on “the fundamental identity” between men and women can feminism realize its proper aim—a “redistribution of gender,” in which “new masculinities” abound and the selection of any given way of being a man becomes “a lifestyle choice.”

Link copied

To claim that masculinity is a patriarchal “construct,” however, is not so much an explanation as the postponement of an explanation. Who or what created the patriarchy? Evolutionary biologists maintain that our earliest male ancestors had an evolutionary incentive to maximize the spread of their genes by violently competing for, and monopolizing access to, women. Jablonka is eager to avoid such biological imperatives, but in doing so he reaches for a kind of just-so story that renders much of the history he has laid out beside the point. Patriarchy, he speculates, was motivated by simple resentment of women’s wombs. “Deprived of the power that women have, men reserved all the others for themselves,” he writes. “This was the revenge of the males: their biological inferiority led to their social hegemony.”

Thus it is that successive patriarchal élites have spent the past several millennia shoring up their illegitimate rule, by defining manliness as a set of superior qualities denied to women. Not that Jablonka thinks there is only one, eternal masculine style; rather, all models of masculinity since antiquity have been mechanisms for asserting and imposing patriarchal power. The extroversion and swagger of the toreador look very different from the gallantry of the Victorian gentleman, which is, in turn, quite distinct from the laconic glamour of the cowboy, but they are all equally culpable expressions of the masculine-superiority complex.

Jablonka’s desire to trace all the world’s hierarchies, injustices, and conflicts back to one prehistoric fit of reproductive jealousy leads to a good deal of muddle as things proceed. One of his more bizarre—and ahistorical—claims is that the masculine hegemony has deemed four masculine types inferior: “the Jew,” “the loser,” “the Black,” and “the homosexual.” It is, of course, impossible to explain the historical oppression of poor people, Black people, gays, and Jews entirely in terms of gender politics, and, in trying to do so, Jablonka has to make any number of ludicrous assertions, including that white men enslaved Black men in part because they considered them “feminine” and “non-virile.” The book’s cocky bid for comprehensiveness proves to be its undoing.

In keeping with his anti-essentialist view of the sexes, Jablonka maintains that women are, deep down, no less capable of greed and racism and warlike behavior than men, but this view is somewhat at odds with his central contention—that a world without patriarchal masculinity would be an infinitely more just and peaceable place. In an apparent attempt to square this contradiction, he expresses the vague hope that powerful women of the future will avoid some of the worst practices of powerful men of the past, and that gender justice might be “translated into the principle of an equality of positions, reducing inequalities between the various socio-economic statuses.”

According to Nina Power’s “What Do Men Want?,” such inattention to questions of class inequality is a typical weakness of modern gender politics. Her short but slightly meandering work of cultural criticism takes aim at several strands of contemporary feminist doctrine and lays out, with varying degrees of coherence, how she thinks a “graceful playfulness” between men and women might be restored. Power finds terms like “the patriarchy” and “male privilege” nebulous, and believes they obscure more than they reveal when applied to poor and working-class men. Liberal feminism, she argues, has proved all too compatible with the interests of corporate capitalism, precisely because it is more interested in how people “identify” than in who owns the means of production.

Power’s main interest, however, is not in persuading feminism to be more intersectional in its critique of men. “I increasingly think that we need to think less in terms of structures,” she writes, “and much more in terms of mutual respect.” She believes that exaggerated complaints about the toxicity of men—their mansplaining and manspreading and so forth—have become a kind of tribal habit among women. In addition to eliminating much of the pleasure and charm of everyday male-female interactions, the constant demonizing of men has led us to lose sight of what is valuable and generative in male and female difference. Where Jablonka wants to help men escape the “obligatory model of virility” that has given them a bad name, Power asks us to consider what might be worth retaining from that model. In our haste to declare masculinity a redundant artifact, she says, we have lost sight of some of its “positive dimensions”—“the protective father, the responsible man.” Although we’re often told that modern societies have outgrown the need for male muscle and aggression, we still rely on men to do the lion’s share of physically arduous and dangerous jobs, including the fighting of wars. (Even in Jablonka’s gender-fluid future, he acknowledges, men will do the heavy, dirty, “thankless” work. To insist on a literal-minded gender parity would be “absurd,” he says.) If we still expect men to do the dirty work, Power asks, shouldn’t some value be attached to male strength? Women in heterosexual relationships, she claims, respect a degree of responsibly channelled aggression in their partners. “However tough you feel, however independent you might be, when it comes down to it, you would like a man to be able to stand up for you, physically at least,” she writes. “Violence is not as far away from care as we might like to imagine.”

Power’s book, being of the “pendulum’s swung too far” variety, is rather too quick to declare all the meaningful equalities already won, all the necessary reforms of male manners accomplished. “Male behavior has shifted radically,” she writes. “What man would today flirt with a female co-worker?”—which is the kind of facetious remark that only a person who has mistaken her bien-pensant bubble for the world could make. Nevertheless, the “graceful playfulness” that she hopes can be preserved between the sexes, and even some of the more benign aspects of old-school masculinity, are probably more widely shared than is generally acknowledged. Jablonka argues rather unconvincingly that women read romantic fiction because it sweetens the pill of their subordination and helps them accept the “inevitability of masculine power.” But romantic fiction isn’t produced by the Commission for the Continuation of the Patriarchy. It sells because it speaks to a persistent female attraction to the benignly dominant male. Whether that attraction has its roots in nature or in culture, one has only to read Joan Didion describing her girlhood dreams of John Wayne, or listen to Amy Winehouse singing “You should be stronger than me,” or overhear contemporary teens mocking “soft bois” on social media to know that it is there.

Some years ago, the conservative Harvard philosopher Harvey Mansfield, in his book “Manliness,” defined protection as a defining task of masculinity. “A man protects those whom he has taken in his care against dangers they cannot face or handle without him,” he wrote. For Jablonka, such a role is inextricable from patriarchy: “Polite gestures of protection partake of a benevolent sexism that complements hostile sexism.” Power suggests that the charming, sexy aspects of masculinity—violent, sure, but still “compatible with the flourishing of others”—can be brought out only as needed, allowing men and women to live on terms of scrupulous equality the rest of the time. Is this plausible? Can women enjoy the warm embrace of he-men without having to endure bossiness and swagger? Harvey Mansfield didn’t think so. “Honor is an asserted claim to protect someone, and the claim to protect is a claim to rule,” he wrote. “How can I protect you properly if I can’t tell you what to do?” ♦

New Yorker Favorites

Searching for the cause of a catastrophic plane crash .

The man who spent forty-two years at the Beverly Hills Hotel pool .

Gloria Steinem’s life on the feminist frontier .

Where the Amish go on vacation .

How Colonel Sanders built his Kentucky-fried fortune .

What does procrastination tell us about ourselves ?

Fiction by Patricia Highsmith: “The Trouble with Mrs. Blynn, the Trouble with the World”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

Books & Fiction

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Gideon Lewis-Kraus

By Graciela Mochkofsky

By Inkoo Kang

By Richard Brody

• Contributors
•  Links
•  Translations
• What is Gendered Innovations ?

Sex & Gender Analysis

• Rethinking Research Priorities and Outcomes
• Rethinking Concepts and Theories
• Formulating Research Questions
• Analyzing Sex
• Analyzing Gender
• Analyzing how Sex and Gender Interact
• Analyzing Factors Intersecting with Sex and Gender
• Engineering Innovation Processes
• Designing Health & Biomedical Research
• Participatory Research and Design
• Rethinking Standards and Reference Models
• Rethinking Language and Visual Representations
• Analyzing Additional Variables
• Study Design in Biomedical Research
• Sex and Gender are Distinct Terms
• Interactions between Sex and Gender
• Gender Dimension
• Not Considering Sex Differences as a Problem
• Overemphasizing Sex Differences as a Problem
• Women & Men
• Female & Male

Femininities & Masculinities

• Race & Ethnicity
• Stereotypes
• Health & Medicine
• Engineering
• Tissues & Cells
• Urban Planning & Design

Case Studies

• Animal Research
• Animal Research 2
• Genetics of Sex Determination
• Colorectal Cancer
• De-Gendering the Knee
• Dietary Assessment Method
• Heart Disease in Women
• Nanotechnology-Based Screening for HPV
• Nutrigenomics
• Osteoporosis Research in Men
• Assistive Technologies for the Elderly
• Gendering Social Robots
• Haptic Technology
• HIV Microbicides
• Human Thorax Model
• Information for Air Travelers
• Machine Learning
• Machine Translation
• Making Machines Talk
• Pregnant Crash Test Dummies
• Video Games
• Climate Change
• Gender Mainstreaming in Decision-Making
• Environmental Chemicals
• Housing and Neighborhood Design
• Menstrual Cups
• Public Transportation
• Water Infrastructure
• Design Thinking
• Major Granting Agencies
• Peer-Reviewed Journals
• United Nations
• Disparities between Women and Men
• Subtle Gender Bias
• Solutions and Best Practices

"Femininities" and "masculinities" describe gender identities (see Gender ). They describe socio-cultural categories in everyday language; these terms are used differently in biology (see below). Because femininities and masculinities are gender identities, they are shaped by socio-cultural processes, not biology (and should not be essentialized). Femininities and masculinities are plural and dynamic; they change with culture and with individuals.

Points to keep in mind:

• ● In everyday language, femininities and masculinities do not map onto biological sex. In any one culture, certain behaviors or practices may be widely recognized as “feminine” or “masculine,” irrespective of whether they are adopted by women or by men. Femininities and masculinities are not descriptors of sexual orientation.
• ● Femininities and masculinities are plural—there are many forms of femininity and many forms of masculinity. What gets defined as feminine or masculine differs by region, religion, class, national culture, and other social factors. How femininities and masculinities are valued differs culturally.
• ● Any one person—woman or man—engages in many forms of femininity and masculinity, which she or he adopts (consciously or unconsciously) depending on context, the expectations of others, the life stage, and so forth. A man can engage in what are often stereotyped as “feminine” activities, such as caring for a sick parent.
• ● Cultural notions of “feminine” and “masculine” behavior are shaped in part by observations about what women and men do. This kind of “gender marking” tends to discourage women or men from entering “gender-inauthentic” occupations (Faulkner, 2009).
• ● Femininities and masculinities are learned. Messages about “feminine” and “masculine” behaviors are embedded in advertising, media, news, educational materials, and so forth. These messages are present in a range of environments, from the home to the workplace to public spaces.  

Note on biology: Although the terms “feminine” and “masculine” are gender terms (socio-cultural categories) in everyday usage, they carry different meanings in biology. Masculinization refers to the development of male-specific morphology, such as the Wolffian ducts and male reproductive structures. Feminization refers to the development of female-specific morphology, such as the Müllerian ducts and female reproductive structures. In order to become a reproductively functioning female, for example, both feminization and demasculinization are required, and vice versa for males (Uhlenhaut et al., 2009).

Works Cited 

Faulkner, W. (2009). Doing Gender in Engineering Workplace Cultures: Part II—Gender In/Authenticity and the In/Visibility Paradox. Engineering Studies, 1 (3), 169-189.

Uhlenhaut, N., Jakob, S., Anlag, K., Eisenberger, T., Sekido, R., Kress, J., Treier, A., Klugmann, C., Klasen, C., Holter, N., Riethmacher, D., Schütz, G., Cooney, A., Lovell-Badge, R., & Treier, M. (2009). Somatic Sex Reprogramming of Adult Ovaries to Testes by FOXL2 Ablation. Cell, 139 (6), 1130-1142.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

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

Associated data.

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

Introduction

Every time a group of people is addressed as “Ladies and Gentlemen!” the pervasiveness of gender over all other social categories is demonstrated. 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, 2015 ) and into adulthood, with both adolescents and college students construing their self-concepts in line with the gender stereotypes they have internalized (e.g., Nosek et al., 2002 ; Steffens et al., 2010 ). Since the 1970s, following Bem's ( 1974 ) pioneering work, many scales have been designed, developed, and widely used for measuring traits traditionally considered as typically male vs. typically female (Constantinople, 1973 ). In recent years, such measures have often failed to find between-gender differences in self-ascriptions of gender stereotypical traits (e.g., Sczesny et al., 2004 ), which is presumably due to changes in gender roles across the decades (e.g., Diekman and Eagly, 2000 ; Wilde and Diekman, 2005 ; Ebert et al., 2014 ). 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, 2003 ). 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. To date, these constructs can only be measured using two items, “masculine” and “feminine,” which is somewhat limited given that established standards of psychological assessment typically recommend using a larger number of items (e.g., Bühner, 2010 ). 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.

We define “traditional masculinity” and “traditional femininity” as relatively enduring characteristics encompassing traits, appearances, interests, and behaviors that have traditionally been considered relatively more typical of women and men, respectively (adapting the definitions provided by Constantinople, 1973 ). 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.g., Athenstaedt, 2000 ; Thompson and Bennet, 2015 ; Klocke and Lamberty, unpublished manuscript).

In a seminal study on masculinity and femininity, Deaux and Lewis ( 1984 ) investigated the perceived relationship between gender and gender-related components, such as role behaviors (e.g., head of household vs. takes care of children), traits, occupations, and physical characteristics (e.g., tall, broad-shouldered vs. soft voice, graceful). 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. Such findings indicate that gender stereotypes may be based on some sort of “core” masculinity and femininity. Similarly, individuals may use such “core” masculinity and femininity in their self-construal.

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, 1973 ). By contrast, Bem's pioneering Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974 ) used gender-stereotypical traits to independently measure masculinity and femininity (e.g., masculine items such as competitive and dominant, and feminine items such as affectionate and gentle). She pointed out that women/men who score high on both scales were called androgynous. Importantly, “masculine” and “feminine” were included as items in these original scales, but were excluded from the revised version (Bem, 1979 ) because of problematic loadings on the factors on which the masculine and feminine traits loaded, respectively. 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.g., Niedlich et al., 2015 , see review by Choi and Fuqua, 2003 ). It has thus been suggested that the two independent masculinity and femininity trait dimensions are complemented by one bipolar masculinity-femininity dimension (see Constantinople, 1973 ; Spence et al., 1975 ; Bem, 1979 ) that reflects gender identity instead of gender-role related aspects (e.g., Bem, 1979 ; Spence and Buckner, 2000 ). As Choi and Fuqua ( 2003 ) suggest, inventories such as the BSRI “may not capture the complex and multidimensional nature of masculinity/femininity.” Instead, “masculinity and femininity could be two higher order constructs, with each having its own subconstructs” (p. 873). Similar to other scales (e.g., Personal Attributes Questionnaire, PAQ, by Spence et al., 1975 ), the BSRI appears to tap more specific constructs, often referred to as instrumentality/agency and expressivity/communion (e.g., Fiske et al., 2002 ; Abele and Wojciszke, 2007 ), rather than masculinity and femininity in general. 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.g., Deaux, 1984 ). In other words, women and men appear rather similar on “masculinity” and “femininity.” More recently, gender differences have not emerged at all between graduates with the same major (see Abele, 2000 ). 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., 2004 ; Evers and Sieverding, 2014 ). This could indicate that gender differences in masculinity and femininity are a thing of the past (Alvesson, 1998 ). 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.g., Diekman and Eagly, 2000 ; Spence and Buckner, 2000 ; Wilde and Diekman, 2005 ; Ebert et al., 2014 ). 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., 2004 ).

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.g., Spence and Buckner, 2000 ; Blashill and Powlishta, 2009 ). For example, Athenstaedt ( 2003 ) observed considerable gender differences in everyday behavior such as “putting flowers on the desk” (feminine) and “putting the meat on the barbeque” (masculine), strongly suggesting the continued importance of gender differences. 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 A1 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. We argue that we can measure the “core” of masculinity/femininity by referring to three central aspects, identified by Constantinople ( 1973 ), that we summarize using the term gender-role self-concept: Namely, gender-role adoption, gender-role preference, and gender-role identity. Constantinople ( 1973 ) defines gender-role adoption as the actual manifestation (i.e., how masculine-feminine a person considers her- or himself) and gender-role preference as the desired degree of masculinity-femininity (i.e., how masculine-feminine a person ideally would like to be). According to Kagan ( 1964 ), gender-role identity refers to a comparison of gender-related social norms and the gender-related characteristics of the individual (e.g., how a person actually looks compared to expected gender-typical appearances according to societal norms). Hence, for gender-role identity social comparisons as well as references to different gender-related aspects are emphasized (e.g., looks, behaviors etc.), whereas gender-role adoption and preference are based on non-relative, absolute statements. 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.g., Deaux and Lewis, 1984 ; Athenstaedt, 2003 ). As mentioned, physical appearance was shown to play a particularly large role in implicating other components of gender stereotypes (Deaux and Lewis, 1984 ). Athenstaedt ( 2003 ) advocated the inclusion of gender-stereotypical behaviors in addition to traits, so this domain was included in the TMF as well. Lippa ( 2008 ) found that gender-related interests were highly relevant in discriminating women and men as well as lesbians/gay men from straight people. 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.g., Sidanius et al., 1994 ; Kite and Whitley, 1996 ). 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. For example, “Traditionally, my behavior would be considered as…” 1 ( not at all masculine ) to 7 ( very masculine ). 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.g., intelligent and ambitious as masculine, childlike and shy as feminine, see BSRI; in the General Discussion we discuss how far this global conception can also be considered a limitation). The TMF consists of six items only: One for gender-role adoption (“I consider myself as…”), one for gender-role preference (“Ideally, I would like to be…”), and four for gender-role identity (“Traditionally, my 1. interests, 2. attitudes and beliefs, 3. behavior, and 4. outer appearance would be considered as…”) in order to measure an individual's gender-role self-concept in a parsimonious way. 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. one bipolar dimension (pilot study, Study 2; 1, very masculine , to 7, very feminine ) in order to check for dimensionality.

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 ( 1979 ), Constantinople ( 1973 ), and Spence et al. ( 1975 ; see Introductory Section), the TMF's items should load on one factor and tap a one-dimensional masculinity-femininity construct. 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.g., Kite and Deaux, 1987 ; Kite and Whitley, 1996 ; Madon, 1997 ; Blashill and Powlishta, 2009 ). 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, 2005 ). Bisexual women were found to score on masculinity-femininity in between lesbians and straight women (Lippa, 2005 ). Therefore, we used the known-groups approach as an established method for testing a scale's validity (e.g., Howitt and Cramer, 2008 ). 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, 1987 ; which we turn to in General Discussion), we hypothesized lesbians to be more feminine and less masculine than gay men (Hypothesis 4).

The idea that differences in “core” masculinity and femininity underlie differences in lesbians' and gay men's vs. straight women and men's self-ascriptions in gender typicality can formally be conceived as masculinity-femininity mediating the relationship between sexual orientation and responses on scales such as the BSRI (Hypothesis 5).

Validation by implicit and explicit gender-related measures

A common critique of self-report measures is that they could reflect differences in social desirability more than “true” underlying differences in traits. Using implicit measures relying on response-time differences, such as an Implicit Association Test (IAT), may minimize this problem (Greenwald et al., 1998 ). Implicit measures are assumed to assess the impulsive system: Habitual, repeated, long-term associations between concepts (Strack and Deutsch, 2004 ), including self-related concepts (e.g., Steffens and Schulze-Koenig, 2006 ). 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.g., Safir et al., 2003 ) and childhood (e.g., Lippa, 2008 ). 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., 2010 ; Valentova et al., 2011 ). 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.g., Pierrehumbert et al., 2004 ; Munson and Babel, 2007 ). Average voice pitch has been found to be lower in straight compared to gay men (Baeck et al., 2011 ) and higher in straight women compared lesbians (Camp, 2009 ). 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.g., Swank and Raiz, 2010 ): A lower contact frequency is connected to more negative beliefs about lesbians and gay men. One belief about lesbians and gay men is that they transgress gender roles, on average (e.g., Kite and Whitley, 1996 ). 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).

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. Their age ranged from 18 to 41 ( M = 23.6, SD = 3.1). They were students of different majors from different German universities (specifically, in Thuringia). Participants received no compensation for participation. Approval for all studies reported in this paper was obtained by the board of ethics (= human subjects committee) of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena. 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.

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 0.87. All items were suitable for factor analysis as indicated by item-specific KMO values >0.79 and moderate to high commonalities (0.57–0.88). 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 0.75 to 0.94).

Reliability of the TMF was high (Cronbach's α = 0.94). As indicated by the coefficients in Table ​ Table1, 1 , no items needed to be deleted to improve reliability. Item-specific homogeneity was high and ranged from 0.66 to 0.72 (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). Corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.72 to 0.91, suggesting that each item represented the scale well. Moreover, item means ranged from 0.51 to 0.59. Accordingly, every item received almost equal masculinity and femininity ratings, indicating that averaged across the sample containing women and men, items received “androgynous” responses, as one would expect. When computing item “difficulties” separately for each gender group, findings pointed in the expected directions: “Difficulties” ranged from 0.18 to 0.35 for the male sample, indicating “masculine” responses, and from 0.60 to 0.85 for the female sample, indicating “feminine” responses.

Item Characteristics of the TMF in the Pilot Study for the Whole Sample (left-hand values, n = 306) and Separately for Men (middle values, n = 118) and Women (right-hand values, n = 188) .

Scale ranged from 1—“very masculine” to 7—“very feminine.”

We found the expected bimodal distribution of the TMF scores. Men and women differed significantly in terms of the scale mean, M male = 2.56 ( SD = 0.80), M female = 5.28 ( SD = 0.76), t (304) = −29.83, p < 0.001, and on every item, all t s (287) > −10.41, all p s < 0.001. With the exception of two outlier individuals, the overlap between men's and women's scores was very small (see Figure ​ Figure1). 1 ). According to Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics, the TMF scores were normally distributed for men ( Z = 0.99, p = 0.28) and women ( Z = 0.78, p = 0.58). Predicting gender by the TMF scores in a logistic regression analysis was 97% accurate [ B = 4.43, SE = 0.69, χ ( 1 ) 2 = 41 . 38 , p < 0.001; Nagelkerke's R 2 = 0.92; Model χ ( 1 ) 2 = 347.87, p < 0.001].

Distribution of the TMF scores separately for men ( n = 118) and women ( n = 188) in the pilot study . 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 (1.5 SD above/below median).

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. All factor loadings were similar (Δ < 0.1), so that an unweighted additive overall score was justified (Bortz and Döring, 2006 ). 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, 2006 ). 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.

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, 2003 ) and a newly created measure of childhood gender conformity (see Appendix in Supplementary Material). Moreover, an Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald et al., 1998 ) was used to measure implicit associations of self with masculine vs. feminine.

We assumed that the TMF would reflect a one-dimensional masculinity-femininity construct (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we expected that on each measure, straight women would score higher on femininity and/or lower on masculinity as compared to lesbians (Hypothesis 3a). 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). Finally, the TMF should measure a higher-order factor “core” masculinity-femininity that mediates effects of sexual orientation on other gender-related scales (Hypothesis 5). 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. Their age ranged from 19 to 47 years ( M = 31.13, SD = 8.52). 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. With α = 0.05 and N = 126, based on Cohen's ( 1977 ) conventions, medium-size regression coefficients ( f 2 = 0.35) could be detected with a statistical power of 1 − β = 0.95 in a multiple linear regression with six predictors (Faul et al., 2007 ).

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.g., left vs. right key press). In the other task, stimuli representing self or masculine required one response, and stimuli representing others or feminine required the other response. A person considering herself feminine should be able to react faster in the self-feminine/others-masculine than in the self-masculine/others-feminine task.

We labeled one dimension for the IAT “typically feminine” vs. “typically masculine.” The associated attributes presented were feminine, female vs. masculine, male (in German: feminin, weiblich; maskulin, männlich , see Steffens et al., 2008 ). The other dimension was “self” vs. “others.” The stimuli on that dimension were synonyms of the superordinate concepts ( me, self vs. you, others ; in German: Ich, Selbst; Du, Andere ). 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.g., feminine) after which participants would respond by pressing the appropriate key (e.g., left for typically feminine ). The word would then be replaced by the next stimulus (e.g., me ). Participants would again select the appropriate key (e.g., left for self ). 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.g., in case of errors, F! was shown for 200 ms). Participants received feedback on errors and reaction times after each block (e.g., given 10% errors or more: “You committed many errors. Please react more slowly and more correctly.”).

The IAT effect was computed similar to the IAT D effect (Nosek et al., 2005 , except that no “error penalty” was used, see Steffens et al., 2008 ): Specifically, the reaction time difference between the self-feminine/others-masculine and the self-masculine/others-feminine task was computed and divided by each individual's standard deviation across both tasks. 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, 2003 ). All internal consistencies are presented in Table ​ Table2 2 .

Internal Consistencies (Cronbach's α, with number of items) and Correlations between Measures in Study 1 .

All correlations are statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05 except for those in parentheses. Abbreviations: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; BSRI, Bem Sex Role Inventory; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; IAT effect: Differences in the implicit association test (IAT) between the self-masculine/others-feminine and the self-feminine/others-masculine task. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) scales. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales and higher femininity on femininity scales .

Bem sex-role inventory

We translated the English short version of the BSRI (Bem, 1979 ) into German. It consisted of 30 items, 10 for the Masculinity Scale (e.g., self-reliant, ambitious), 10 for the Femininity Scale (e.g., warm, tender), and 10 neutral items with a 7-point scale anchored 1 ( never applies ) to 7 ( always applies ). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the given traits were adequate to describe them.

Traditional masculinity-femininity

The TMF was used as described in the Section Scale Construction with two unipolar dimensions, masculinity and femininity (12 items overall, see Appendix in Supplementary Material).

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 A2 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.

Sexual orientation

As indicated in Section Participants, participants' sexual orientation was assessed using participants' responses on the item: “Regarding sexual orientation, I identify as …” (on a Kinsey-like scale, from 1 ( exclusively lesbian ) to 7 ( exclusively straight ). This was also the first item of a translated version of the Assessment of Sexual Orientation Scale (Coleman, 1987 ). 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). The first item also correlated highly with the overall scale ( r = 0.95), corroborating the decision to use only one item.

Gender role behavior scale

Participants rated themselves on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 ( not at all typical ) to 7 ( very typical ) on 52 everyday typically feminine or masculine behaviors (GRB, Athenstaedt, 2003 ; e.g., “watch soap operas,” “change light bulbs”).

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.g., Banse et al., 2001 , for discussion). All participants did the self-masculine/others-feminine task first. 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.

In all analyses in the present article, significance tests were conducted with α = 0.05 and all statistical analyses were done with SPSS 22. 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. To illustrate, in Study 2 we observed GRB-M (<0.01) and GRB-F (<0.10). 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 0.86. All items were suitable for factor analysis as indicated by item-specific KMO values >0.77 and moderate to high commonalities (0.50–0.80). 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 57.80% and showed all items to load highly on that factor (positive loadings for femininity items: ≥ 0.70; negative loadings for masculinity items: ≤ −0.67). 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 B in Supplementary Material.

Group differences

Table ​ Table3 3 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.

Overall Scale Means (with SD ) and Means per Group, with Statistical Test of Difference (all df = 2, 123; with effect size; Tukey HSD) and Correlation with the Sexual Orientation Scale in Study 1 .

All scales theoretically range from 1 to 7, except for the IAT effect that is similar to an effect size of the stronger self-feminine as opposed to self-masculine association. Abbreviations of tests: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; BSRI, Bem Sex Role Inventory; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; IAT effect: Differences in the implicit association test (IAT) between the self-masculine/others-feminine and the self-feminine/others-masculine task. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) 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 .

Bivariate correlations

Table ​ Table2 2 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. In line with the large negative correlation, people who judged themselves as “moderately feminine” (i.e., ticked the value 4) tended to also judge themselves as “moderately masculine” (i.e., ticked 4 again). 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. The overall model was statistically significant, χ (8) = 72.01, p < 0.001, Nagelkerke's R 2 = 0.49. The significant predictors were TMF total scores [ B = 1.17, SE = 0.27, χ 2 (1) = 19.30, p < 0.001] and masculine everyday behavior [ B = −0.69, SE = 0.27, χ 2 (1) = 6.65, p = 0.01]. None of the other predictors was significant, p s > 0.21. 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 ( 2013 ), 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 ​ Figures2, 2 , ​ ,3 3 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 ​ Table3). 3 ). 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.e., none of the bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals included 0). 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.

Mediation of the relation between BSRI and sexual orientation by the TMF .

Mediation of the relation between GRB and sexual orientation by the TMF .

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. self-masculine association were in the expected order of magnitude (e.g., Hofmann et al., 2005 ) and higher than those of the implicit measure with any of the trait or behavior self-ratings. Additionally, the TMF was related to participants' sexual orientation more strongly than any other measure (see ANOVA results in Table ​ Table3), 3 ), 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.g., Croft et al., 2014 ; Steffens and Viladot, 2015 ), a woman considering herself rather feminine may mow the lawn more often when she is in a relationship with a woman than with a man. 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.e., typically male everyday behaviors if no man is around).

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., 1981 ) of the Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence et al., 1978 ). For determining criterion validity, we also focused on other features. Participants were instructed to provide information regarding frequency of contact with lesbians/gay men and straight people. Moreover, characteristics of participants' voice pitch were collected as well as evaluations from independent judges on whether participants' voices sounded straight or gay/lesbian and whether their faces looked straight or gay/lesbian. 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 highest masculinity/lowest femininity scores for straight men, followed by gay men, lesbians, and straight women, implying lowest masculinity/highest femininity for straight women (Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4). 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).

Overall 111 German participants attended the study at the first measurement point. Their age ranged from 19 to 30 years ( M = 24.2, SD = 2.5). Participants were recruited at the University of Jena, the Technical University of Berlin, and on lesbian/gay dating websites. 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. As a post-hoc power analysis indicated, given the sample size and α = 0.05, between medium (0.25) and large (0.40) effects of f = 0.35 could be detected in the 2 × 2 ANOVAs below with a statistical power of 1 − β = 0.95.

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. The retest-group reported less contact with straight men during the first data collection [ M retest = 5.76, M no − retest = 6.53, t (49.47) = 3.33, p = 0.002].

The same measures as in Study 1 were used in the following manner. Because the femininity and masculinity subscales of the TMF were highly correlated, as were subscales of the Childhood Gender-Role Behavior Scale, they were combined to form one dimension each [TMF: 1 ( very masculine ), to 7 ( very feminine ); CGRB: 1 ( I strongly disagree ), 5 ( I strongly agree )]. Thus, the 6-item-version of the TMF was used. High values on CGRB indicated a high degree of gender conformity. Gender Role Behavior was assessed with a 6-point-scale this time and sexual orientation was measured with one item on a 7-point Kinsey-like scale [(“Regarding sexual orientation, I identify as…”); 1 ( exclusively lesbian/gay ), 7 ( exclusively straight )]. Moreover, we included the following measures.

German extended personal attributes questionnaire

We used the German version (Runge et al., 1981 ) of the Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence et al., 1978 ). 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.g., independent), the expressiveness scale (GEPAQ-F) comprised eight items more socially desirable for women (e.g., emotional). Participants were instructed to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = non independent/not emotional, 5 = very independent/very emotional) the extent to which they felt each item described them.

Contact measures

In order to estimate the composition of participants' social environment, we measured current contact to same-gender lesbian/gay and straight people with one item each. The participants should “indicate how often you have contact to homosexual and heterosexual women/men” on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 ( never ) to 7 ( always ).

Voice pitch characteristics

To describe participants' voice pitch (i.e., the auditory correlate of fundamental frequency) distributions in spontaneous speech, we used three measures. 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 97.5th percentile (estimator of the upper voice pitch boundary) and f0 2.5th percentile (estimator of the lower voice pitch boundary).

Perceived straightness

Participants' voices, facial photographs, and the combinations of both voices and faces had been rated as either “heterosexual” or “homosexual” by 101 judges (65 women, 31 men; age M = 28.0), participating in a different study (for details see Kachel et al., unpublished manuscript). To receive a relative measure of “heterosexual” judgments, all “heterosexual” responses were summed for each participant and divided by the number of judgments. Hence, higher scores indicate higher perceived straightness.

At first measurement, participants filled out an online questionnaire in which all psychological and sociodemographic characteristics were collected. The order of psychological instruments was TMF, CGRB, contact to girls and boys during childhood, GRB, GEPAQ, Kinsey-like scale, and finally current contact to same-gender lesbians/gay men and straight people. 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., unpublished manuscript). For the rating of speech recordings, we used the same read sentence for all target persons (“It has been quite a long day,” German: “ Der Tag ist sehr lang geworden .”) in order to hold the conditions constant for every target and to control for the phonetic composition of the utterance.

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.

All results refer to the first measurement except for those that are explicitly indicated to belong to second measurement.

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 0.86 indicated that the sample was appropriate. All items were suitable for factor analysis (item-specific KMO values >0.81; commonalities:0.54–0.83). 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%). Each item was represented very well by this factor (loadings >0.73).

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 0.76 indicated that the sample was appropriate. All items were suitable for factor analysis because of item-specific KMO values >0.69 and moderate to high commonalities (0.42–0.69). 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%). Each item was represented very well by this factor (loadings >0.65).

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 ​ Table4 4 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 .

TMF: 1-7, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ: 1-5, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB: 1-6, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB: 1-5, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) scales. 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. Groups sharing the same letter do not differ significantly from each other at α ≤ 0.05 .

On the TMF, we found an interaction of gender and sexual orientation, F (1, 92) = 21.42, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.19, as well as a main effect of gender F (1, 92) = 100.54, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.52. Both effects explained more variance in the TMF than in all other gender-related instruments in this study. Because straight women and men conform to gender roles more than lesbians/gay men, stronger gender differences should be expected between straight women and men than between lesbians and gay men. Hence, comparing lesbians and gay men constituted a stricter test of all scales. Although the TMF mean differences between straight women and men were more distinct (Δ M = 2.85), lesbians and gay men significantly differed, too (Δ M = 1.05). In short, the TMF showed the expected mean differences between all groups, it was the only scale in this study that was able to detect differences between lesbians and gay men, and it showed the largest mean difference between straight women and men.

Furthermore, the TMF differentiated the groups as expected (see Figure ​ Figure4). 4 ). Lesbians and straight women were on average clearly located on the scale's side that is associated with femininity (scores > 4) and gay and straight men's mean values were connected to masculinity (scores < 4). Additionally, the TMF was best in predicting gender on the basis of scale scores as can be seen in Table ​ Table5 5 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.

Mean TMF scores separately for gender and sexual orientation . Error bars represent standard errors of means.

Results of Binary Logistic Regression Models in Predicting Participants' Gender based on Different Gender-Related Instruments in Study 2 at First Measurement .

TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) scales .

Replication of findings from the female sample

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 ​ Table4). 4 ). Means were particularly close together for adjective-based gender-related instruments such as the GEPAQ.

Reliabilities and correlations on all gender-related instruments can be seen in Table ​ Table6. 6 . 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.

Reliabilities and bivariate correlations of gender-related scales for women and men in Study 2 at first measurement .

Correlations for women sample are presented above, for men sample below the diagonal. Internal consistencies are depicted in the diagonal with the values before the slash referring to women and after the slash referring to men. All correlations are statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05 except for those in parentheses. Abbreviations: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) scales. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB .

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 ​ Table7. 7 . 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. However, when GRB-F was not included in the regression model, the TMF was the only significant predictor of sexual orientation in the model, B = 1.25, SE = 0.50, χ 2 (1) = 6.19, p = 0.013.

Stepwise, logistic regression analysis for predicting women's sexual orientation based on gender-related scales in study 2 at first measurement .

Chosen method was “Forward: Wald” in each block. R 2 means Nagelkerke's R 2 . Percentage values refer to correctly classified lesbian and straight women. All correlations are statistically significant at α = 0.05 except for those in brackets. TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) scales. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB .

Comparisons within men

The same analyses were computed for the male subsample.

As indicated in Table ​ Table4, 4 , all differences in the male subsample were in the expected directions. Straight men showed higher masculinity/lower femininity on each gender-related instrument than gay men except for the GEPAQ-M, where no significant difference was detected. The TMF (Δ M = 1.05) and the CGRB (Δ M = 1.10) were similarly able to predict sexual orientation.

At second measurement, gay and straight men differed more strongly on the TMF [ M gay = 3.85, M straight = 2.60, t (35) = 4.70, p < 0.001]. However, in contrast to the first measurement the GEPAQ-F was not able to discriminate between both groups, M gay = 4.02, M straight = 3.68, t (35) = 1.83, p = 0.075. The GEPAQ-M remained non-significant, M gay = 3.46, M straight = 3.56, t (35) = −0.51, p = 0.61.

All correlations with the TMF were significant (all | r | > 0.31, all p < 0.028) and in the expected directions (see Table ​ Table6 6 ).

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 ​ Table8). 8 ). 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. In that analysis, TMF was the only significant predictor of sexual orientation, B = −0.89, SE = 0.41, χ ( 1 ) 2 = 4 . 61 , p = 0.032. Taken together, CGRB and GRB-M predicted sexual orientation best, and TMF predicted sexual orientation better than GEPAQ.

Stepwise, logistic regression analysis for predicting men's sexual orientation based on gender-related scales in study 2 at first measurement .

Chosen method was “Forward: Wald” in each block. R 2 means Nagelkerke's R 2 . Percentage values refer to correctly classified gay and straight men. All correlations are statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05 except for those in brackets. TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) scales. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales, higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF, and higher gender-conformity on CGRB .

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 ​ Table9) 9 ) and men (see Table ​ Table10). 10 ). 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 women in study 2 .

All correlations are statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05 except for those in parentheses. Abbreviations for column headings: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire; GRB, Gender-Role Behavior; and CGRB, Childhood Gender-Role Behavior. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) scales. 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. For criterion characteristics higher scores indicate more frequent contact to lesbians/gay men and straight wo/men, higher voice pitch characteristics, and higher perceived straightness .

Bivariate correlations of gender-related instruments and criterion characteristics for men in study 2 .

The more gender-conform women and men rated themselves on the TMF, the more likely they were perceived as straight based on voices, faces, and the combination of both (| r| > 0.31) however, the correlation for perceived straightness based on voice for women was only by trend). In contrast to men, all voice pitch characteristics correlated significantly with the TMF for women ( r > 0.32). 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. In contrast, one contact measure showed a significant correlation for men but not for women: The less contact men reported to gay men, the more masculine they rated themselves on the TMF ( r = −0.35).

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 ​ Table11 11 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 0.75 and higher than for the GEPAQ-F, though inter-correlations for the GEPAQ-M were even higher than for the TMF. Hypothesis 12 was confirmed.

Reliabilities and correlations for gender-related measures between first (columns) and second (rows) Measurement in Study 3 .

Internal consistencies for second measurement are presented in the first column. Test-retest reliabilities are presented on the diagonal. All correlations are statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05 except for those in parentheses. Abbreviations: TMF, Traditional Masculinity-Femininity; GEPAQ, German Extended Personality Attributes Questionnaire. Endings indicate masculinity (−M) und femininity (−F) scales. Higher scores indicate higher masculinity on masculinity scales and higher femininity on femininity scales and TMF .

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 ​ Table11, 11 , both correlations were significant, of moderate size, and in the expected directions, confirming Hypothesis 13.

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 ​ Table4). 4 ). In line with gender self-stereotyping and contradicting implicit gender inversion theory, gay men showed lower femininity/higher masculinity than lesbians. 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 ​ Table4), 4 ), in the logistic regression analysis (see Table ​ Table7), 7 ), 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.g., higher femininity was accompanied by more gender-conform voice pitch characteristics) and men (e.g., higher masculinity was associated with less frequent contact to gay men) and outperformed other gender-related scales.

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, 1990 ). Supplementing these scales, the TMF scale is designed as an instrument for globally assessing people's overall, or “core,” masculinity-femininity. 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. men, lesbians/gay men vs. straight women and men) and (b) it correlated moderately with other gender-related instruments, such as the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974 ) and the German Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire (GEPAQ; Runge et al., 1981 ). Whereas, some well-established, adjective-based scales (e.g., BSRI, GEPAQ) have shown shortcomings in differentiating women and men in recent years (Sczesny et al., 2004 ; Evers and Sieverding, 2014 ), our findings of consistent group differences support the TMF as a new tool for measuring gender-role self-concept.

Dimensionality of the TMF

In line with Choi and Fuqua ( 2003 ), 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, 2012 ). All items were shown to load on one factor and represent a one-dimensional construct (masculinity-femininity). This finding should be not taken as hint that one-dimensional masculinity/femininity models generally outperform two dimensional ones (e.g., agency, communion; competence, warmth; instrumentality, expressivity), but that all TMF items appear to refer to the same underlying construct. 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.g., transgender and queer people). Future research is needed to clarify that question.

One could object against using the bipolar TMF scale that its midpoint is ambiguous. In other words: what does a score of “4” mean? One could imagine that people scoring either high or low on both dimensions would erroneously be treated as one group. However, according to the high correlations between the separate TMF masculinity and femininity scales (Study 1) and a supplementary graphical scatterplot analysis we did, we found no groups of high/high (i.e., androgyny) or low/low scorers (i.e., undifferentiated). Hence, it can be deduced that people in our samples who scored close to “4” believed themselves to be moderately feminine and masculine.

Contextualizing validity findings

In terms of validity, using a known-groups approach as an established psychological method for validity tests (e.g., Howitt and Cramer, 2008 ), the TMF repeatedly showed expected gender differences, with men scoring higher on masculinity and lower on femininity than women. With reference to sexual orientation, straight and bisexual women rated themselves higher on femininity and lower on masculinity than lesbians did (Study 1). Moreover, the TMF was the only gender-related scale used in the present study that distinguished straight men, gay men, lesbians, and straight women (from high masculinity/low femininity to low masculinity/high femininity, Study 2) which supports gender self-stereotyping rather than implicit gender inversion theory (Kite and Deaux, 1987 ). 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. Finally, we found evidence for the idea that differences in “core” masculinity and femininity measured by the TMF underlie differences in lesbians' and gay men's vs. straight women and men's self-ascriptions in gender typicality measured by other scales, such as the BSRI (see Study 1). 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. This indicates that the TMF measures other aspects of people's conceptualizations of their own masculinity/femininity than the BSRI or the Gender-Role Behavior Scale (Athenstaedt, 2003 ) and complements them well. An explanation for this findings is that the TMF does not measure attributes associated with masculinity/femininity, but rather, these constructs themselves. 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, 1995 ) measured with the TMF. Alternatively, the high correlation is due to actual gender differences during childhood, which would be a hint for constancy of conceptualizations of people's own masculinity/femininity. 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.g., instead of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, the Personal Attributes Questionnaire was used). 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. Rather, other facets of self-ascribed masculinity/femininity, such as everyday behavior, turned out to be highly capable of predicting sexual orientation as well. 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. self-masculine associations. Study 1 showed that the correlations of these associations were higher for the TMF than for self-ratings of traits or behaviors. This is a strong hint that the TMF is able to reflect “true” differences in core masculinity/femininity rather than social desirability only. It is also a substantive finding of the present studies that goes beyond mere scale validation.

In a similar vein, in order to test the criterion validity of the TMF, we selected several criterion characteristics which can be categorized into three groups (Study 2): These included contact to same-gender straight women/men and lesbians/gay men, voice pitch features, and assessment of sexual orientation by laypersons based on visual and auditory stimuli. 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. Taken together, self-ratings of masculinity/femininity go along not only with gender and sexual orientation differences, but also with differences in social behavior (i.e., contact to same-gender people differing in sexual orientation), with objective voice characteristics, and with assessments of sexual orientation based on facial and voice features. 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.g., voice pitch features for women and contact variables for men). It appears that women and men express their masculinity/femininity in different ways, which is an interesting topic for future research.

Theoretical considerations regarding the TMF

One might assume that a one-item-measure could be sufficient for assessing masculinity/femininity by simply asking how masculine/feminine people believe themselves to be. We checked this idea in an exemplary fashion for Study 2 using the “I consider myself as…”-item for a comparative analysis because of highest corrected item-total correlations for the whole sample in the Pilot Study. 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.g., compared to the one-item measure the TMF showed higher correlations for almost all gender-related measures in the male subsample except for GEPAQ-M where a higher correlation was found for the one-item measure). 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, 2010 ). Moreover, it is also consistent with Constantinople's ( 1973 ) view that the masculinity/femininity-construct is captured best when gender role adoption, preference, and identity are measured in conjunction.

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, 2015 ) 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.

In spite of this trait-like approach, the TMF is based on the idea that masculinity/femininity is socially determined (see Smiler, 2004 ). The scale is about how people relate or conform to social standards (how masculine/feminine do they believe themselves to be?), but not how they consider social norms to be appropriate for men and women (i.e., what people consider as masculine/feminine). To trigger a reference to social norms in the participants' minds when testing gender-role identity aspects, we used the term “traditionally” in the beginning of the corresponding items. However, the TMF does not measure if participants' conceptions of gender-role identity aspects correspond to traditional views. Thus, we concede that there could be variations in people's understanding of “traditionally” which could affect their self-evaluations. However, large differences are not likely because people within one culture know about traditional gender roles.

Because of the TMF's broader scope compared to established scales, such as the BSRI and PAQ, it is reasonable to be positive about the TMF's ability of measuring masculinity/femininity also in the future. 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 ( 2015 ). 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. ( 2008 ), social identification is a multidimensional multicomponent higher order construct. 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.e., two-digit-four-digit ratio)? 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.

The current research was partially funded by grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG, STE 938/10-2, FOR 1097, and STE 938/11-1).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

Supplementary material.

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956

• Abele A. E. (2000). A dual impact model of gender and career related processes, in The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender , eds Eckes T., Trautner H.-M. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 361–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abele A. E., Wojciszke B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 , 751–763. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvesson M. (1998). 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 . Hum. Relat. 51 , 969–1005. 10.1177/001872679805100801 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Athenstaedt U. (2000). Normative geschlechtsrollenorientierung: entwicklung und validierung eines fragebogens [Normative Gender Role Attitudes: The Development and Validation of a New Questionnaire] . Zeitschrift Differentielle Diagnostische Psychologie 21 , 91–104. 10.1024//0170-1789.21.1.91 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Athenstaedt U. (2003). On the content and structure of the gender role self-concept: including gender-stereotypical behaviors in addition to traits . Psychol. Women Q. 27 , 309–318. 10.1111/1471-6402.00111 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baeck H., Corthals P., van Borsel J. (2011). Pitch characteristics of homosexual males . J. Voice 25 , 211–214. 10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.10.019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailey J. M., Zucker K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation . Dev. Psychol. 31 , 43–55. 10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.43 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banse R., Seise J., Zerbes N. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT . Zeitschrift Exp. Psychol. 48 , 145–160. 10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.145 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beere C. A. (1990). Gender Roles: A Handbook of Tests and Measures. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bem S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny . J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42 , 155–162. 10.1037/h0036215 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bem S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgynity: a reply to the pedhazur-tetenbaum and locksley-colten critiques . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 , 1047–1054. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.1047 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blashill A. J., Powlishta K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: the use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes . Sex Roles 61 , 783–793. 10.1007/s11199-009-9684-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bortz J., Döring N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Research Methods and Evaluation for Human and Social Scientists]. Heidelberg: Springer; Medizin Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bühner M. (2010). Einführung in Die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Introduction to Test and Questionnaire Construction ]. München: Pearson; Studium. [ Google Scholar ]
• Camp M. (2009). Japanese Lesbian Speech: Sexuality, Gender Identity, and Language . Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona. Available online at: http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/195371/1/azu_etd_10574_sip1_m.pdf
• Choi N., Fuqua D. R. (2003). The structure of the bem sex role inventory: a summary report of 23 validation studies . Educ. Psychol. Meas. 63 , 872–887. 10.1177/0013164403258235 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . New York, NY: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman E. (1987). Assessment of sexual orientation . J. Homosex. 14 , 9–24. 10.1300/J082v14n01_02 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Constantinople A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: an exception to a famous dictum? Psychol. Bull. 80 , 389–407. 10.1037/h0035334 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croft A., Schmader T., Block K., Baron A. S. (2014). The second shift reflected in the second generation: Do parents' gender roles at home predict children's aspirations? Psychol. Sci. 25 , 1–11. 10.1177/0956797614533968 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deaux K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: analysis of a decade's research on gender . Am. Psychol. 39 , 105–116. 10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deaux K., Lewis L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46 , 991–1004. 10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diekman A. B., Eagly A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 , 1171–1188. 10.1177/0146167200262001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert I. D., Steffens M. C., Kroth A. (2014). Warm, but maybe not so competent? – Contemporary implicit stereotypes of women and men in Germany . Sex Roles 70 , 359–375. 10.1007/s11199-014-0369-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evers A., Sieverding M. (2014). Why do highly qualified women (still) earn less? Gender differences in long-term predictors of career success . Psychol. Women Q. 38 , 93–106. 10.1177/0361684313498071 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., Buchner A. (2007). G * Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences . Behav. Res. Methods 39 , 175–191. 10.3758/BF03193146 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P., Xu J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82 , 878–902. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald A. G., McGhee D. E., Schwartz J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 , 1464–1480. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofmann W., Gawronski B., Gschwendner T., Le H., Schmitt M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31 , 1369–1385. 10.1177/0146167205275613 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howitt D., Cramer D. (2008). Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology . Essex: Pearson Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kagan J. (1964). Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex-role identity, in Review of Child Development Research , eds Hoffman M. L., Hoffman L. W. (New York, NY: Russell Sage; ), 17–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kite M. E., Deaux K. (1987). Gender belief systems: homosexuality and the implicit inversion . Psychol. Women Q. 11 , 83–96. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kite M. E., Whitley B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22 , 336–353. 10.1177/0146167296224002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leach C., Van Zomeren M., Zebel S., Vliek M. W., Pennekamp S. F., Doosje B., et al.. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95 , 144–165. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lippa R. A. (2005). Sexual orientation and personality . Annu. Rev. Sex Res. 16 , 119–153. 10.1080/10532528.2005.10559831 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lippa R. A. (2008). The relation between childhood gender nonconformity and adult masculinity–femininity and anxiety in heterosexual and homosexual men and women . Sex Roles 59 , 684–693. 10.1007/s11199-008-9476-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madon S. (1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength . Sex Roles 37 , 663–685. 10.1007/BF02936334 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munson B., Babel M. (2007). Loose lips and silver tongues, or, projecting sexual orientation through speech . Lang. Linguist. Compass 1 , 416–449. 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00028.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niedlich C., Steffens M. C., Krause J., Settke E., Ebert I. D. (2015). Ironic effects of sexual minority group membership: Are lesbians less susceptible to invoking negative female stereotypes than heterosexual women? Arch. Sex. Behav. 44 , 1439–1447. 10.1007/s10508-014-0412-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek B. A., Banaji M. R., Greenwald A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83 , 44–59. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek B. A., Greenwald A. G., Banaji M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the implicit association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31 , 166–180. 10.1177/0146167204271418 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierrehumbert J. B., Bent T., Munson B., Bradlow A., Bailey J. M. (2004). The influence of sexual orientation on vowel production . J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116 , 1905–1908. 10.1121/1.1788729 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rieger G., Linsenmeier J. A. W., Gygax L., Garcia S., Bailey J. M. (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: accuracy and the role of masculinity–femininity . Arch. Sex. Behav. 39 , 124–140. 10.1007/s10508-008-9405-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth J., Mazziotta A. (2015). Adaptation and validation of a German multidimensional and multicomponent measure of social identification . Soc. Psychol. 46 , 277–290. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000243 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Runge T. E., Frey D., Gollwitzer P. E., Helmreich R. L., Spence J. T. (1981). Masculine (instrumental) and feminine (expressive) traits: a comparison between students in the United States and West Germany . J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 12 , 142–162. 10.1177/0022022181122002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Safir M. P., Rosenmann A., Kloner O. (2003). Tomboyism, sexual orientation, and adult gender roles among Israeli women . Sex Roles 48 , 401–410. 10.1023/A:1023522410882 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez F., Vilain E. (2012). “Straight-Acting Gays”: The relationship between masculine consciousness, anti-effeminacy, and negative gay identity . Arch. Sex. Behav. 41 , 111–119. 10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sczesny S., Bosak J., Neff D., Schyns B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison . Sex Roles 51 , 631–645. 10.1007/s11199-004-0715-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidanius J., Pratto F., Bobo L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67 , 998–1011. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.998 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smiler A. P. (2004). Thrity years after the discovery of gender: psychological concepts and measures of masculinity . Sex Roles 50 , 15–26. 10.1023/B:SERS.0000011069.02279.4c [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence J. T., Buckner C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes . Psychol. Women Q. 24 , 44–62. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence J. T., Helmreich R. L., Stapp J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32 , 29–39. 10.1037/h0076857 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence J. T., Helmreich R. L., Stapp J. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlations, and Antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffens M. C., Buchner A. (2003). Implicit association test: Separating transsituationally stable and variable components of attitudes toward gay men . Exp. Psychol. 50 , 33–48. 10.1027//1618-3169.50.1.33 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffens M. C., Jelenec P., Noack P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents . J. Educ. Psychol. 102 , 947–963. 10.1037/a0019920 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffens M. C., Kirschbaum M., Glados P. (2008). Avoiding stimulus confounds in Implicit Association Tests by using the concepts as stimuli . Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47 , 217–243. 10.1348/014466607X226998 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffens M. C., Schulze-Koenig S. (2006). Predicting spontaneous Big Five behavior with Implicit Association Tests . Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 22 , 13–20. 10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.13 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffens M. C., Viladot M. A. (2015). Gender at Work: A Social-Psychological Perspective . New York, NY: Peter Lang. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strack F., Deutsch R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8 , 220–247. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swank E., Raiz L. (2010). Attitudes toward gays and lesbians among undergraduate social work students . J. Women Soc. Work 25 , 19–29. 10.1177/0886109909356058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swazina K. R., Waldherr K., Maier K. (2004). Geschlechtsspezifische Ideale im Wandel der Zeit [Gender-specific ideals through the ages] . Zeitschrift Differentielle Diagnostische Psychologie 25 , 165–176. 10.1024/0170-1789.25.3.165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson E. H., Jr., Bennet K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: a (Critical) review . Psychol. Men Masculinity 16 , 115–133. 10.1037/a0038609 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valentova J., Rieger G., Havlicek J., Linsenmeier J. A., Bailey J. M. (2011). Judgments of sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity based on thin slices of behavior: A cross-cultural comparison . Arch. Sex. Behav. 40 , 1145–1152. 10.1007/s10508-011-9818-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilde A., Diekman A. B. (2005). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in dynamic stereotypes: A comparison between Germany and the United States . Psychol. Women Q. 29 , 188–196. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00181.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.2: Understanding Cultural Differences

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 110267

• Lisa Coleman, Thomas King, & William Turner
• Southwest Tennessee Community College

In this section, we will look at cultural differences through the lenses of German psychologist Geert Hofstede; American anthropologist Edward Hall, and Scottish Business Professor Charles Tidwell. By gaining a rough understanding of different cultures, we can learn what to expect and how to interact with citizens of our diverse, multicultural society.

Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture 

Psychologist  Geert Hofstede published his cultural dimensions model at the end of the 1970s. Since then, it's become an internationally recognized standard for understanding cultural differences.  Hofstede studied people who worked for IBM in more than 50 countries and identified six dimensions that could distinguish one culture from another. These six dimensions are individualism vs. collectivism, discussed in the previous section; high power distance vs. low power distance; high certainty avoidance vs. low certainly avoidance; long-term vs. short-term orientation; masculine vs. feminine; and indulgence vs. restraint.

• Individualism and Collectivism

Put simply, you can think if an individualistic culture as an I culture where members are able to make choices based on personal preference with little regard for others, except for close family or significant relationships. They can pursue their own wants and needs free from concerns about meeting social expectations. The  United States  is a highly individualistic culture. While we value the role of certain aspects of collectivism such as government and social organizations, at our core we strongly believe it is up to each person to find and follow his or her path in life.

In a highly collectivistic culture, a we culture, just the opposite is true. It is the role of individuals to fulfill their place in the overall social order. Personal wants and needs are secondary to the needs of society at large. There is immense pressure to adhere to social norms and those who fail to conform risk social isolation, disconnection from family, and perhaps some form of banishment.  China  is typically considered a highly collectivistic culture. In China, multigenerational homes are common, and tradition calls for the oldest son to care for his parents as they age.

High Power-Distance and Low Power-Distance

Power is a normal feature of any relationship or society. How power is perceived, however, varies among cultures.  In high power-distance cultures, the members accept some having more power and some having less power, and accept that this power distribution is natural and normal. Those with power are assumed to deserve it, and likewise, those without power are assumed to be in their proper place. In such a culture, there will be a rigid adherence to the use of titles, “Sir,” “Ma’am,” “Officer,” “Reverend,” and so on. The directives of those with higher power are to be obeyed, with little question.

In low power-distance cultures , the distribution of power is considered far more arbitrary and viewed as a result of luck, money, heritage, or other external variables. Those in power are far more likely to be challenged in a low power-distance culture than they would in a high power-distance culture. A wealthy person is typically seen as more powerful in western cultures. Elected officials, like United States Senators, will be seen as powerful since they had to win their office by receiving majority support.  However, individuals who attempt to assert power are often faced with those who stand up to them, question them, ignore them, or otherwise refuse to acknowledge their power. While some titles may be used, they will be used far less than in high power-distance culture. For example, in colleges and universities in the U.S., it is far more common for students to address their instructors on a first-name basis, and engage in casual conversation on personal topics. In contrast, in a high power-distance culture like  Japan , the students rise and bow as the teacher enters the room, address them formally at all times, and rarely engage in any personal conversation.

High Uncertainty Avoidance and Low Uncertainty Avoidance

This index shows the degree to which people accept or avoid something that is strange, unexpected, or different from the status quo.

Societies with high uncertainty avoidance choose strict rules, guidelines, and behavior codes. They usually depend on absolute truths or the idea that only one truth decides all proper conduct. High uncertainty avoidance cultures limit change and place a very high value on history, doing things as they have been done in the past, and honoring stable cultural norms.

Low uncertainty avoidance cultures see change is seen as inevitable and normal. These cultures are more accepting of contrasting opinions or beliefs.  Society is less strict and lack of certainty is more acceptable.  In a low uncertainty avoidance culture, innovation in all areas is valued. Businesses in the U.S. that can change rapidly, innovate quickly, and respond immediately to market and social pressures are seen as far more successful.  Even though the U.S. is generally low in uncertainty avoidance, we can see some evidence of a degree of higher uncertainty avoidance related to certain social issues. As society changes, there are many who will decry the changes as they are “forgetting the past,” “dishonoring our forebears,” or “abandoning sacred traditions.” In the controversy over same-sex marriage, the phrase “traditional marriage” is used to refer to a two person, heterosexual marriage, suggesting same-sex marriage is a violation of tradition. Changing social norms creates uncertainty, and for many changes are very unsettling.

Long-Term Orientation and Short-Term Orientation  

People and cultures view time in different ways. For some, the “here and now” is paramount, and for others, “saving for a rainy day” is the dominant view.

In a long-term culture, significant emphasis is placed on planning for the future. For example, the savings rates in France and Germany are 2-4 times greater than in the U.S., suggesting cultures with more of a “plan ahead” mentality (Pasquali & Aridas, 2012). These long-term cultures see change and social evolution are normal, integral parts of the human condition.

In a short-term culture, emphasis is placed far more on the “here and now.” Immediate needs and desires are paramount, with longer-term issues left for another day. The U.S. falls more into this type. Legislation tends to be passed to handle immediate problems, and it can be challenging for lawmakers to convince voters of the need to look at issues from a long-term perspective. With the fairly easy access to credit, consumers are encouraged to buy now versus waiting. We see evidence of the need to establish “absolute Truth” in our political arena on issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and gun control. Our culture does not tend to favor middle grounds in which truth is not clear-cut.

Masculine and Feminine  

Expectations for gender roles are a core component of any culture. All cultures have some sense of what it means to be a “man” or a “woman.”  Masculine cultures  are  traditionally seen as more aggressive and domineering , while  feminine cultures  are  traditionally seen as more nurturing and caring .

In a masculine culture, such as the U.S., winning is highly valued. We respect and honor those who demonstrate power and high degrees of competence. Consider the role of competitive sports such as football, basketball, or baseball, and how the rituals of identifying the best are significant events. The 2017 Super Bowl had 111 million viewers, (Huddleston, 2017) and the World Series regularly receives high ratings, with the final game in 2016 ending at the highest rating in ten years (Perez, 2016).

More feminine societies, such as those in the Scandinavian countries, will certainly have their sporting moments. However, the culture is far more structured to provide aid and support to citizens, focusing their energies on providing a reasonable quality of life for all (Hofstede, 2012b).

• Indulgence and Restraint

A more recent addition to Hofstede’s dimensions of culture, the indulgence/restraint continuum addresses the degree of rigidity of social norms of behavior. He states:

Indulgence   stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun .  Restraint   stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms  (Hofstede, 2012a).

Indulgent cultures are comfortable with individuals acting on their more basic human drives. Sexual mores are less restrictive, and one can act more spontaneously than in cultures of restraint. Those in indulgent cultures will tend to communicate fewer messages of judgment and evaluation. Every spring thousands of U.S. college students flock to places like Cancun, Mexico, to engage in a week of fairly indulgent behavior. Feeling free from the social expectations of home, many will engage in some intense partying, sexual activity, and fairly limitless behaviors.

Cultures of restraint, such as many Islamic countries, have rigid social expectations of behavior that can be quite narrow. Guidelines on dress, food, drink, and behaviors are rigid and may even be formalized in law. In the U.S., a generally indulgent culture, there are sub-cultures that are more restraint-focused. The Amish are highly restrained by social norms, but so too can be inner-city gangs. Areas of the country, like Utah with its large Mormon culture, or the Deep South with its large evangelical Christian culture, are more restrained than areas such as San Francisco or New York City. Rural areas often have more rigid social norms than do urban areas. Those in more restraint-oriented cultures will identify those not adhering to these norms, placing pressure on them, either openly or subtly, to conform to social expectations.

Hall's Cultural Variations

In addition to these 6 dimensions from Hofstede, anthropologist Edward T. Hall identified two more significant cultural variations (Raimo, 2008).

• Monochronic and Polychronic

Another aspect of  variations in time orientation  is the difference between monochronic and polychronic   cultures. This refers to  how people perceive and value time .

In a  monochronic culture , like the U.S.,  time is viewed as linear, as a sequential set of finite time units . These units are a commodity, much like money, to be managed and used wisely; once the time is gone, it is gone and cannot be retrieved. Consider the language we use to refer to time:  spending  time;  saving  time;  budgeting  time;  making  time. These are the same terms and concepts we apply to money; time is a resource to be managed thoughtfully. Since we value time so highly, that means:

• Punctuality is valued. Since “time is money,” if a person runs late, they are wasting the resource.
• Scheduling is valued. Since time is finite, only so much is available, we need to plan how to allocate the resource. Monochronic cultures tend to let the schedule drive activity, much like money dictates what we can and cannot afford to do,
• Handling one task at a time is valued. Since time is finite and seen as a resource, monochronic cultures value fulfilling the time budget by doing what was scheduled. Compare this to a financial budget: funds are allocated for different needs, and we assume those funds should be spent on the item budgeted. In a monochronic culture, since time and money are virtually equivalent, adhering to the “time budget” is valued.
• Being busy is valued. Since time is a resource, we tend to view those who are busy as “making the most of their time;” they are seen as using their resources wisely.

In a  polychronic culture , like Spain,  time is far, far more fluid . Schedules are more like rough outlines to be followed, altered, or ignored as events warrant. Relationship development is more important, and schedules do not drive activity. Multi-tasking is far more acceptable, as one can move between various tasks as demands change. In polychronic cultures, people make appointments, but there is more latitude for when they are expected to arrive. David's appointment may be at 10:15, but as long as he arrives sometime within the 10 o’clock hour, he is on time.

Consider a monochronic person attempting to do business in a polychronic culture. The monochronic person may expect meetings to start promptly on time, stay focused, and for work to be completed in a regimented manner to meet an established deadline. Yet those in a polychronic culture will not bring those same expectations to the encounter, sowing the seeds for some significant intercultural conflict.

High Context and Low Context  

The last variation in culture to consider is whether the culture is high context or low context. To establish a little background, consider how we communicate. When we communicate we use a communication package, consisting of all of our verbal and nonverbal communication. As you have learned, our  verbal communication  refers to  our  use of language, and our  nonverbal communication  refers to  all other communication variables: body language, vocal traits, and dress.

In  low-context cultures ,  verbal communication is given primary attention . The assumption is that people will say what they mean relatively directly and clearly. Little will be left for the receiver to interpret or imply. In the U.S. if someone does not want something, we expect them to say, “No.” While we certainly use nonverbal communication variables to get a richer sense of the meaning of the person’s message, we consider what they say to be the core, primary message. Those in a high-context culture find the directness of low-context cultures quite disconcerting, to the point of rudeness.

In  high-context cultures ,  nonverbal communication is as important, if not more important, than verbal communication . How something is said is a significant variable in interpreting what is meant. Messages are often implied and delivered quite subtly. Japan is well known for the reluctance of people to use blunt messages, so they have far more subtle ways to indicate disagreement than a low-context culture. Those in low context cultures find these subtle, implied messages frustrating.

In summary, Hofstede’s Dimensions and Hall’s Cultural Variations give us some tools to use to identify, categorize, and discuss diversity in communication. As we learn to see these differences, we are better equipped to manage inter-cultural encounters, communicate more provisionally, and adapt to cultural variations.

While intended to show only broad cultural differences, these eight variables also can be useful tools to identify variations among individuals within a given culture. We can use them to identify sources of conflict or tension within a given relationship, such as a marriage. For example, Keith tends to be a short-term oriented, indulgent, monochronic person, while his wife tends to be long-term oriented, restrained, and more polychronic. Needless to say, they frequently experience their own personal “culture clashes.”

Tidwell's Insights about Culture and Nonverbal Communication 

Dr. Charles Tidwell, professor of   Intercultural Business Relations at Andrews University, has spent many years studying and teaching intercultural communication.  He provides some valuable insights on cultural differences in dress, movements, gestures, eye contact, touch, and vocalizations.  Following are notes published from his graduate course on Interpersonal Communication.

General Appearance and Dress

All cultures are concerned about how they look and make judgments based on looks and dress.  Some Americans, for instance, appear almost obsessed with dress and personal attractiveness.  But cultural standards on what is attractive in dress and on what constitutes modesty vary greatly. An interesting area to research is how dress is used as a sign of status in different cultures.

Movements and Posture 

We send information on attitude toward a person by movements and posture (facing or leaning towards another), emotional states (tapping fingers, jiggling coins), and desire to control the environment (moving towards or away from a person). There are more than 700,000 possible motions we can make — so it is impossible to categorize them all!  But just be aware the body movement and position are key ingredients in sending messages. Consider the following actions and note cultural differences:              

• Slouching (seen as rude in most Northern European areas)
• Hands in the pocket (disrespectful in Turkey)
• Sitting with legs crossed (offensive in Ghana, Turkey)
• Showing soles of feet. (offensive in Thailand, Saudi Arabia)
• Even in the US, there is a considerable difference in acceptable posture

Gestures  

It is impossible to catalog them all.  But we need to recognize that an acceptable gesture in one’s own culture may be offensive in another.  In addition, the amount of gesturing varies from culture to culture.  Some cultures are animated; others are restrained.  Restrained cultures often feel animated cultures lack manners and overall restraint.  Animated cultures often feel restrained cultures lack emotion or interest. Even simple things like using hands to point and count differ.  People in the US point with the index finger; Germany with the little finger; and the Japanese with the entire hand (in fact most Asians consider pointing with the index finger to be rude).  In counting with the fingers, Germans use the thumb to indicate the number 1; the middle finger is the symbol for 1 in Indonesia.

Facial Expressions

While many facial expressions such as smiling, crying, or showing anger, sorrow, or disgust are recognized worldwide, the intensity varies from culture to culture. Many Asian cultures suppress facial expressions as much as possible. Many Mediterranean (Latino / Arabic) cultures exaggerate grief or sadness while most American men hide grief or sorrow. Some see “animated” expressions as a sign of a lack of control. Too much smiling is viewed as a sign of shallowness in some cultures. Women smile more than men.

Eye Contact and Gaze

In the USA, eye contact indicates our degree of attention or interest, regulates interaction, communicates emotion, defines power and status, and has a central role in managing the impressions of others.  Western cultures see direct eye to eye contact as positive and advise children to look a person in the eyes.  But within the USA, differences exist.  For example, African-Americans use more eye contact when talking and less when listening with the reverse being true for Anglo-Americans.  

• Arabic cultures make prolonged eye contact and believe it shows interest and helps them understand the truthfulness of the other person.  (A person who doesn’t reciprocate is seen as untrustworthy)
• Japan, Africa, Latin American, Caribbean — avoid eye contact to show respect.

Touch is culturally determined!  The basic pattern is that cultures with high emotional restraint concepts (English, German, Scandinavian, Chinese, Japanese)  have little public touch; those which encourage emotion (Latino, Middle-East, Jewish) accept frequent touches. But each culture has a clear concept of what parts of the body one may not touch.  The basic message of touch is to show affection or to control others  (i.e. hug, kiss, hit, kick).  But rules for touch vary greatly, as shown below:

• Traditional Koreans (and many other Asian countries) don’t touch strangers., especially members of the opposite sex.  
• Islamic and Hindu Cultures:  typically don’t touch with the left hand.  To do so is a social insult.  The left hand is for toilet functions.  It is mannerly in India to break your bread only with your right hand (sometimes difficult for non-Indians)
• Islamic cultures generally don’t approve of any touching between genders (even handshakes).  But consider such touching (including hand-holding, hugs) between same-sex to be appropriate.
• Many Asians don’t touch the head. (The head houses the soul and a touch puts it in jeopardy).

Vocalizations

Vocal characterizers such as a laugh, cry, yell, moan, whine, belch, and yawn send different messages in different cultures. (Japan — giggling indicates embarrassment; India – belch indicates satisfaction)  Other vocal qualifiers (volume, pitch, rhythm, tempo, and tone) also vary.  Loudness indicates strength in Arabic cultures and softness indicates weakness; indicates confidence and authority to the Germans; indicates impoliteness to the Thais; indicates loss of control to the Japanese. (Generally, one learns not to “shout” in Asia for nearly any reason!).  Loudness is gender-based as well: women tend to speak higher and more softly than men.

• Power Distance
• Uncertainty Avoidance
• Time Orientation
• Masculine and Feminine
• High-Context and Low-Context

Topics for Discussion

Although Hofstede's and Hall's Cultural Dimensions are useful in a study of cultures and co-cultures, it is important that we are careful not to oversimplify.  Watch  The Danger of a Single Story  ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ihs241zeg ). What were key takeaways from this video?

Advertisement

Men’s Gender Norms and Gender-Hierarchy-Legitimizing Ideologies: The Effect of Priming Traditional Masculinity Versus a Feminization of Men’s Norms

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 16 January 2023
• Volume 40 , pages 145–167, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Giulia Valsecchi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7468-4631 1 ,
• Vincenzo Iacoviello   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6654-8330 1 ,
• Jacques Berent   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1237-2664 1 ,
• Islam Borinca   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2994-0998 2 &
• Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2177-8511 1  

9804 Accesses

5 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Contemporary evidence suggests that masculinity is changing, adopting perceived feminine traits in the process. Implications of this new masculine norm on gender relations remain unclear. Our research aims to better understand the influence of changing masculine norms on men’s endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. Based on Precarious Manhood Theory and Social Role Theory, we conducted two quasi-experimental studies ( N  = 412) in which we first assessed heterosexual men's motivation to protect traditional masculinity. Then, we informed them that men’s gender norms are becoming more feminine (feminization norm condition) or are remaining masculine in a traditional sense (traditional norm condition). In the third (baseline-control) condition, participants received no information about men’s gender norms. Finally, we assessed the extent to which participants endorsed gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies, namely sexism (Study 1) and masculinist beliefs (Study 2). Results showed that men who were less motivated to protect traditional masculinity were less likely to endorse gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies when exposed to the feminization and control conditions compared to the traditional norm condition. The implications of these findings for gender equality and gender relations are discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Perceived Men’s Feminization and Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: Heterosexual Men’s Reactions to the Decline of the Anti-Femininity Norm of Masculinity

Juan Manuel Falomir-Pichastor, Jacques Berent & Joel Anderson

When Women’s Gains Equal Men’s Losses: Predicting a Zero-Sum Perspective of Gender Status

Joelle C. Ruthig, Andre Kehn, … Kelly Jones

That is What a Feminist Looks Like: Identification and Exploration of the Factors Underlying the Concept of Feminism and Predicting the Endorsement of Traditional Gender Roles

Kaitlyn McLaughlin & Shelley N. Aikman

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

According to masculine ideology, masculinity is a cultural construct defined by a set of beliefs and expectations regarding how men should behave in a given time and culture [ 58 , 75 ]. The predominant contemporary masculine ideology in Western societies is referred to as traditional masculinity [ 9 ]. This ideology sustains men’s power over women by putting forward the idea that boys and men should be dominant, heterosexual, physically strong, and should avoid feminine behaviors and attitudes [ 9 ]. Indeed, endorsement of traditional masculinity is related to higher endorsements of sexist ideologies [ 42 , 70 , 71 ], negative attitudes toward gender equality [ 69 , 89 ], sexual aggressivity [ 53 , 81 ], and the belief that masculinity is expressed by sexual performance [ 80 ]. In other words, traditional masculinity ideology serves to justify and maintain traditional gender roles that sustain the gender hierarchy.

Although traditional masculinity seems to remain the predominant masculinity ideology nowadays [ 64 ], or at least men perceive it as such [ 52 ], recent evidence suggests that men’s role in Western societies is undergoing a transformation, adopting perceived feminine traits in the process. This transformation includes changes in men's traits, professional occupations, family dynamics, and the institutionalization of the role of men in the struggle for gender equality [ 49 , 67 ]. While the effects of changes in masculinity may be slow and unnoticed in some contexts [ 5 , 21 ], people generally perceive that masculinity norms are changing [ 25 , 66 ]. This perceived trend toward a feminization of the male gender norm raises the question of its consequences on gender relations. For example, this social change could ultimately increase gender equality, as it could free men from the prescriptions of traditional masculinity that constrain them into avoiding anything feminine-related (i.e., the antifemininity mandate). However, research has insufficiently investigated the consequences of this perceived feminization on intergroup relations. Indeed, to our knowledge, the only research investigating the influence of changing gender norms on men's attitudes toward non-traditional gender roles examined the perception that men and women are similar in agentic (or stereotypically masculine) traits [ 59 ]. No research has directly investigated how the perception that men’s norm is becoming more feminine impacts men's attitudes toward gender equality. To this end, the present research makes a novel contribution to the literature by experimentally testing the influence of the perceived feminization of the male gender norm compared to a traditional norm on men’s gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies as a function of their motivation to protect traditional masculinity.

Gender Norms and the Prevalence of Gender-Hierarchy-Legitimizing Ideologies

The norms defining traditional masculinity are hegemonic, meaning that they legitimize and uphold men’s privileged status in society and male dominance over women and subordinated masculinities, such as gay and racialized men [ 19 , 20 ]. Central to the definition of the traditional male identity is the antifemininity mandate [ 13 ], which captures the construction of masculinity in opposition to femininity, and prescribes men to avoid attitudes, roles, and behaviors that reflect femininity [ 15 , 48 , 82 ].

Contexts characterized by prevailing traditional gender norms, and in particular traditional masculinity norms, are the least egalitarian with respect to gender relations (e.g., [ 12 , 60 , 61 ,, 61 , 63 , 76 , 85 ]). For instance, cross-national studies show that countries where expectations about boys and men are more traditional register higher rates of violence against women [ 47 ], lower rates of work-life balance [ 38 ] and lower ratios of supportive laws to advance gender equality and women’s rights [ 86 ]. Moreover, in these countries, men are more prone to endorse stereotyped views of gender [ 72 , 85 ], express more sexism [ 85 ] and less positive parenting behaviors [ 76 ]. Experimental research corroborates these findings and shows that priming a misogynistic or paternalistic norm among men decreases their likelihood to intervene against sexual harassment [ 63 ] and increases misogynistic cognitions—that is, cognitive networks related to insulting terms against women—among high-sexist men [ 12 ]. Taken together, cross-national surveys and experimental studies demonstrate that traditional masculinity norms are related to gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies that subordinate women and legitimize men’s privileged status in society.

However, gender roles are being challenged, and traditional norms of masculinity (albeit slowly) are giving way to more progressive and feminized norms of masculinity [ 38 , 86 ]. Indeed, evidence form Wester countries suggests that men’s role in society is evolving and that men are now taking on and expected to exhibit more caring and nurturing roles, once reserved uniquely for women. For example, men are getting more and more involved in unpaid work, especially in domestic activities [ 18 , 29 , 62 , 73 ] such as the care of children [ 38 ]. Similarly, they are increasingly perceived as possessing traditionally feminine traits (e.g., [ 23 , 35 ] and engaging in traditionally feminine activities [ 11 ]. Moreover, stereotypically feminine traits, such as empathy, communication and collaboration, are gaining value in typically masculine professional positions, such as leadership and management [e.g.,  43 ]. These changes suggest that men are increasingly adopting roles that were traditionally reserved for- and/or perceived to be for women and seem to generate the overall perception that a new, more feminized norm of masculinity is emerging ([ 66 , 67 ]; see also [ 35 ]). Consequently, this perceived feminization of men’s gender norms may challenge the antifemininity mandate central to the traditional definition of masculinity and may ultimately influence gender relations. To this end, in the present work, we are interested in investigating whether the perceived feminization of men’s gender norms (compared to traditional norms) influences men’s endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies.

The Potential Consequences of the Feminization of Men’s Gender Norms (vs. a Traditional Norm)

Despite the theoretical and practical relevance of social changes in gender norms for gender equality, research examining the consequences of the feminization of men’s gender norms on men’s attitudes and behaviors toward women are scarce, and results are mixed. Indeed, to date, research examining the consequences of the feminization of men’s gender norms has focused solely on men’s self-description [ 3 , 10 , 13 ] and on backlash against non-normative ingroup members [ 36 , 50 , 51 , 84 ]. The only research investigating the effects of a change in gender norms on intergroup relations emphasized men’s and women’s similarity in agentic traits, which are typically associated with traditional male norms ([ 59 ], Study 3). This condition of gender similarities was, therefore, more likely to elicit a representation of a masculinization of women’s gender norms rather than a feminization of men’s gender norms (see [ 21 , 28 ]). Thus, research is still needed in order to examine specifically whether the feminization of men’s gender norms have direct consequences on gender relations.

In order to anticipate the potential consequences of a feminization of men’s gender norms (vs. traditional norms), we were informed by two theories in the domain of gender norms and behaviors: Social Role Theory (SRT; [ 30 , 31 ]; see also [ 6 ]) and Precarious Manhood Theory (PMT; [ 88 ]). These two theoretical perspectives lead to opposing predictions, either with positive consequences for gender equality—that is, a general conformity toward more feminized norms of masculinity—or with negative consequences for equality—that is, a general resistance to this social change.

According to SRT ([ 30 , 31 ]; see also [ 6 ]), the differences in traits and behaviors between men and women result from a socialization process based on the different distributions of men and women in social roles. The homemaker-provider model is the traditional role model more common in Western societies (at least until the feminist deconstruction of gender roles; [ 17 , 26 ]. Each role is associated with communal (interdependence) or agentic (independence and assertiveness) traits ([ 1 ]; see also [ 22 ], which appear to enable individuals to perform these specific roles successfully [ 4 ]. Because women are more likely to occupy the homemaker role than men, they are believed to possess more communal traits. Conversely, because men are more likely to occupy the provider role than women, they are believed to possess more agentic traits [ 30 , 34 ]. Important for the purpose of the present research is the idea of the malleability of social roles [ 24 , 27 , 41 , 66 ]. Because gender roles are rooted in the division of labor, and the homemaker-provider model in particular, changes in the social structure should induce changes in gender roles and expectations.

Initial empirical evidence for this theoretical approach is provided by Eagly and Steffen [ 33 ]. In one study, participants were asked to judge women and men whose occupations were either homemaker (communal traits), full-time employee (agentic traits), or were not indicated. When the target occupation was not indicated, results supported the general hypothesis that the target’s stereotypes and traits derive from the gender division of labor: Women were perceived as more communal than agentic, while men as more agentic than communal. However, when occupation information was provided, it had a stronger impact on the target’s perception than the target's gender. Indeed, female and male homemakers were both equally perceived as being more communal than agentic, whilst female and male employees were both equally perceived as being more agentic than communal. This theoretical understanding is also consistent with findings based on System Justification Theory (SJT; [ 56 ], according to which people are motivated to defend and legitimize the systems in which they operate. For instance, participants rate women in business more positively and are more likely to agree that there should be more women in business when they are informed that women are well-represented (the many-women condition) rather than underrepresented (the few-women condition) in high-level business positions [ 57 ].

Overall, these findings are consistent with SRT’s predictions and suggest that men's and women's expectations change as their perceived representation in social roles changes [ 26 , 32 ]. Accordingly, there are reasons to think that the perceived feminization of men’s gender norms will decrease the salience of the antifemininity mandate and then decrease men’s endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. Conversely, priming a traditional norm should enhance the salience of the antifemininity mandate and increase men’s endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies.

Different predictions emerge based on PMT [ 87 , 88 ]. PMT argues that manhood is an achieved social status that must be earned and can be easily lost. Unlike womanhood, which is mainly the result of physical and biological maturation and is hardly questioned once acquired [ 44 ], manhood is something that boys and men must (socially) earn and perform through their behaviors in order to be considered as ‘real men’. Consequently, and as compared to femininity, manhood can be lost more easily through social transgressions, such as enacting counter-stereotypically feminine behaviors or failing to demonstrate adequate levels of masculinity. Therefore, men respond to threats to their individual masculinity (i.e., prototypicality threat) and threats to the antifemininity mandate (i.e., ingroup distinctiveness threat) by engaging in compensatory behaviors in order to reaffirm their own masculinity ([ 14 , 88 ] and/or to restore the antifemininity mandate [ 13 ], Study 5), respectively. In addition, it is worth noting that this type of response is consistent with the reactive-distinctiveness hypothesis, according to which ingroup members react to threats to group distinctiveness by strengthening intergroup differences [ 54 , 55 ]. Thus, in line with PMT, priming a traditional norm should reassure men and decrease (or have no influence) on men’s endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies, whereas the feminization of men’s gender norms should challenge the antifemininity mandate and the ingroup distinctiveness, and trigger men’s endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. This claim is supported by research showing that, when exposed to a condition emphasizing a decline in gender differences, as compared to a condition highlighting gender differences, male participants are more motivated to perform manhood-restoring behaviors [ 13 ],Study 5), express more sexual prejudice, and report more discomfort with homosexuality [ 36 , 50 , 84 ].

Reconciling Both Theories: The Moderating Role of Motivation to Protect Traditional Masculinity

We believe that men’s personal motivation to protect traditional masculinity allows us to reconcile the opposing predictions derived from PMT and SRT and to explain in which circumstances the dynamics of conformity or resistance will be observed. Indeed, the motivation to protect traditional masculinity provides insight into men’s motivation to protect the gender status quo and men's privileged position in the gender hierarchy.

The feminization of men's gender norms translates into men adopting feminine roles and behaviors and implies that the norms defining masculinity now suggest that men can and should assume roles and behaviors once considered to be feminine. This directly challenges the antifeminine mandate of traditional masculinity, which is essential to justify and maintain the gender status quo. That said, a lower motivation to protect traditional masculinity implies a lower motivation to defend the antifemininity mandate when it is challenged. Consequently, when confronted with the feminization of their gender group, men who are less motivated to protect traditional masculinity should be more likely to conform to new, more feminized norms of male gender identity.

Conversely, stronger motivation to protect traditional masculinity implies a higher motivation to protect the antifemininity mandate when it is challenged. This higher motivation should lead to defensive reactions in response to the feminization of men’s gender norms aimed at restoring traditional masculinity and ensuring positive distinctiveness.

Empirical evidence informs us about the importance of motivation to protect traditional masculinity when considering men's reactions to changes in their gender norms. On the one hand, priming men who are less motivated to protect traditional masculinity with a feminization of their gender norms (vs. traditional norms) reduced their fear of being perceived as gay, their discomfort while imagining performing feminine behaviors [ 10 ], and the usage of traditional masculine traits in their self-descriptions (i.e., [ 3 ]. On the other hand, priming men who are strongly motivated to protect traditional masculinity with a feminization of their gender norms (vs. traditional norms) triggered defensive reactions aimed at restoring a self-perception as being a traditional man ([ 36 , 84 ]; see also [ 3 , 13 ], Study 5).

The Present Research

The present research aims to investigate the consequences of the feminization of men’s gender norms versus a traditional norm on men’s gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies as a function of their personal motivation to protect traditional masculinity. To test this, we conducted two quasi-experimental studies using two samples of heterosexual men. In both studies, we initially assessed participants’ endorsement of traditional norms of masculinity to assess their motivation to protect traditional masculinity. We then manipulated men’s gender norms (feminized, traditional, or control): In the traditional condition, we highlighted the normativity of the traditional traits and roles of masculinity among men, as well as the related strong gender differences. In the feminized condition, participants learned that men are becoming more feminine and that gender differences are blurring. The control condition did not include any information about the ingroup norm, which allowed us to determine where the baseline is located. Indeed, among past studies, only Bosson and Michniewicz [ 13 ] introduced a control condition and showed that the baseline lies between the conditions emphasizing a decline and an increase in gender differences. Consistent with this result, we expect the control condition to lie between the two experimental conditions manipulating men’s gender norms.

Finally, we assessed participants’ endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies as the main dependent variable. Based on PMT [ 87 , 88 ] and SRT [ 31 ], we expected to observe a significant difference between the feminization and traditional conditions, with the control condition lying in between. However, whether the feminization (vs. traditional) norm increases or decreases gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies should depend on men's motivation to protect traditional masculinity: The feminization of men’s gender norms (vs. traditional norms) should decrease gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies among those who are less motivated to protect traditional masculinity (H1), while it should increase gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies among those who are strongly motivated to protect traditional masculinity (H2). The baseline control condition should fall between the two experimental conditions.

In Study 1, we assessed ambivalent sexism [ 47 ] as a hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideology that justifies and upholds inequalities between men and women [ 77 ].

Participants and Design

Based on recommendations to recruit at least 50 participants per experimental condition [ 78 , 79 ], we recruited 233 heterosexual British men via Prolific ( M age  = 44.99 years, SD age  = 15.18). Participants were invited to participate in an online survey and were compensated with £1 for their time. Because the entire sample agreed to the usage of their data, no participant was excluded from the analyses. A sensitivity power analysis conducted on G*Power for a multiple linear regression model with five predictors, assuming an α of 0.05, and power of 0.80, revealed that our final sample enabled us enough power to detect a small effect size ( f 2  = 0.05). The majority of participants identified as White British (89.7%; 3.9% identified as Asian British, 4.3% identified as Black British, and 2.1% identified as other).

Both studies were presented as “investigating men's opinion on several social issues”. We asked for demographic information at the beginning of the questionnaire. Participants completed the measures in the listed order and all response-scales ranged from 1 ( Not at all / Strongly disagree ) to 7 ( Absolutely / Strongly agree ). At the end of the survey, participants were thanked and debriefed. Both studies followed APA ethical guidelines and were approved by the ethics committee of the first author's institution. Materials and data for blind peer review of the two experimental studies are available at https://osf.io/jztdb/?view_only=33c96b83ea6146d68a5903d1ba96872b .

Independent Variables

Motivation to protect traditional masculinity was assessed by measuring participants’ endorsement of traditional masculinity norms with the 26-item Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS; [ 82 ]. A global score was computed by averaging participants’ responses to the 26 items, whereby higher scores reflect a higher endorsement of traditional masculinity ( M  = 3.74, SD  = 0.95, α = 0.92).

Manipulation of the Gender Norm

The experimental manipulation of men’s gender norms was induced as in recent research [ 51 ]. Participants in the traditional and feminization conditions were presented with a bogus article summarizing the results of a longitudinal study about the evolution of masculinity, the aim of which was to investigate men’s personality and behaviors from 1957 to 2017. The feminization condition [traditional condition in brackets] stated that “the results of the study suggest that men tend to become more feminine over time [are just as masculine as ever] and that the distinction between ‘being a man’ and ‘being a woman’ tends to disappear [remains fundamental]”. In order to reinforce the effect of the experimental manipulation, participants were asked to provide an everyday example that would corroborate the study’s findings. In the control condition, no information was provided.

Measurements

Ambivalent sexism inventory.

After being exposed to men’s norm manipulation, participants were asked to report their level of agreement with the 22-item Ambivalent Sexism Inventory [ 46 ]. The hostile sexism subscale (e.g., “Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist”) and the benevolent sexism subscale (e.g., “Women should be cherished and protected by men”) were positively correlated, r (233) = 0.37, p  < 0.001. After recoding, we computed a global score of ambivalent sexism by averaging participants’ responses to the 22 items. Higher scores reflect a higher endorsement of ambivalent sexism ( M  = 4.02, SD  = 0.70, α = 0.80).

Experimental Manipulation Check

In order to check participants’ comprehension of the experimental manipulation, at the end of the study, participants were asked to indicate whether, in their personal opinion, “Men’s behaviors have changed in recent years,” “Men’s way of being has changed in recent years,” and “Today, men are more feminine than ever.” An overall score was computed by averaging the three manipulation check items, wherein higher scores reflect an acknowledgment of men’s feminization ( M  = 4.77, SD  = 1.19, α = 0.83).

Regression analyses were conducted to test our hypothesis. The three levels of the manipulated variable were broken down into two contrasts. Footnote 1 According to our hypotheses, the critical contrast tested the linear effect between the three experimental conditions by opposing the feminization norm condition to the traditional norm condition with the baseline-control condition situated in-between (C1: − 1 = traditional, 0 = control, + 1 = feminization), and the orthogonal contrast tested the residual variance by opposing the two norm conditions to the control condition (C2: − 1 = traditional and feminization, + 2 = control). According to the main hypothesis, we expect C1 to be significant and C2 to be not significant. We regressed the dependent variables on the two contrasts, motivation to protect traditional masculinity (standardized scores), as well as the interaction between motivation to protect traditional masculinity and each contrast (interactions between the two contrasts were not included).

The analysis revealed a significant main effect of C1, B  = 0.30, 95% CI  = [0.11, 0.48], t (227) = 3.11, p  < 0.01, η 2 p  = 0.04. Overall, acknowledgment that men’s gender norms are becoming more feminine was stronger in the feminization condition ( M  = 5.03) than in the traditional condition ( M  = 4.44), with the baseline-control condition ( M  = 4.83) lying in between the two experimental conditions. No other effect reached significance, ts (227) < 1.55, ps  > 0.12. Simple effects revealed that the control condition did not differ from the feminization condition ( t (173) = 1.07, p  = 0.30) but differed from the traditional condition ( t (173) = − 2.05, p  = 0.04).

Analyses revealed a significant main effect of motivation to protect traditional masculinity, B  = 0.51, 95% CI  = [0.45, 0.57], t (227) = 15.55, p  < 0.001, η 2 p  = 0.52. Overall, sexism increased as a function of men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity norms. This effect was qualified by a significant C1 × motivation to protect traditional masculinity interaction, B  = 0.10, 95% CI  = [0.02, 0.18], t (227) = 2.44, p  = 0.016, η 2 p  = 0.03, while C2 × motivation to protect traditional masculinity interaction was not significant, B  = 0.01, 95% CI  = [− 0.04, 0.05], t (227) = 0.34, p  = 0.73. Looking at simple effects revealed that C1 was significant only among men who were less motivated to protect traditional masculinity (− 1SD), B  = 0.15, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.27], t (227) = 2.71, p  < 0.01, η 2 p  = 0.03, revealing that ambivalent sexism in the traditional condition ( M  = 3.67) was significantly higher compared to the feminization condition ( M  = 3.40) and marginally higher compared to the control condition ( M  = 3.50, t (227) = 1.74, p  = 0.08). The control and the feminization conditions did not differ from each other t (227) = − 1.01, p  = 0.31 (see Fig.  1 ). No other effect reached significance, all ts (227) < − 1.41, ps  > 0.160. Footnote 2

Effects of men’s gender norms on ambivalent sexism as a function of participants’ motivation to protect traditional masculinity (Study 1)

Results of Study 1 confirm our main prediction regarding a difference in sexism between the feminization and traditional norm conditions among men who were less motivated to protect traditional masculinity (henceforth, less traditional men; H1). Simple effects revealed that priming a traditional norm of masculinity increased sexism among less traditional participants, while the feminization condition did not decrease it. Although we did not anticipate this result, these effects are consistent with SRT. SRT suggest that the traditional gender role division is associated with the expectancy of women being more communal and empathic and men being more agentic and dominant. Highlighting a traditional norm of masculinity may have emphasized the traditional gender division and compelled less traditional men to conform to it. Consistent with this reasoning, past research [ 10 ] suggests that traditional norms may be challenging for less traditional men because they force them to show conformity to traditional roles, while more feminized norms freed them from this conformity pressure. Finally, the difference between the feminization and traditional norm conditions among more traditional participants (H2) was not significant. We will come back to this unexpected finding in the general discussion. To further explore the effects of men's gender norms on gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies, we ran a second study on a different dependent variable (i.e., masculinism).

Study 2 was designed to replicate the findings of Study 1 with a different dependent variable, i.e., masculinism. Masculinism is an ideology and set of beliefs supporting the idea that masculinity in crisis in the face of the challenge posed by feminist and LGTBI advances. This ideology is based on antifeminism and supports three basic beliefs. The first is gynocentrism, the belief that society privileges women and relegates men to a subordinate position. The second is male victimization, the self-perception that men are victims, and the third is the trivialization of violence against women [ 8 ]. Recent reports depict masculinism as a crucial element in the socialization of men and the legitimation of (white) men’s privileged position in the gender hierarchy [ 45 ]. The understanding of the reasons that would bring men closer to this ideology is therefore necessary to understand the perpetuation of male hegemony in more subtle forms.

Based on recommendations to recruit at least 50 participants per experimental condition [ 78 , 79 ], we recruited 182 heterosexual North American men via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. They were compensated with USD 0.75 for their time. Three participants were excluded from the analyses because they did not provide their consent for the use of their data ( n  = 3). The final sample consisted of 179 heterosexual American men ( M age  = 36.10 years, SD age  = 10.53 years). A sensitivity power analysis conducted on G*Power for a multiple linear regression model with five predictors, assuming an α of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, revealed that our final sample afforded us enough power to detect a small effect size ( f 2  = 0.06). Participants identified as White (56.4%), Asian American (12.3%), Hispanic/Latino (12.3%), Native American (10.1%), and African American (7.8%).

Motivation to protect traditional masculinity was assessed in the same way as in Study 1 ( M  = 4.52, SD  = 1.01, α = 0.93).

Manipulation of the gender norm was induced as in Study 1, the only difference being that the study was presented as being conducted in a U.S. University to match participants’ national background.

Masculinist Beliefs

After being exposed to the manipulation of men’s norm, participants were asked to report their level of agreement with a 20-item scale assessing masculinist beliefs [ 7 ]. In line with masculinist concerns, the scale encompasses two sub-dimensions related to men’s identity and status. The identity subscale assesses men’s concerns over men’s role in society (e.g., “Today, men are confused about how to behave”). The status subscale assesses men’s concern about women’s domination over men (e.g., “Nowadays, men are subordinated to women”). The correlation between the two masculinism subscales was strong and positive, r (179) = 0.80, p  < 0.001, suggesting that both subscales measure the same construct. Accordingly, all the items were averaged into a single score, wherein higher scores reflect a higher endorsement of masculinist beliefs ( M  = 4.35, SD  = 1.34, α = 0.96). The scale has good reliability and predictive validity, and it has been shown to correlate with both hostile and benevolent sexism [ 46 ], hostility toward women [ 65 ] and rape myth acceptance [ 74 ].

Acknowledgment of changes in men’s gender norms was assessed as in Study 1. Higher scores reflect a higher perception of men’s feminization ( M = 4.72, SD = 1.32, α =.81).

As in Study 1, regression analyses were conducted to test our hypothesis. Again, the three levels of the manipulated variable were broken into two contrasts: The main contrast tested the linear effect between the three experimental conditions by opposing the feminization condition to the traditional condition with the baseline-control condition situated in-between; C2 verified the residual variance (C1: − 1 = traditional, 0 = control, + 1 = feminization, and C2: − 1 = traditional and feminization, + 2 = control). As in study 1, we regressed dependent variables on the two contrasts, men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity norms (standardized scores), as well as the interaction between this factor and each contrast (interactions between the two contrasts were not included).

The analysis revealed a significant main effect of motivation to protect traditional masculinity, B  = 0.72, 95% CI  = [0.56, 0.89], t (173) = 8.80, p  < 0.001, η 2 p  = 0.31. Overall, men’s gender norms were perceived as becoming more feminine as endorsement of traditional masculinity norms increased. The main effect of C1 was also significant, B  = 0.27, 95% CI  = [0.07, 0.47], t (173) = 2.64, p  < 0.01, η 2 p  = 0.04. As expected, acknowledgment that men’s gender norms are becoming more feminine was stronger in the feminization condition ( M  = 5.02) than in the traditional condition ( M  = 4.50), with the baseline-control condition ( M  = 4.62) lying between the two experimental conditions. No other effect reached significance, ts  < 1.91, ps  > 0.06. Simple effects revealed that the control condition did not differ from the traditional condition ( t (173) = − 0.68, p  = 0.50) but differed from the feminization condition ( t (173) = 2.01, p  = 0.04).

The analysis revealed a main effect of motivation to protect traditional masculinity, B  = 1.00, 95% CI  = [0.87, 1.14], t (173) = 14.63, p  < 0.001, η 2 p  = 0.55. Overall, endorsement of masculinist beliefs increased as endorsement of traditional masculinity norms increased. This effect was qualified by a significant C1 × motivation to protect traditional masculinity interaction, B  = 0.17, 95% CI  = [0.01, 0.34], t (173) = 2.00, p  = 0.047, η 2 p  = 0.02, while the C2 × motivation to protect traditional masculinity interaction was not significant, B  = 0.02, 95% CI = [− 0.08, 0.11], t (173) = 0.25, p  = 0.80. Simple effects revealed that C1 was significant only among less traditional men (− 1SD), B  = 0.29, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.52], t (173) = 2.45, p  = 0.015, η 2 p  = 0.03, so that masculinism was significantly higher in the traditional condition ( M  = 3.70) compared to the feminization ( M  = 3.12) and control conditions ( M  = 3.22). The control and feminization conditions did not differ from each other ( t (173) = − 0.43, p  = 0.67; see Fig.  2 ). Footnote 3 No other effect reached significance, all ts (227) < − 1.41, ps  > 0.160.

Effects of men’s gender norms on masculinist beliefs as a function of participants’ motivation to protect traditional masculinity (Study 2)

Results of Study 2 are consistent with those observed in Study 1 and confirm our main prediction regarding a significant difference between the feminization and traditional norms conditions among less traditional participants (H1). Again, simple effects revealed that priming a traditional norm of masculinity increased masculinism among less traditional participants, while the feminization condition did not decrease it. These findings provide further evidence that traditional norms may be onerous for less traditional men because they are compelled to conform to an ingroup norm that does not reflect their conception of masculinity, whereas more feminized norms liberate them from this ingroup conformity pressure (see [ 10 ]). Finally, the difference between the feminization and traditional norms conditions among more traditional participants (H2) was not significant, which is at odds with past research [ 3 , 13 , 36 , 50 , 84 ].

General Discussion

Across two studies, we investigated the consequences of the feminization of men’s gender norms (vs. traditional norms) on men’s gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. According to Precarious Manhood Theory [ 87 , 88 ] and Social Role Theory [ 31 ], we overall expected to observe a significant difference between the feminization and the traditional norms conditions, with a baseline-control condition lying in between. This effect was expected to be moderated by men's motivation to protect traditional masculinity [ 3 , 10 , 36 , 51 , 84 ]: The feminization condition should decrease gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies among less traditional men (i.e., those who are less motivated to protect traditional masculinity) compared to the traditional norm condition (H1), whereas the feminization condition should increase gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies among more traditional men (i.e., those who are more motivated to protect traditional masculinity) compared to the traditional norm condition (H2).

Both studies consistently supported H1 and showed that the feminization norm condition differed from the traditional norm condition among less traditional men. Interestingly, specific comparisons between the two experimental and the control conditions revealed that priming less traditional participants with a traditional norm of masculinity increased their legitimation of the gender hierarchy, while priming a feminization of men’s gender norms did not influence their legitimation of the gender hierarchy. Overall, these findings are consistent with SRT because the salience of traditional gender roles increases conformity to a traditional view of gender. Moreover, they denote the importance of considering a control condition in order to conclude on the directions of the observed effects. Indeed, based on these results, we could speculate that the traditional norm condition increases less traditional participants' perceptual salience of the intergroup context [ 83 ]. Under such circumstances, intergroup salience drives low-committed ingroup members to further seek intergroup differentiation and conform to the prevalent traditional norm [ 54 , 55 ]. These findings also suggest that traditional norms may be challenging for less traditional men because they are forced to conform to the traditional ingroup norm. Thus, a more feminized norm could free them from the pressure of traditional masculinity and allow them to express attitudes that are closer to their core beliefs (see also [ 10 ]).

Both studies consistently showed no evidence for a defensive reaction among more traditional men, which is at odds with H2. Contrary to our expectations based on PMT, exposure to information emphasizing the feminization of men’s norm did not increase more traditional men’s endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. Indeed, and given the precarious status of masculinity, we would have expected the feminization of men’s norm to trigger defensive reactions among more traditional men to reaffirm the gender hierarchy blurred by the alleged feminization. Both studies, however, suggest that more traditional men may be already reaffirming intergroup differences regardless of the experimental condition. Indeed, in Study 1, we observed a lack of difference between the feminization and control conditions on the manipulation check measure suggesting that men perceive their gender group as becoming more feminine. Similarly, in Study 2, we observed a main effect of participants’ motivation to protect traditional masculinity on the manipulation check, suggesting that the more participants are motivated to protect traditional masculinity, the more they perceive their gender group as becoming more feminine. Thus, the findings on the manipulation check measures may inform on the absence of effects of our manipulated variable.

Interestingly, the high scores on the gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies in the three experimental conditions of both studies suggest that traditional men are motivated to reinforce the gender hierarchy regardless of information concerning gender boundaries. This may indicate, first, that traditional men may feel threatened by default and thus are more motivated to protect the gender hierarchy in all circumstances. Second, this may also indicate that previous research failed to detect men's motivation to maintain the gender hierarchy independently of male norms because it has focused solely on men's self-description or attitudes toward deviant ingroup members. Moreover, the content of traditional masculinity norms seemed to encourage the domination of men over women. This may then explain the higher levels of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies in the three experimental conditions and regardless of their content. Interestingly, this suggests that the mechanisms that operate in the two experimental conditions may differ. While the feminization of the men’s norm threatens distinctiveness, traditional masculinity simply makes the norm of dominance more salient and motivate traditional men to conform to it. More research on this topic is needed.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The present research makes an important contribution to our understanding of the dynamic nature of gender norms and the consequences of the evolving role of men on gender relations. At the same time, some limitations need to be mentioned. First, in both studies, participants’ motivation to protect traditional masculinity was assessed at the beginning of the questionnaire, which could have activated a traditional masculinity mindset among participants and influenced the impact of the norm manipulation. However, in both studies, participants overall scored close to the middle of the scale, suggesting that some participants are relatively aligned with traditional masculinity norms, while others are relatively unaligned. Therefore, it is unclear whether assessing motivation to protect traditional masculinity can directly impact the manipulation of the norm in any way. Nevertheless, this potential limitation suggests the need for alternative methods to rule out the possibility that the present results were influenced by the activation of a traditional mindset. For instance, further research could operationalize motivation to protect traditional masculinity by using a false feedback paradigm (e.g., [ 68 ]. Furthermore, given that motivation to protect traditional masculinity is related to the support for the status quo [ 51 ], future research could assess motivation to protect the status quo using alternative individual differences such as political orientation, social dominance orientation, or system justification.

Second, we did not observe any evidence in support of a defensive reaction among more traditional men (H2). Beyond the theoretical interpretations for the absence of results, some methodological issues may also be accountable. Indeed, our dependent variables are meant to capture the need for differentiation by measuring participants’ attitudes toward the gender hierarchy. In this regard, Jetten et al. [ 55 ] observed that defensive reactions aimed at restoring distinctiveness between groups emerge mainly on behavioral measures rather than on judgmental measures (i.e., prejudice; see also [ 40 ]). This difference is explained by the purpose that the two measures may serve. Whereas judgmental measures are descriptive in nature and may be sufficient to establish differentiation between groups when it is already granted (i.e., when groups are different), behavioral measures are more suitable for establishing differentiation when groups are similar, thus, when intergroup distinctiveness is threatened. Given that the two dependent variables used in the present research were rather descriptive, one may assume that we were less likely to observe a defensive reaction among traditional men. Future research should consider comparing a judgmental measure to a behavioral measure, such as candidate selection.

Our experimental manipulation check may also raise concerns. Participants had to indicate whether, in their opinion, men’s ingroup norms have become more feminine, which might have highlighted the possibility that they were more or less in agreement with the information provided in their experimental condition. Indeed, manipulation checks can sometimes induce participants to counter-correct the experimental information, leading to unpredicted outcomes [ 37 ]. However, both studies introduced the checks at the very end of the questionnaire, which means that the manipulation check could not have impacted the observed results. Nevertheless, and as expected, the results showed that participants exposed to the feminization condition perceived that men are becoming more feminine compared to participants exposed to the traditional condition, clearly indicating that the information impacted participants' personal beliefs. Differences were observed in the comparison between the control- and the two experimental conditions, with Study 1 reporting no difference between the control and feminization conditions but a significant difference with the traditional condition. Conversely, Study 2 found no difference between the control and traditional conditions but a significant difference with the feminization condition. Thus, we can be confident that the information provided in the two experimental conditions was well integrated by our participants, even though we must be careful when interpreting the results of the control condition.

More broadly, our research was the first to demonstrate that a normative change in men’s gender norms may have deleterious consequences for outgroups (i.e., women) without the need for the outgroup itself to be responsible for this social change. However, as the masculinist movements suggest, some men may believe that men are becoming more feminine because of women or because of deviant ingroup members. For now, we cannot comment on the mechanisms behind these effects. Indeed, our results do not inform us whether the norm feminization is perceived as a change derived by ingroup members or outgroup members, and whether the perceived norm feminization is actually liberating for less traditional men and threatening for more traditional ones. In this regard, future research should build on our findings to investigate the motivations underlying the observed effects.

Implications and Outlook

Gender norms and gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies are both among the most important factors predicting gender inequality [ 85 ], which remains one of the most important and persistent issue in Western societies [ 90 ]. This research underpins research on toxic masculinity [ 2 ], and warns on the harmful effects that traditional masculinity may have on gender relations. Indeed, we demonstrated that men who, by default, are committed to more inclusive values conform to traditional masculinity when is salient and embrace it by reinforcing the gender hierarchy. More worryingly, a traditional norm of masculinity does not seem to reassure more traditional men. Conversely, more traditional men keep their defenses high even when intergroup differentiation is granted by reinforcing the gender hierarchy and affirming their dominance over women. In these circumstances, it is important to understand how to lower men’s defenses in order to encourage them to commit to gender equality. Overall, our research suggests that changes in men’s gender norms may not always decrease men’s endorsement of gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. Rather the opposite: Our research warns of the harmful effects of traditional masculinity on gender relations and indicates that even less traditional men may be compelled to conform to an ideal of a traditional man in contexts characterized by traditional norms of masculinity.

Conclusions

The present findings highlight the importance of examining the evolving role of men with regard to gender relations and the maintenance of the gender hierarchy. Two studies showed that less traditional men are more accepting of ideologies that legitimize male dominance over women when confronted with traditional norms of masculinity. Conversely, more traditional men appear to be non-sensitive to information about changes in their gender norms while maintaining high levels of gender-hierarchy legitimization.

Contrast analysis allow us to test a specific hypothesis when a variable has more than two modalities, without arbitrarily dividing the effect of the manipulated variable (see [ 16 , 39 ]).

In order to examine whether the observed results varied as a function of the hostile versus benevolent sexism subscales, we conducted a repeated-measure (mixed) ANCOVA. The two subscales were introduced in the analysis as a within-subjects factor. We also included participants’ endorsement of traditional masculinity (standardized scores), the two contrasts related to the experimental manipulation, as well as all the interaction between these factors. This analysis did not reveal any significant interaction including the within-subjects factor, F (1, 227) < 3.52, p  > .062, indicating a similar pattern of results for both subscales.

Despite both masculinist subscales were strongly correlated, we also examined whether the results differed across the two subscales. Thus, we conducted a repeated-measure (mixed) ANCOVA in which, in addition to the same predictors included in the main regression analysis, we included the two masculinist beliefs subscales as a within-subjects factor. No interaction including the within-subjects factor was significant, F (1,173) < 0.12, p  > .725, indicating a similar pattern for both subscales.

Abele, A. E., Uchronski, M., Suitner, C., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions of agency and communion: Trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency of word occurrence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (7), 1202–1217. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.575

Article   Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association Boys and Men Guidelines Group. (2018). APA guidelines for psychological practice with boys and men . http://www.apa.org/about/policy/psychological-practice-boys-men-guidelines.pdf

Babl, J. D. (1979). Compensatory masculine responding as a function of sex-role. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47 (2), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.47.2.252

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion (Vol. 1). Rand McNally.

Google Scholar  

Barbieri, D., Franklin, P., Janeckova, H., Karu, M., Riobóo Lestón, I., Luminari, D., Madarova, Z., Maxwell, K., Mollard, B., Osila, L., Paats, M., Reingardė, J., & Salanauskaitė, L. (2017). Gender Equality Index 2017. Measuring Gender Equality in the European Union 2005–2015 . European Institute for Gender Equality. https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/20177277_mh0517208enn_pdf.pdf

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88 (4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.88.4.354

Berent, J., Anderson, J., & Falomir-Pichstor, J. M. (2022). A masculinist beliefs scale [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Social Psychology, University of Geneva.

Blais, M., & Dupuis-Déri, F. (2012). Masculinism and the antifeminist countermovement. Social Movement Studies, 11 (1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.640532

Borgogna, N. C., & McDermott, R. C. (2022). Is traditional masculinity ideology stable over time in men and women? Psychology of Men & Masculinities . https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000393

Borinca, I., Iacoviello, V., & Valsecchi, G. (2020). Men’s discomfort and anticipated sexual misclassification due to counter-stereotypical behaviors: The interplay between traditional masculinity norms and perceived men’s femininization. Sex Roles . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01210-5

Bosak, J., Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A., & Sczesny, S. (2018). Women and men of the past, present, and future: Evidence of dynamic gender stereotypes in ghana. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49 (1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117738750

Bosson, J. K., Kuchynka, S. L., Parrott, D. J., Swan, S. C., & Schramm, A. T. (2020). Injunctive norms, sexism, and misogyny network activation among men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21 (1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000217

Bosson, J. K., & Michniewicz, K. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105 (3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033126

Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Arzu Wasti, S. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 (5), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331161

Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint of manhood, and what it’s done for us lately. The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. 1–48). Addington-Wesley.

Brauer M., & McClelland G. (2005). L'utilisation des contrastes dans l'analyse des données: Comment tester les hypothèses spécifiques dans la recherche en psychologie? L'année Psychologique. 105 (2), 273–305. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2005.29696

Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (4), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004002

Champagne, C., Pailhé, A., & Solaz, A. (2015). Le temps domestique et parental des hommes et des femmes: Quels facteurs d’évolutions en 25 ans? Economie et Statistique, 478 (1), 209–242. https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2015.10563

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities . University of California Press. https://books.google.ch/books?id=C8zb0oBUZxcC

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19 (6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19 (4), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40 , 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0

Dano, F., Roux, E., & Nyeck, S. (2003). Les hommes, leur apparence et les cosmétiques: Approche socio-sémiotique. Décisions Marketing, 29 , 7–18.

Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199

Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (10), 1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001

Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30 (4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00312.x

Diekman, A. B., Johnston, A. M., & Loescher, A. L. (2013). Something old, something new: Evidence of self-accommodation to gendered social change. Sex Roles, 68 (9–10), 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0263-6

Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem sex-role inventory, 1993–2012: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 76 (9), 556–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y

Dotti Sani, G. M. (2014). Men’s employment hours and time on domestic chores in European countries. Journal of Family Issues, 35 (8), 1023–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522245

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42 (7), 756–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.7.755

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation (1st ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781906

Book   Google Scholar  

Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19–35). Blackwell.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (4), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Erlbaum.

Elliott, K. (2016). Caring masculinities: Theorizing an emerging concept. Men and Masculinities, 19 (3), 240–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X15576203

Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Berent, J., & Anderson, J. (2019). Perceived men’s feminization and attitudes toward homosexuality: Heterosexual men’s reactions to the decline of the anti-femininity norm of masculinity. Sex Roles, 81 , 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0985-6

Fayant, M.-P., Sigall, H., Lemonnier, A., Retsin, E., & Alexopoulos, T. (2017). On the limitations of manipulation checks: An obstacle toward cumulative science. International Review of Social Psychology, 30 (1), 125. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.102

Fernández-Lozano, I., & Jurado-Guerrero, T. (2021). Carving out space for caring masculinities. Results from a European study . Men in care. Workplace support for caring masculinities. https://www.men-in-care.eu/fileadmin/WWP_Network/redakteure/Projects/MiC/MiC_context_tnr_report_sept_2021.pdf

Furr, M. R., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Evaluating theories efficiently: The nuts and bolts of contrast analysis. Understanding Statistics, 2 (1), 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_03

Gabarrot, F., & Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2017). Ingroup identification increases differentiation in response to egalitarian ingroup norm under distinctiveness threat. International Review of Social Psychology, 30 (1), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.22

Garcia-Retamero, R., Müller, S. M., & López-Zafra, E. (2011). The malleability of gender stereotypes: Influence of population size on perceptions of men and women in the past, present, and future. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151 (5), 635–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.522616

Gerdes, Z. T., Alto, K. M., Jadaszewski, S., D’Auria, F., & Levant, R. F. (2018). A content analysis of research on masculinity ideologies using all forms of the Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19 (4), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000134

Gerzema, J., & D’Antonio, M. (2013). The Athena doctrine: How women (and men who think like them) will rule the future. Jossey-Bass.

Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity . Yale University Press.

Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22 (4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Heise, L. L., & Kotsadam, A. (2015). Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: An analysis of data from population-based surveys. The Lancet Global Health, 3 (6), e332–e340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00013-3

Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist, 29 (5), 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276486029005005

Hunter, S. C., Riggs, D. W., & Augoustinos, M. (2017). Hegemonic masculinity versus a caring masculinity: Implications for understanding primary caregiving fathers. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11 (3), e12307. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12307

Iacoviello, V., Valsecchi, G., Berent, J., Anderson, J., & Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2020). Heterosexual men’s attitudes towards homosexuality and ingroup distinctiveness: The role of perceived men’s feminisation. Psychology & Sexuality, 11 (1–2), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2019.1675749

Iacoviello, V., Valsecchi, G., Berent, J., Borinca, I., & Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2021). The impact of masculinity beliefs and political ideologies on men’s backlash against non-traditional men: The moderating role of perceived men’s feminization. International Review of Social Psychology . https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.588

Iacoviello, V., Valsecchi, G., Berent, J., Borinca, I., & Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2021). Is traditional masculinity still valued? Men’s perceptions of how different reference groups value traditional masculinity norms. The Journal of Men’s Studies . https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265211018803

Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3 (2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97

Jetten, J., & Spears, R. (2003). The divisive potential of differences and similarities: The role of intergroup distinctiveness in intergroup differentiation. European Review of Social Psychology, 14 (1), 203–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000063

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (6), 862–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.862

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33 (1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015997

Kimmel, M. S., & Messner, M. A. (2019). Introduction. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (10th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Adamska, K., Jaśkiewicz, M., Jurek, P., & Vandello, J. A. (2016). If my masculinity is threatened I won’t support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17 (3), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000016

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Vandello, J. A., Best, D. L., Wlodarczyk, A., Safdar, S., Zawisza, M., Żadkowska, M., Sobiecki, J., Agyemang, C. B., Akbaş, G., Ammirati, S., Anderson, J., Anjum, G., Aruta, J. J. B. R., Ashraf, M., Bakaitytė, C Bi., … Žukauskienė, R. (2020). Country-level and individual-level predictors of men’s support for gender equality in 42 countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50 (6), 1276–1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2696

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Jurek, P., Besta, T., Korzeniewska, L., & Seibt, B. (2020). De-gender them! Gendered vs cooperative division of housework—Cross-cultural comparison of Polish and Norwegian students. Current Psychology, 39 (6), 2276–2284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9915-6

Latshaw, B. A., & Hale, S. I. (2016) ‘The domestic handoff’: stay-at-home fathers’ time-use in female breadwinner families. Journal of Family Studies, 22 (2), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2015.1034157

Leone, R. M., & Parrott, D. J. (2019). Misogynistic peers, masculinity, and bystander intervention for sexual aggression: Is it really just “locker-room talk?” Aggressive Behavior, 45 (1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21795

Levant, R. F., & Wong, Y. J. (2013). Race and gender as moderators of the relationship between the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and alexithymia: An intersectional perspective. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14 (3), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029551

Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (4), 704–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.704

Lopez-Zafra, E., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2011). The impact of nontraditionalism on the malleability of gender stereotypes in Spain and Germany. International Journal of Psychology, 46 (4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2010.551123

Lopez-Zafra, E., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Do gender stereotypes change? The dynamic of gender stereotypes in Spain. Journal of Gender Studies, 21 (2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.661580

Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (5), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853

Martínez, M. C., & Paterna-Bleda, C. (2013). Masculinity ideology and gender equality: Considering neosexism. Anales de Psicología, 29 (2), 558–564. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.2.141311

McDermott, R. C., Borgogna, N. C., Hammer, J. H., Berry, A. T., & Levant, R. F. (2020). More similar than different? Testing the construct validity of men’s and women’s traditional masculinity ideology using the Male Role Norms Inventory-Very Brief. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21 (4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000251

McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., Hammer, J. H., Borgogna, N. C., & McKelvey, D. K. (2019). Development and validation of a five-item Male Role Norms Inventory using bifactor modeling. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20 (4), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000178

Odekerken-Schröder, G., De Wulf, K., & Hofstee, N. (2002). Is gender stereotyping in advertising more prevalent in masculine countries?: A cross-national analysis. International Marketing Review, 19 (4), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330210435690

Parker, K., & Wang, W. (2013). Modern parenthood: Roles of moms and dads converge as they balance work and family. Pew Research Center. http://genderedinnovations.taiwan-gist.net/institutions/Modern%20Parenthood%20_%20Pew%20Social%20%26%20Demographic%20Trends.pdf

Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using theIllinois rape myth acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33 (1), 27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238

Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adolescent males’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (3), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01166.x

Shafer, K., Petts, R. J., & Scheibling, C. (2021). Variation in masculinities and fathering behaviors: A cross-national comparison of the United States and Canada. Sex Roles, 84 (7–8), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01177-3

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2004). Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political Psychology (pp. 315–332). Psychology Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781135151355/chapters/10.4324/97802035059

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22 (11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013). Life after p-hacking. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2205186

Thompson, E. H., & Barnes, K. (2013). Meaning of sexual performance among men with and without erectile dysfunction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14 (3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029104

Thompson, E. H., & Cracco, E. J. (2008). Sexual aggression in bars: What college men can normalize. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16 (1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1601.82

Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male-role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29 (5), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276486029005003

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: Self-categorization theory . Basil Blackwell.

Valsecchi, G., Iacoviello, V., Berent, J., Anderson, J. R., Borinca, I., & Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2020). Gay-gender expression and attitudes toward gay people: The moderating role of perceived men’s feminization. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity . https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000452

Valved, T., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., & Martiny, S. E. (2021). Gender belief systems through the lens of culture—Differences in precarious manhood beliefs and reactions to masculinity threat in Poland and Norway. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22 (2), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000331

van der Gaag, N., Heilman, B., Gupta, T., Nembhard, C., & Barker, C. (2019). State of the world’s fathers: Unlocking the power of men’s care . Promundo.

Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14 (2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826

Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453

Wade, J. C., & Brittan-Powell, C. (2001). Men’s attitudes toward race and gender equity: The importance of masculinity ideology, gender-related traits, and reference group identity dependence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2 (1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.2.1.42

World Economic Forum. (2021). Global Gender Gap Report 2021 . World Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Geneva. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Number: 176080).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of social Psychology, FPSE, Université de Genève, Uni Mail, Boulevard du Pont d’Arve 40, CH-1205, Geneva, Switzerland

Giulia Valsecchi, Vincenzo Iacoviello, Jacques Berent & Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor

School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Islam Borinca

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Giulia Valsecchi, Jacques Berent and Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor conceptualized, designed and developed the material research within a project on men’s norms feminization and gender equality supported by the Swiss FNS in 2018. Giulia Valsecchi and Jacques Berent performed exploratory research to test the hypothesis of the first study under the supervision of Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor. The scale of masculinist beliefs used in Study 2 was developed and validated in a preliminary research project by Jacques Berent and Joel Anderson, under Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor’s supervision. The research described in this manuscript was conducted by Giulia Valsecchi under Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor’s supervision. Giulia Valsecchi and Vincenzo Iacoviello analyzed data, and Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor provided feedback on results. Giulia Valsecchi wrote a first version of the manuscript under the supervision of Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor, and all authors provided comments to this version. Giulia Valsecchi wrote two subsequent versions of the manuscript with comments from all authors. Giulia Valsecchi revised a last version of the manuscript with comments from Vincenzo Iacoviello, Islam Borinca, and Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulia Valsecchi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Geneva (19 March 2020/No PSE.20200303.05).

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Valsecchi, G., Iacoviello, V., Berent, J. et al. Men’s Gender Norms and Gender-Hierarchy-Legitimizing Ideologies: The Effect of Priming Traditional Masculinity Versus a Feminization of Men’s Norms. Gend. Issues 40 , 145–167 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09308-8

Download citation

Accepted : 08 December 2022

Published : 16 January 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09308-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Precarious manhood
• Social role theory
• Traditional gender norms
• Men’s gender norms feminization
• Gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Relationships

What Does It Mean to Be Feminine or Masculine?

Research indicates distinctions between the two are arbitrary and artificial..

Posted October 30, 2018 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

I have received some interesting questions on Daring2Love Instagram about masculine and feminine identity . A typical one asks, “How can I be more feminine in a relationship? How can I attract a masculine man to a relationship?”

I do not know where the people who are asking these questions live. Clearly, there are very different attitudes about gender identity all over the world. To me, these are questions from people who are confused and struggling with what it means to be masculine and feminine. And I am sure this dilemma is shared by many people in the world today.

But what does it mean to be masculine or feminine?

• Are there certain intrinsic characteristics that are masculine and feminine? Are there neurological differences between men and women?
• Or are differences between men and women merely cultural? And if they are, do they stereotype the sexes and thereby do an injustice to each of us as a distinctive individual?
• And finally, how does a person live within a culture that espouses to certain views of masculinity and femininity?

Are there certain characteristics that are masculine and feminine? Are there neurological differences between men and women?

Neuroscientists have been researching distinguishers between male and female brains and trying to see if they translate into major differences between masculine and feminine traits. They have found a number of structural elements in the human brain that differ between males and females. For example, the right and left hemispheres of the male and female brains are not set up exactly the same way. Females tend to have verbal centers on both sides of the brain, while males tend to have verbal centers on only the left hemisphere. As a result, girls tend to have an advantage when it comes to discussing feelings and emotions, and they tend to have more interest in talking about them.

Researchers have also investigated the different chemical effects on the brain of testosterone in men and estrogen and progesterone in women. However, it seems that they have overstated the role of these chemicals in determining masculine and feminine characteristics and behaviors. For example, while testosterone is linked to aggression , it doesn’t offer a universal explanation for male behavior. In fact, everyone, regardless of sex, can be competitive or aggressive, but men and women in different cultures might have different ways of expressing those traits based on social norms. A major takeaway of chemistry differences is simply that boys at times need different strategies for stress release than girls do.

Even though the differences between male and female brains show up all over the world, scientists have discovered exceptions to every so-called gender rule. In fact, it is unclear what the differences mean about how the brain works. Lise Eliot , a professor of neuroscience at the Chicago Medical School and the author of Pink Brain, Blue Brain , states, “People say men are from Mars and women are from Venus, but the brain is a unisex organ.” A recent study found that “averaged across many people, sex differences in brain structure do exist, but an individual brain is likely to be just that: individual, with a mix of features,” as New Scientist reported in 2015. In fact, a new review of 13 past studies that showed significant differences between male and female brains has found that many of those differences are far less pronounced than the earlier studies implied.

Are differences between men and women merely cultural? And if they are, do they stereotype the sexes and thereby do an injustice to each of us as a distinctive individual?

Because we are a social animal and our brains are formed within a culture, our way of viewing ourselves as men and women is imprinted by the cultural environment we grew up in. The cultural definitions of which traits are appropriate for men and women influence the personality characteristics that boys and girls develop. The cultural views of behavioral differences between men and women continue to be reinforced in our adult lives. A few of the common assumptions about male and female behavior are:

• Men don’t have feelings and are cold while women are irrational and over-emotional.
• Women care about children more than men do while men care about practical issues more than women do.
• Women have to teach men how to feel while men have to take care of women.

Most of these stereotypes put men and women on opposing sides and are downright disrespectful of both genders. The fact that society supports these biases strengthens them but it does not make them accurate.

Men and women are more alike than they are different

Physically, men and women do fall into very distinct categories in physical categories like height and waist-to-hip ratio. But psychologically, not so much. For 122 different characteristics, from empathy to sexuality to science inclination to extroversion , a statistical analysis of 13,301 individuals did not reveal any distinct differences between men and women. They consistently overlapped in attitudes and traits like empathy, fear of success and mate selection, indicating that sex differences are not categorical, but more a matter of degree.

Research shows that the " Big Five " personality traits of psychology -- openness , conscientiousness , extraversion, agreeableness , and neuroticism -- do not categorically vary between men and women. Contrary to stereotypes, women were not found to be significantly more intimate in their relationships, and science inclination did not overwhelmingly favor men. And masculinity and femininity, the study found, "are not all-or-nothing traits...they are truly a continuum."

How does a person live within a culture that espouses specific views of masculinity and femininity?

Getting back to the original questions, I think that it is harmful to think of yourself in terms of being masculine and feminine. As the above research indicates, these are arbitrary and artificial distinctions. We all have traits that would be considered masculine and feminine. And we all know men who are nurturing and sensitive to children and women who are ambitious and aggressive in business. Any stereotypic views of what it means to be a man or a woman are limiting and hurtful to the individual. They are especially damaging in a romantic relationship .

The cultural expectations came about naturally due to the size and strength differential between men and women, and the division of labor for the tasks they were responsible for. For example, child care and homemaking were more suitable for women while hunting and physical labor were more suitable for men. Even though our societies have evolved and those tasks no longer define our roles in life, those roles still exist in our society to varying degrees.

It is helpful to understand this discrepancy when you live in a culture that has definite expectations about feminity and masculinity. You can stop attacking yourself for not fitting into these categorizations. You can come to accept yourself with all of your different characteristics and personality traits, be they passive and aggressive, strong and gentle, outspoken and soft-spoken. You can accept your partner’s qualities, as well. A romantic relationship is a partnership between two individuals and the unique personality traits that they each bring to it.

More importantly, there are fundamental values we share as human beings, regardless of our gender. In his book, Beyond Death Anxiety , Robert Firestone writes that these are “the ability to love and to feel compassion for self and others, the capacity for abstract reasoning and creativity , the ability to experience deep emotion , the desire for social affiliation, the ability to set goals and develop strategies to accomplish them, an awareness of existential concerns, the potential to experience the sacredness and mystery of life, and the search for meaning.”

Tamsen Firestone is a writer and book editor on the topic of relationships among other areas; her book Daring to Love is published by New Harbinger.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience