Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CITATIONS READS
28 1,083
2 authors, including:
Mike C. Parent
University of Texas at Austin
39 PUBLICATIONS 584 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Mike C. Parent on 23 June 2015.
Masculinity-related constructs are associated dress the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and soci-
with important aspects of psychological func- etal implications of masculine norms for men
tioning for men. For example, men’s adherence and women.
to masculine norms and the strain associated Psychological understanding of masculinity
with such norms have been linked with intrap- has evolved from a view of the construct as a
ersonal, interpersonal, attitudinal, and health personality trait (i.e., instrumentality) that was
correlates including depression, anxiety, low the opposing or parallel dimension to femininity
self-esteem, fear of intimacy, relationship dis- (i.e., expressiveness), to a focus on the stress
satisfaction, negative attitudes toward help- and conflict associated with masculine gender
seeking, negative attitudes and hostility toward norms, and most recently, to level of adherence
women, rape myth acceptance, homophobia, re- to a multidimensional set of socially and per-
luctance to practice safer sex, substance abuse, sonally constructed norms (for review see
and poor dietary practices (for reviews see Le- Smiler, 2004). These conceptual developments
vant & Richmond, 2007, and O’Neil, 2008). have been accompanied by parallel advance-
Therefore, assessing conformity to masculine ments in operationalizing instrumentality (e.g.,
norms is important in psychological research Bem Sex Role Inventory, Bem, 1974; Personal
and practice that aims to understand men’s Attributes Questionnaire, Spence & Helmreich,
health and interpersonal functioning and to ad- 1978), masculine gender role stress and conflict
(e.g., Gender Role Conflict Scale, O’Neil et al.,
1986; Male Gender Role Stress Scale, Eisler &
This article was published Online First March 14, 2011. Skidmore, 1987), and conformity to masculine
Mike C. Parent, Department of Psychology, University of norms (e.g., Male Role Norms Inventory
Florida; Bonnie Moradi, Department of Psychology, Uni- [MRNI], Levant et al., 1992; Brannon Mascu-
versity of Florida. linity Scale [BMS], Brannon & Juni, 1984). The
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Mike C. Parent, Department of Psychology,
distinctiveness of the constructs assessed by
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: these classes of measures is sometimes blurred
michael.parent@ufl.edu when hypotheses about level of adherence to
339
340 PARENT AND MORADI
masculine norms are tested using measures of Burns & Mahalik, 2008; Hamilton & Mahalik,
instrumentality or masculine stress and conflict 2009; Liu & Iwamoto, 2007; Mahalik, Burns, &
as proxies for conformity to masculine norms Syzdek, 2007; Mahalik, Lagan, & Morrison,
(e.g., Smiler, 2004). To improve construct clar- 2006; Mahalik, Walker, & Levi-Minzi, 2007).
ity in research and practice pertaining to men CMNI scores also have been linked with inter-
and masculinity, psychometrically sound and personal and intrapersonal problems such as
practically useful measures of conformity to higher levels of irritability, propensity for vio-
masculine norms are needed (Smiler, 2004). lence, dissatisfaction with intimate relation-
One such promising measure is the Conformity ships, unwillingness to seek psychological help,
to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI, Mahalik distress related to perceiving oneself as not
et al., 2003), which was recently revised and muscular or toned enough, “old-fashioned” and
abbreviated to improve its psychometric prop- “modern” sexism, and use of alcohol to cope
erties and practical utility (CMNI-46; Parent & with depression, as well as to lower levels of
Moradi, 2009). To advance assessment of men’s perceived social support, self-acceptance, par-
conformity to masculine norms, the present enting self-efficacy, and satisfaction with life
study offers a psychometric evaluation of the (Burn & Ward, 2005; Cohn & Zeichner, 2006;
CMNI-46 that builds on the initially garnered Good et al., 2006; Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005;
support for this measure (Parent & Moradi, Mahalik et al., 2006; Rochlen, McKelley,
2009). Specifically, the present study extends Suizzo, & Scaringi, 2008; Smiler, 2006).
Parent and Moradi’s (2009) analyses by evalu- In addition to such maladaptive correlates, neu-
ating structural stability and reliability in a new tral or adaptive correlates of conformity to mas-
sample and by offering the first tests of conver- culine norms also have been identified using the
gent and discriminant validity for the CMNI-46. CMNI. For instance, in samples of college men,
total CMNI scores were related to greater self-
Development and Use of the CMNI efficacy for traditionally masculine occupations
and mediated the relationship between Big Five
Mahalik et al. (2003) identified three distinc- personality characteristics and vocational prefer-
tive features of the CMNI relative to other mea- ences (Bogaert, Fawcett, & Jamieson, 2009;
sures of masculinity-related constructs. First, Tokar, Thompson, Plaufcan, & Williams,
the CMNI operationalizes masculinity multidi- 2007). Furthermore, college men’s CMNI
mensionally with subscales that reflect multiple scores were associated positively with self- and
masculine norms. Second, the CMNI subsumes rater-perceptions of the respondent’s attractive-
the masculine norms assessed in other measures ness, suggesting that conformity to masculine
of conformity to masculine norms (e.g., MRNI) norms is associated with men’s self- and other-
and assesses additional empirically grounded perceived attractiveness (Bogaert et al., 2009).
norms as well. Finally, the CMNI contrasts with Finally, college men’s CMNI scores were re-
measures of masculinity-related strain in that it lated positively with using exercise to cope with
focuses on personal masculine gender role ad- depression (Mahalik & Rochlen, 2006).
herence rather than stress or conflict associated Available literature also suggests distinctive
with such adherence (Mahalik et al., 2003). This relations between CMNI subscales and criterion
last distinction facilitates use of the CMNI in variables. For example, Liu and Iwamoto
studies of the potential maladaptive as well as (2007) reported that Emotional Control was
neutral or adaptive correlates of conformity to correlated negatively whereas Winning and
masculine norms. Playboy were correlated positively with alcohol
Research using the CMNI across samples of use and binge drinking in a sample of Asian
men (e.g., college students, Australian men, Ke- American college students. Similarly, Tager
nyan men, gay men, men recruited from men’s and Good (2005) found that Winning was re-
interests listserves, men who have been treated lated positively whereas Violence was related
for prostate cancer) has linked conformity to negatively to self-acceptance. Such findings un-
masculine norm dimensions with health risk derscore the utility of the multidimensional as-
behaviors such as unhealthy eating, unsafe sex, sessment of masculine gender role conformity.
smoking, alcohol use, drug use, and missing Thus, use of the CMNI is facilitating attention
medical appointments (Brown & Bond, 2008; to potential maladaptive, neutral, and adaptive
RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46 341
correlations with scores on the corresponding not report their age). Regarding race/ethnicity,
CMNI original form subscales. Additionally, 59% of participants identified as White/
the CMNI-46 demonstrated superior model- Caucasian, 17% as Hispanic/Latino, 11% as
data fit relative to the original CMNI. Aside Asian American/Pacific Islander, 7% as Afri-
from reporting strong correlations between can/African American/Black, 4% as Biracial or
scores on the CMNI-46 and the original CMNI, Multiracial, 1% as Arabic American/Middle
however, Parent and Moradi (2009) did not Eastern, less than 1% as American Indian/
evaluate the convergent or discriminant validity Native American, less than 1% as Indian, and
of scores on the CMNI-46. Additional assess- 2% of participants did not report their race/
ment of validity is needed to ensure that the ethnicity. In terms of sexual orientation, 88% of
constructs assessed by the CMNI-46 subscales participants identified as exclusively heterosex-
reflect the originally intended constructs of the ual/straight, 7% as mostly heterosexual/straight,
CMNI. As well, the factor structure of the 2% as exclusively gay, 1% as mostly gay, less
CMNI-46 needs to be assessed apart from Par- than 1% as bisexual, 1% of participants used an
ent and Moradi’s (2009) instrument develop- open response option to identify outside of the
ment study. A critique of many measures of available options (e.g., “asexual”), and 1% of
gender-related constructs is that they are subject participants did not report their sexual orienta-
to little psychometric evaluation beyond the in- tion identity. With regard to socioeconomic sta-
strument development study (Smiler & Epstein, tus, 49% of participants identified as middle
2010). Indeed, Smiler and Epstein specifically class, 30% as upper-middle class, 15% as work-
called for evaluations of factor structure and ing class, 3% as lower class, 3% as upper class,
construct validity in samples independent of the and 1% did not report their current social class.
instrument development samples. Among the participants, 52% reported being
Thus, the purpose of the present study is to first year students, 20% second year, 15% third
evaluate the psychometric properties of the year, 12% fourth year, 1% graduate or profes-
CMNI-46 by examining factor structure, inter- sional students, and 1% did not report their year
nal consistency reliability, and convergent and in university.
discriminant validity of data produced by the
measure in a sample independent of the instru- Instruments
ment development study. In the present study, it
is expected that the intended nine-factor oblique Conformity to Masculine Norms-46
solution, accounting for variance due to item (CMNI-46; Parent & Moradi, 2009). The
coding (i.e., reverse or not), will provide ade- CMNI-46 is a 46 item measure that assesses
quate fit to CMNI-46 data. Additionally, it is conformity to nine masculine norms: Winning,
expected that CMNI-46 subscale items will which assesses focus on success and winning in
yield Cronbach’s alphas above .70, indicating general (six items; sample item: “In general, I
acceptable reliability (P. Kline, 1999; Pon- will do anything to win”); Emotional Control,
terotto & Ruckdeschel, 2007). Finally, it is ex- which assesses the degree to which respondents
pected that CMNI-46 subscale scores will cor- report controlling the expression of their emo-
relate positively with scores on measures of tions (six items; sample item: “I tend to keep my
corresponding constructs and correlate negligi- feelings to myself”); Primacy of Work, which
bly with impression management. assesses endorsement of work as a primary fo-
cus of life (four items, sample item: “My work
Method is the most important part of my life”); Risk-
taking, which assesses general voluntary expo-
Participants sure to potentially dangerous situations (five
items, sample item: “I frequently put myself in
Analyses were conducted with data from 255 risky situations”); Violence, which assesses en-
college men. The following demographic infor- dorsement of violence as an acceptable response
mation is reported to outline the boundaries for to certain situations (six items; sample item:
generalizability of the present findings. Partici- “Sometimes violent action is necessary”); Het-
pants ranged in age from 18 to 29 years erosexual Self-presentation, which assesses the
(M ⫽ 19.30, SD ⫽ 1.85, Mdn ⫽ 19.00; 1% did importance placed on being perceived by others
RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46 343
as heterosexual and not gay (six items, sample scale of the CMNI-46. The BMS – Violence
item: “I would be furious if someone thought I and Adventure subscale (BMS-VA) contains 15
was gay”); Playboy, which assesses endorse- items that reflect a drive for danger, adventure,
ment of sexual activity with casual partners and violence (sample item tapping risk taking:
(four items; sample item: If I could, I would “A real man enjoys a bit of danger now and
frequently change sexual partners”); Self- then,” sample item tapping violence: “I think it
reliance, which assesses reluctance to seek help is wrong for a grown man to ever get in a
and preference to rely on oneself (five items; fistfight that he might possibly have avoided,”
sample item: “I hate asking for help”); and reverse coded) and was used as the convergent
Power over Women, which assesses general validity indicator for the Risk-taking and Vio-
perceived control over women (four items; sam- lence subscales of the CMNI-46. The BMS –
ple item: “In general, I control the women in my Toughness subscale (BMS-TO) contains 16
life”). Responses are made on a four-point scale items that reflect the belief that men should be
(0 ⫽ Strongly disagree, 3 ⫽ Strongly agree). In ready for confrontation and stand up for them-
the instrument development study with Cana- selves (sample item tapping violence: “A man
dian college men, CMNI-46 subscales yielded must never let anyone push him around, no
large positive correlations with their parent matter who they are,” sample item tapping win-
CMNI subscale (r range .89 to .98, Mdn ⫽ .95) ning: “I admire the kind of athlete who will stay
and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were accept- in the game, even when he has an injury that is
able: .86 for Emotional Control, .83 for Win- causing him some pain”) and was used as the
ning, .84 for Playboy, .86 for Violence, .84 for convergent validity indicator for the Violence
Self-reliance, .84 for Risk-taking, .78 for Power and Winning subscales of the CMNI-46. Re-
over Women, .77 for Primacy of Work, and .91 sponses to all BMS subscale items are made on
for Heterosexual Self-presentation (Parent & a seven-point scale (0 ⫽ Strongly disagree, 6 ⫽
Moradi, 2009). One aim of the present study is Strongly agree). Appropriate items are reverse
to reexamine CMNI-46 Cronbach’s alpha reli- coded and item ratings are averaged, with
ability coefficients in an independent sample. higher scores indicating greater conformity to
Brannon Masculinity Scale (BMS; Bran- the norm assessed by each subscale. In terms of
non & Juni, 1984). A number of BMS sub- validity, BMS subscale scores were generally
scales were used as convergent validity indica- correlated positively with indicators of depres-
tors for CMNI-46 subscales. Specifically, the sion, gender role conflict, and conflict between
Male Machine subscale (BMS-MM) con- work and family in a sample of African Amer-
tains 16 items that reflect belief in agency and ican men (Brewer, 1998). In a sample of college
success as markers of masculinity (sample item: student men whose race/ethnicity was not re-
“A man must always remember that a winner ported, Cronbach’s alphas for BMS subscale
never quits, and a quitter never wins”) and was items ranged from .82 to .89 (Brannon & Juni,
used as the convergent validity indicator for the 1984). In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas
Winning subscale of the CMNI-46. The BMS- were .86 for BMS-MM, .89 for BMS-CE, .82
Conceal Emotions subscale (BMS-CE) con- for BMS-BR, .82 for BMS-VA, and .84 for
tains 16 items that measure participants’ belief BMS-TO items.
that men should hide or conceal their emotions Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI; Le-
(sample item: “I might find it a little silly or vant et al., 1992). A number of MRNI sub-
embarrassing if a male friend of mine cried over scales were used as the convergent validity indi-
a sad love scene in a movie”) and was used as cators for CMNI-46 subscales. Specifically, the
the convergent validity indicator for the Emo- MRNI – Homophobia subscale (MRNI-HO) con-
tional Control subscale of the CMNI-46. The tains five items reflecting dislike for male ho-
BMS – Breadwinner subscale (BMS-BR) con- mosexuality and the superiority of heterosexu-
tains 15 items that measure participants’ belief ality (sample item: “It is disappointing to learn
in the importance of having a “good job” and that a famous athlete is gay”) and was used as
being a provider to one’s family (sample item: the convergent validity indicator for the Hetero-
“Success in his work has to be a man’s central sexual Self-presentation subscale of the CMNI-
goal in his life”) and was used as the convergent 46. The MRNI – Attitudes toward Sex subscale
validity indicator for the Primacy of Work sub- (MRNI-AS) contains 10 items reflecting en-
344 PARENT AND MORADI
dorsement of the norms that men should be that their children attended (Hoffman & Kloska,
emotionally detached from, good at, and driven 1995). In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha
to have sex (sample item: “A man should al- for GBATMR items was .88.
ways be ready for sex”) and was used as the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Respond-
convergent validity indicator for the Playboy ing Impression Management Subscale
subscale of the CMNI-46. The MRNI – Self- (BIDR-IM; Paulhus, 1994). The BIDR-IM
reliance subscale (MRNI-SR) contains seven was used to evaluate the discriminant validity of
items that reflect attitudes about independence, CMNI-46 subscales scores. The BIDR-IM as-
autonomy, and reluctance to seek help (sample sesses presentation of an unrealistically positive
item: “A man should never count on someone portrayal of oneself to others (Paulhus, 1994).
else to get the job done”) and was used as the The BIDR-IM has 20 items (sample item: “I
convergent validity indicator for the Self- have never dropped litter on the street”), and
reliance subscale of the CMNI-46. Responses to responses are made on a seven-point scale (0 ⫽
all MRNI subscale items are made on a seven- Not true, 6 ⫽ Very true). Appropriate items are
point scale (0 ⫽ Strongly disagree, 6 ⫽ reverse coded and the number of extreme re-
Strongly agree). Appropriate items are reverse-
sponses (i.e., 6 and 7) is totaled to yield an
coded and item ratings are averaged, with
overall score, with higher scores indicating
higher scores indicating greater conformity to
greater impression management. Paulhus
the norm assessed by each subscale. In terms of
validity, scores on the MRNI subscales have (1994) reported that the BIDR-IM items yielded
been correlated positively with alexithymia and Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .75 to .80 in
reluctance to seek psychological help in a com- samples of undergraduate students. In the pres-
munity sample of mostly White men (Berger, ent sample, Cronbach’s alpha for BIDR-IM
Levant, McMillan, Kelleher, & Sellers, 2005), items was .78.
and correlated negatively with emotional
awareness (Bray, 2003). In terms of reliability, Procedure
items on the MRNI subscales have yielded
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from the Participants were recruited from a posting
.50s to .80s (Berger et al., 2005; Levant & for the study through the undergraduate par-
Richmond, 2007; Liu, 2002). Cronbach’s alphas ticipant pool and from email announcements
in the present study were .71 for MRNI-HO, .73 over psychology course listserves at a large
for MRNI-AS, and .69 for MRNI-SR items. public university in the Southeastern United
Gender-Based Attitudes toward Marital States. Participants completed the survey on-
Roles scale (GBATMR; Hoffman & Kloska,
line through the authors’ institution. Partici-
1995). The GBATMR was used as the con-
pants were informed that the study was about
vergent validity indicator for the Power over
masculinity and health behaviors (other data
Women subscale of the CMNI-46. The
GBATMR assesses endorsement of traditional from this sample are reported in Parent &
gender roles and power over women in cross- Moradi, in press). Those recruited from the
gender relationships. The measure has six items participant pool received credit toward a re-
(sample item: “Men should make the really search participation requirement and those re-
important decisions in the family”) and re- cruited from courses received extra course
sponses are made on a four-point scale (0 ⫽ credit as allowed by their course instructor.
Strongly disagree, 3 ⫽ Strongly agree). Item Upon linking to the survey, participants
ratings are averaged, with higher scores indicat- viewed a page containing the study’s in-
ing greater endorsement of patriarchal power formed consent information, including insti-
distributions in relationships. In terms of valid- tutional review board approval, and clicked a
ity, fathers’, children’s, and mothers’ scores on link indicating that they had reviewed this
the GBATMR were correlated positively with information prior to beginning the survey.
mothers doing more of the household work Upon completing the survey, participants
(Hoffman & Kloska, 1995). GBATMR items viewed a debriefing sheet that thanked them
had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .85 with a for their participation and reiterated the re-
sample of fathers recruited through the schools searchers’ contact information.
RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46 345
Table 1
Standardized Factor Loadings for Items on the CMNI-46
Method factors Method factors
CMNI-46 CMNI-46
factor Positive Reverse factor Positive Reverse
Item loading Uniqueness coded coded Item loading Uniqueness coded coded
Winning Violence items
22 0.80 0.36 0.06 19 0.78 0.40 0.03
15 0.61 0.63 0.32 4 0.69 0.52 0.32
7 0.59 0.65 0.09 9 0.62 0.61 0.27
33 0.59 0.65 0.38 30 0.60 0.64 0.08
27 0.55 0.70 0.28 41 0.59 0.65 0.31
1 0.47 0.78 0.17 34 0.57 0.67 0.25
Emotional control Heterosexual self-presentation
40 0.87 0.24 0.13 24 0.91 0.17 0.06
25 0.82 0.33 0.26 14 0.84 0.29 0.15
32 0.80 0.37 0.14 17 0.84 0.30 0.25
13 0.76 0.43 0.21 37 0.70 0.51 ⫺0.01
45 0.66 0.57 0.23 5 0.66 0.56 0.07
18 0.62 0.62 0.37 46 0.61 0.62 ⫺0.14
Primacy of work Playboy
11 0.79 0.38 0.21 2 0.77 0.41 0.14
39 0.75 0.44 0.15 21 0.77 0.41 0.24
31 0.67 0.55 0.24 12 0.64 0.59 0.15
23 0.60 0.64 0.05 36 0.62 0.61 0.28
Risk-taking items Self-reliance
8 0.78 0.39 0.00 38 0.76 0.42 ⫺0.03
16 0.73 0.46 ⫺0.12 43 0.73 0.46 0.03
6 0.72 0.48 0.30 10 0.70 0.51 0.04
28 0.62 0.62 0.38 3 0.69 0.52 ⫺0.02
35 0.58 0.66 0.43 26 0.67 0.56 0.27
tween the Winning item “Winning is not my cross-loading problems or need for model
first priority” and the Violence factor. Specifi- modification.
cally, the largest modification index was for the
covariance between the uniqueness (i.e., resid- Reliability
ual or error term) of this item and the Violence
factor (MI ⫽ 20.26), but freeing this parameter Internal consistency reliability was assessed
did not result in notable change in fit index by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.
values, 2(907, N ⫽ 255) ⫽ 1319.00 p ⬍ Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for items on the
.001, CFI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .04, 90% CI: .04, CMNI-46 subscales ranged from .78 to .89,
.05, SRMR ⫽ .06, and 2/df ⫽ 1.45, or a high with a median value of .82 (see Table 2). Ac-
cross-loading (-.27, p ⬍ .001). The modifica- cording to Ponterotto and Ruckdushel’s (2007)
tion indices involving other items were nota- matrix for interpreting Cronbach’s alpha, all
bly smaller (less than 16). Thus, overall, mod- reliability estimates fell within the good to ex-
ification indices did not suggest notable cellent ranges.
RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46 347
Validity
0.78
0.89
0.80
0.82
0.83
0.89
0.80
0.84
0.81
0.85
␣ To assess convergent validity of CMNI-46
0.45
0.54
0.54
0.46
0.49
0.66
0.65
0.49
0.57
0.25
subscale scores, we examined their correlations
SD
Note. N ⫽ 255. Values above the diagonal represent larent variable intercorrelations; values below the diagonal represent bivariate correlations among mean scores.
with corresponding convergent validity indica-
tors. Also, we assessed discriminant validity by
1.66
1.45
1.36
1.45
1.84
1.80
1.28
1.33
1.07
1.51
examining correlations of CMNI-46 subscale
M
0.30ⴱⴱ
0.43ⴱⴱ
0.28ⴱⴱ
0.66ⴱⴱ
0.17ⴱ
0.18ⴱ
0.17ⴱ
0.11
9
0.16ⴱⴱ
0.37ⴱⴱ
lidity correlations using the correction for atten-
0.14
⫺0.02
⫺0.05
⫺0.10
0.10
⫺0.13
8
r ab
0.26ⴱⴱ
0.25ⴱⴱ
0.43ⴱⴱ
ⴱ
0.15ⴱ
0.20ⴱ
冑␣ a ⫻ ␣ b
0.19
0.08
⫺0.03
⫺0.06
7
0.27ⴱⴱ
0.37ⴱⴱ
0.57ⴱⴱ
⫺0.11
⫺0.07
⫺0.03
0.10
6
0.16ⴱⴱ
0.20ⴱⴱ
0.19ⴱⴱ
0.47ⴱⴱ
0.19ⴱ
validity indicator).
0.23
0.05
⫺0.02
⫺0.09
5
0.20ⴱⴱ
0.19ⴱⴱ
0.31ⴱⴱ
0.15ⴱ
⫺0.08
⫺0.01
4
⫺0.03
⫺0.04
⫺0.08
0.06
0.03
0.34ⴱⴱ
0.53ⴱⴱ
ⴱ
0.13ⴱ
0.16ⴱ
0.20
⫺0.09
⫺0.10
0.07
0.21ⴱⴱ
0.21ⴱⴱ
0.21ⴱⴱ
0.30ⴱⴱ
0.59ⴱⴱ
0.14ⴱ
0.08
0.11
1
CMNI-46 Total
Table 3
Corrected Correlations Between CMNI-46 Subscales and Validity Indicators
Validity indicators
Male Role Norms
Brannon Masculinity Scale Inventory
CMNI-46
subscale MM CE BR VA TO HO AS SR GBATMR BIDR-IM
Winning 0.28 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.26 0.30 0.31 ⫺0.20
Emotional control 0.21 0.49 0.26 0.16 0.22 0.30 0.21 0.23 0.20 ⫺0.06
Primacy of work 0.19 0.04 0.38 ⫺0.04 0.13 0.05 0.21 0.22 0.20 ⫺0.03
Risk-taking 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.43 0.20 0.01 0.35 0.07 0.17 ⫺0.28
Violence 0.13 0.28 0.06 0.63 0.30 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.15 ⫺0.07
Heterosexual self-
presentation 0.41 0.49 0.27 0.26 0.40 0.82 0.31 0.31 0.60 ⫺0.11
Playboy 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.28 0.17 0.13 0.59 0.08 0.24 ⫺0.48
Self-reliance 0.13 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.24 0.16 ⫺0.10
Power over
women 0.50 0.37 0.42 0.40 0.52 0.69 0.74 0.52 0.94 ⫺0.28
Validity mean 3.17 3.36 2.90 3.14 3.51 2.57 2.62 3.85 1.13 5.09
Validity SD 0.74 0.82 0.72 0.67 0.72 1.15 0.78 0.81 0.59 3.58
␣ 0.86 0.89 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.71 0.73 0.69 0.88 0.78
Note. All correlations have been corrected for attenuation. Bolded values represent correlations between CMNI-46
subscales and intended validity indicators. MM ⫽ Male Machine; CE ⫽ Conceal Emotions, BR ⫽ Breadwinner; VA ⫽
Violence and Adventure; TO ⫽ Toughness; HO ⫽ Homophobia; AS ⫽ Attitudes toward Sex; SR ⫽ Self-reliance;
GBATMR ⫽ Gender-Based Attitudes Toward Martial Roles; BIDR-IM ⫽ Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
Impression Management.
lation between CMNI-46 Playboy scores and structure (Beauducel & Wittmann, 2005). Indeed,
BIDR-IM. Beauducel and Wittmann suggested that in CFAs
of measures of constructs for which indicators
Discussion may be expected to have moderate factor load-
ings, which may exhibit minor deviations from
The present study undertook the first analyses simple structure, and in which latent variables
of the reliability, validity, and factor structure of may demonstrate moderate correlations (e.g.,
the CMNI-46 since its development. Such anal- models such as Big Five traits, measures of atti-
yses are important to ensure that the CMNI-46 tudes or beliefs, or gender conformity), “models
measures the constructs it is intended to mea- would only have a chance to be accepted when
sure and to inform future use of the CMNI-46 in incremental fit indexes . . . are not used for model
research and practice. Overall, findings sup- evaluation” (p. 72). In addition, the CFI has been
ported the psychometric properties of the found to be negatively impacted when models
CMNI-46 with the present sample of mostly contain a large number of variables as is the case
White and heterosexual college students. in the present study (Kenny & McCoach, 2003).
With regard to factor structure, the fit indices Thus, within the present model and data condi-
collectively provided structural support for the tions, the preponderance of fit index values sup-
CMNI-46. All fit indices suggested acceptable fit ported the factor structure of the CMNI-46 as a
within the context of the present sample size and multidimensional measure of masculine norms.
model characteristics. However, CFI failed to Related to the dimensionality of the
reach .95, which has been suggested as a target CMNI-46 and its parent measure, we reiterate
cut-off value by some researchers (e.g., Hu & prior cautions regarding the interpretation of
Bentler, 1999). The lower fit suggested by the CFI total CMNI scores given the multidimensional-
relative to the other fit indices may be a result of ity of masculine norms (e.g., Parent & Moradi,
some moderate subscale intercorrelations on the 2009). Specifically, the generally low subscale
CMNI-46 as fit indices such as CFI can be nega- and latent variable intercorrelations (see Table
tively impacted by minor deviations from simple 2) reflect the multidimentionality of the CMNI
RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46 349
and call into question use of total CMNI and pretation of these patterns is that a number of
CMNI-46 scores, rather than subscale scores, as the validity indicators (e.g., Male Machine,
variables in research. In the present study, we Conceal Emotions, Breadwinner) have limited
reported Cronbach’s alpha and correlations in- associative specificity with the CMNI-46 sub-
volving the CMNI-46 total item set for the sake scales; that is, these CMNI-46 subscales may
of consistency and comparison with prior stud- tap a broader range of masculine norms than
ies using CMNI total scores. However, the mul- intended. But it is important to note that the
tidimensionality of masculine norms and the associative nonspecificity is concentrated in
CMNI raises questions about interpreting the Heterosexual Self-presentation, Power over
CMNI or CMNI-46 total item set as unidimen- Women, and Winning subscales and does not
sional and internally consistent. We encourage reflect general misspecificity. Conceptually, it
consideration of this caution and the conceptual may be that the masculinity norms of power
meaning of CMNI total scores in future re- over women, heterosexual self-presentation,
search. and winning thread across the masculinity con-
With regard to reliability, items on all sub- structs captured by the validity indicators in this
scales of the CMNI-46 yielded good or excel- study. This hypothesis is consistent with bivari-
lent Cronbach’s alphas as defined by Ponterotto ate correlations among the subscales and total
and Ruckdeschel’s (2007) matrix for estimating score; these three subscales demonstrate the
adequacy of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Be- three highest correlations with the CMNI-46
cause Cronbach’s alpha is associated positively total score. Such a thread of masculine, hetero-
with number of items (Ponterotto & Ruckde- sexual, patriarchal hegemonic power is consis-
schel, 2008), it is notable that even with the tent with feminist theory and feminist therapy
abbreviated length, the CMNI-46 Cronbach’s conceptualizations of interconnections among
alphas approximate values across studies using heterosexism, sexism, and domination (e.g.,
the full-length CMNI. Lorde, 1984; Moradi, Fischer, Hill, Jome, &
In examining the corrected correlations of Blum, 2000; Pharr, 1988) and suggests that
each CMNI-46 subscale with the convergent such interconnections are reflected in construals
validity indicators (i.e., looking within rows in of masculinity.
Table 3), the preponderance of evidence sug- In terms of discriminant validity, corrected
gests that CMNI-46 subscale scores correlated correlations between CMNI-46 subscales and
most strongly with scores on their intended va- BIDR-IM scores were generally small (from
lidity indicators. Specifically, corrected correla- ⫺.03 to ⫺.28), with the exception of the ⫺.48
tions between CMNI-46 subscale scores and corrected correlation between CMNI-46 Play-
validity indicators ranged from .24 to .94, with boy scores and BIDR-IM. We suggest two pos-
a median value of .43. Thus, corrected conver- sible interpretations for this association. First,
gent validity correlations represented generally the association may reflect that participants
medium to large associations according to Co- were responding to Playboy items in a socially
hen’s (1992) criteria. desirable manner, and that actual endorsement
Examining correlations of each validity indi- of the Playboy norm is different from that indi-
cator with CMNI-46 subscales suggests addi- cated by self-reports on the CMNI-46. Second,
tional notable patterns. Specifically, CMNI-46 Paulhus (1994) suggested that although IM
Power over Women scores yielded the largest scores are correlated with scores on measures of
correlation with their intended validity indica- deception and role-playing, the IM scale may
tor, but also had medium to large correlations also overlap conceptually with “social conven-
with every validity indicator in the study. Sim- tionality” (p. 23) evidenced by moderate corre-
ilarly, CMNI-46 Heterosexual Self-presentation lations of IM scores with personality dimen-
scores yielded the largest correlation with their sions of conscientiousness and agreeableness.
intended validity indicator, but also had me- Thus, some of the negative association between
dium to large correlations with most other va- Playboy and BIDR-IM items may reflect sub-
lidity indicators. Finally, Winning scores stantively meaningful overlap between endorse-
yielded medium correlations with their intended ment of Playboy items and rejection of social
convergent validity indicators as well as with a conventionality. That is, persons who are highly
number of other validity indicators. One inter- agreeable and conscientiousness would not be
350 PARENT AND MORADI
expected to endorse Playboy items that reflect sider cross-cultural variability in masculine
defiance of social conventions of monogamy norms themselves. Some norms may be appli-
(e.g., “I would feel good if I had many sexual cable across cultures and other norms may be
partners,” “If I could, I would frequently change culture-specific (e.g., Adler, 1993; Williams &
sexual partners”). Thus, the negative associa- Best, 1990). For example, Williams and Best
tion between the BIDR-IM and Playboy items (1993) found cross-country variability in the
may reflect actual lower endorsement of the perceived valence and differentiation of mascu-
Playboy norm for more socially conventional line and feminine characteristics. Masculine
persons. Nevertheless, the strong association norms also evolve across time. Thus, attention
between Playboy and BIDR-IM items suggests to shifts in masculine norms across cohorts and
cautious interpretations of scores on the Play- time periods is needed. The CMNI-46 can be
boy norm in future research. used as a base for future modifications to cap-
ture the evolving nature of masculine norms; as
Limitations and Implications for Research additional norms are identified across time and
and Practice cultures, or as current norms recede, these tem-
poral and cultural variations can be incorporated
The present findings can inform practice and into the measure.
research concerning masculinity. Mahalik, Tal- In addition, it is important to consider that
madge, Locke, and Scott (2005) described the though the present study used a sample of men,
application of the CMNI to clinical work. This and though the CMNI has been applied mostly
application focused on assessing and discussing in samples of men, masculine norms are not
with the client the role of gender conformity (or applicable exclusively to men (e.g., Smiler,
nonconformity) in his or her life, and exploring 2006), and the CMNI-46 may prove useful in
the potential costs and benefits of that confor- assessing women’s level of conformity to mas-
mity (or nonconformity). Such applications are culine norms as well. Indeed, researchers have
consistent with feminist therapy, which empha- used the CMNI in investigations of women’s
sizes encouraging clients to evaluate the ef- vocational interests (Tokar et al., 2007) and
fect of gender roles in their lives (e.g., Ches- energy drink consumption and “jock” identity
ter & Bretherton, 2001; Moradi et al., 2000; (Miller, 2008). Investigations of the psychomet-
Worell & Johnson, 2004). The CMNI-46 of- ric properties of the CMNI-46 with diverse sam-
fers clinicians an abbreviated tool to use in ples of women could expand the utility of this
conducting such assessment with clients, and measure in future research and practice.
the present study supports the psychometric Finally, some researchers have contended
utility of the CMNI-46. that acontextual measures of gender roles
In terms of research, the findings of the pres- merely recapitulate trait-like personality con-
ent study can inform future work that employs structs, and as such provide limited usefulness
the CMNI-46. Researchers may be more confi- in assessing more dynamic and situationally
dent in the conceptual clarity and factor struc- constructed manifestations of gender role con-
ture of the CMNI-46, and this clarity along with formity (Addis, Mansfield, & Syzdek, 2010).
the abbreviated length of the CMNI-46 can As such, research that disentangles personality-
make the measure more usable in research and like variables from CMNI scores may be useful
practice. However, psychometrics of the in helping researchers to articulate effects of
CMNI-46 need to be evaluated with diverse gender conformity beyond personality corre-
populations (including racial/ethnic and sexual lates, and experimental research might examine
minority populations). In such research, it is situational alterations or saliencies in gender
important to recall that the CMNI-46 and its role conformity.
parent instrument are designed to assess confor- Overall, findings supported the factor struc-
mity to dominant cultural norms in the U.S., ture, reliability, and validity of CMNI-46 data
based on the premise that U.S. men of various with the present sample, and speak to the utility
backgrounds are held to dominant cultural con- of this measure as a tool for assessing confor-
struals of masculinity. In addition to evaluating mity to masculine norms. The present sample
the psychometrics of the CMNI-46 with diverse characteristics (mostly White, heterosexual col-
populations, however, it is important to con- lege students) form the boundaries for general-
RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46 351
izability of the results. Further investigations of Burns, S. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2008). Treatment
the psychometric properties of the CMNI-46 are type and emotional control as predictors of men’s
important, especially as the measure is applied self-assessed well-being following treatment for
in diverse samples, across cultures, and with prostate cancer. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
ity, 9, 55– 66. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.9.2.55
women.
Chester, A., & Bretherton, D. (2001). What makes femi-
nist counseling feminist? Feminism & Psychology, 11,
References 527–545. doi:10.1177/0959353501011004006
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological
Addis, M. E., Mansfield, A. K., & Syzdek, M. R. Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
(2010). Is “masculinity” a problem? Framing the Cohn, A., & Zeichner, A. (2006). Effects of mascu-
effects of gendered social learning in men. Psy- line identity and gender role stress on aggression in
chology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 77–90. doi: men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 179 –
10.1037/a0018602 190. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.7.4.179
Adler, L. L. (1993). International handbook on gen- Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine
der roles. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. gender role stress: Scale development and compo-
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos (Version 6.0) [Com- nent factors in the appraisal of stressful situations.
puter Program]. Chicago: SPSS. Behavior Modification, 11, 123–136. doi:10.1177/
Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. (2005). Simulation 01454455870112001
study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likeli-
slightly distorted simple structure. Structural hood algorithms available for use with missing
Equation Modeling, 12, 41–75. doi:10.1207/ data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128 –141.
s15328007sem1201_3 doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psycholog- Good, G. E., Schopp, L. H., Thomson, D., Hathaway,
ical androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical S., Sanford-Martens, T., Mazurek, M. O., & Mintz,
Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215 L. B. (2006). Masculine roles and rehabilitation
Berger, J. M., Levant, R., McMillan, K. K., Kelleher, outcomes among men recovering from serious in-
W., & Sellers, A. (2005). Impact of gender role juries. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 165–
conflict, traditional masculinity ideology, alexithy- 176. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.7.3.165
mia, and age on men’s attitudes toward psycholog- Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993).
ical help seeking. Psychology of Men & Masculin- Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings.
ity, 6, 73–78. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.6.1.73 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
Bogaert, A. F., Fawcett, C. C., & Jamieson, L. K. 1029–1041. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.64.6.1029
(2009). Attractiveness, body size, masculine sex Hamilton, C. J., & Mahalik, J. R. (2009). Minority
roles and 2D:4D ratios in men. Personality and stress, masculinity, and social norms predicting
Individual Differences, 47, 273–278. doi:10.1016/ gay men’s health risk behaviors. Journal of Coun-
j.paid.2009.03.011 seling Psychology, 56, 132–141. doi:10.1037/
Brannon, R., & Juni, S. (1984). A scale for measuring a0014440
attitudes about masculinity. Psychological Docu- Hoffman, L. W., & Kloska, D. D. (1995). Parents’
ments, 14, 6 –7 (ms2612). gender-based attitudes toward marital roles and
Bray, L. H. (2003). Traditional masculine ideology child-rearing: Development and validation of new
and normative male alexithymia. (Doctoral disser- measures. Sex Roles, 32, 273–295. doi:10.1007/
tation, University of Alberta, 2003). Dissertation BF01544598
Abstracts International, 65, 75. Hoyt, W. T., Wabasse, R. E., & Chu, E. Y. (2006).
Brewer, A. M. (1998). The relationships among gen- Construct validation in counseling psychology re-
der role conflict, depression, hopelessness, and search. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 769 –
marital satisfaction in a sample of African- 805. doi:10.1177/0011000006287389
American men. (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts Interna- indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional, 59, 3049. tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Brown, L. J., & Bond, M. J. (2008). An examination of Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/
the influences on health-protective behaviors among 10705519909540118
Australian men. International Journal of Men’s Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of num-
Health, 7, 274 –287. doi:10.3149/jmh. 0703.274 ber of variables on measures of fit in structural equation
Burn, S. M., & Ward, A. Z. (2005). Men’s confor- modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333–351.
mity to traditional masculinity and relationship doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, Kimmel, S. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Body image
254 –263. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.6.4.254 concerns of gay men: The roles of minority stress
352 PARENT AND MORADI
and conformity to masculine norms. Journal of clinical setting. Journal of Clinical Psychol-
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1185– ogy, 61, 661– 674. doi:10.1002/jclp.20101
1190. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1185 Mahalik, J. R., Walker, G., & Levi-Minzi, M. (2007).
Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological Masculinity and health behaviors in Australian
testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 240 –
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of struc- 249. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.8.4.240
tural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Miller, K. E. (2008). Wired: Energy drinks, jock
Guilford Press. identity, masculine norms, and risk taking. Journal
Levant, R. F., Hirsh, L., Celantano, E., Cozza, T., of American College Students, 56, 481– 490. doi:
Hill, S., MacEcheron, M., & Schnedeker, J. 10.3200/JACH. 56.5.481– 490
(1992). The male role: An investigation of con- Moradi, B., Fischer, A. R., Hill, M. S., Jome, L. M., &
temporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Coun- Blum, S. A. (2000). Does “feminist” plus “therapist”
seling, 14, 325–337. equal “feminist therapist”? An empirical investigation
Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2007). A review of of the link between self-labeling and behaviors. Psy-
research on masculinity ideologies using the Male chology of Women Quarterly, 24, 285–296. doi:
Role Norms Inventory. Journal of Men’s Stud- 10.1111/j.1471–6402.2000.tb00211.x
ies, 15, 130 –146. doi:10.3149/jms.1502.130 O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of re-
Liu, W. M. (2002). Exploring the lives of Asian search on men’s gender role conflict using the
American men: Racial identity, male role noms, Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research para-
gender role conflict, and prejudicial attitudes. Psy- digms and clinical implications. The Counseling
chology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 107–118. doi: Psychologist, 36, 358 – 445. doi:10.1177/
10.1037/1524 –9220.3.2.107 0011000008317057
Liu, W. M., & Iwamoto, D. K. (2007). Conformity to O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., &
masculine norms, Asian values, coping strategies, Wrightsman, L. (1986). Gender Role Conflict
peer group influences, and substance use among Scale: College men’s fear of femininity, Sex
Roles, 14, 335–350.
Asian American men. Psychology of Men & Mas-
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory
culinity, 8, 25–39. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.8.1.25
factor analysis of the Conformity to Masculine
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and
Norms Inventory and development of the Confor-
speeches by Audrey Lorde. Berekley, CA: Cross-
mity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychol-
ing Press.
ogy of Men & Masculinity, 10, 175–189. doi:
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara,
10.1037/a0015481
H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (in press). His biceps
sample size for covariance structure models. Psy- become him: A test of objectification theory’s ap-
chological Methods, 1, 130 –149. plication to drive for muscularity and propensity
Mahalik, J. R., Burns, S. M., & Syzdek, M. (2007). for steroid use in college men. Journal of Coun-
Masculinity and perceived normative health be- seling Psychology.
haviors as predictors of men’s health behaviors. Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Balanced Inventory of Desir-
Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2201–2209. doi: able Responding: Reference manual for BIDR Ver-
10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.035 sion 6. Unpublished manuscript, Department of
Mahalik, J. R., Lagen, H. D., & Morrison, J. A. Psychology, University of British Columbia, Van-
(2006). Health behaviors and masculinity in Ke- couver, BC.
nyan and U.S. male college students. Psychology Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism.
of Men & Masculinity, 7, 191–202. doi:10.1037/ Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press.
1524 –9220.7.4.191 Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, overview of coefficient alpha and a reliability ma-
M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). trix for estimating adequacy of internal consis-
Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms tency coefficients with psychological research
Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3–25. measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 997–
doi:10.1037/1524–9220.4.1.3 1014.PMid:18229554.
Mahalik, J. R., & Rochlen, A. B. (2006). Men’s Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implica-
likely responses to clinical depression: What are tions of recent developments in structural equation
they and do masculinity norms predict them? Sex modeling for counseling psychology research. The
Roles , 55, 659 – 667. doi:10.1007/s11199-006- Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485–527. doi:
9121-0 10.1177/0011000099274002
Mahalik, J. R., Talmadge, W. T., Locke, B. D., & Rochlen, A. B., McKelley, R. A., Suizzo, M., &
Scott, R. P. (2005). Using the Conformity to Mas- Scaringi, V. (2008). Predictors of relationship sat-
culine Norms Inventory to work with men in a isfaction, psychological well-being, and life satis-
RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46 353
faction among stay-at-home fathers. Psychology of correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: Univer-
Men & Masculinity, 9, 17–28. doi:10.1037/1524 – sity of Austin Press.
9220.9.1.17 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using
Schafer, J. L. (2000). NORM (version 2.03) [Computer multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
software]. Retrieved from http://www.stat.psu.edu/ Tager, D., & Good, G. E. (2005). Italian and Amer-
⬃jls/misoftwa.html ican masculinities: A comparison of masculine
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: gender role norms. Psychology of Men & Mascu-
Our view of the state of the art. Psychological linity, 6, 264 –274. doi:10.1037/1524 –
Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037/1082- 9220.6.4.264
989X.7.2.147 Tokar, D. M., Thompson, M. N., Plaufcan, M., &
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, Williams, C. M. (2007). Precursors of learning
H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation experiences in Social Cognitive Career Theory.
models: Tests of significance and descriptive Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 319 –339.
goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychologi- Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel,
cal Research, 8, 23–74. D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relation-
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). ship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, validity,
and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assess-
Best practices for missing data management in
ment, 88, 187–204.PMid:17437384.
counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide
Psychology, 57, 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082
to structural equation modeling. The Counseling
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient
Psychologist, 34, 719 –751. doi:10.1177/
alpha. Psychological Assessment, 4, 350 –353. doi: 0011000006286345
10.1037/1040 –3590.8.4.350 Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex
Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery stereotypes: A multinational study. Newbury Park,
of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of CA: Sage.
masculinity. Sex Roles, 50, 15–26. doi:10.1023/B: Worell, J., & Johnson, D. (2004). Therapy with wom-
SERS.0000011069.02279.4c en: Feminist frameworks. In R. K. Unger (Ed.),
Smiler, A. P. (2006). Conforming to masculine Handbook of the psychology of women and gender
norms: Evidence for validity among adult men and (pp. 317–329). New York: Wiley and Sons.
women. Sex Roles, 54, 767–775. doi:10.1007/ Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale
s11199-006 –9045-8 development research: A content analysis and rec-
Smiler, A. P., & Epstein, M. (2010). Measuring gen- ommendations for best practices. The Counseling
der: Options and issues. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. Psychologist, 34, 806 – 838. doi:10.1177/
McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in 0011000006288127
psychology (pp. 133–157). doi:10.1007/978 –1-
4419 –1465-1_7 Received June 11, 2010
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity Revision received August 27, 2010
and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, Accepted October 11, 2010 䡲