One could imagine that people scoring either high or low on both dimensions would erroneously be treated as one group. In terms of validity, using a known-groups approach as an established psychological method for validity tests e. With reference to sexual orientation, straight and bisexual women rated themselves higher on femininity and lower on masculinity than lesbians did Study 1.
According to implicit gender inversion theory, gay men should have scored higher than lesbians on femininity and lower on masculinity, which was not the case in our sample. It appears that gay men and lesbians rather self-stereotype as men and women, respectively, and thus construct their self-concept in line with their gender group.
Based on these findings, we conclude that the TMF's ability for determining gender and sexual orientation was generally high, and higher than that of all other gender-related measures investigated in the present studies. Hence, the TMF was shown to be a valid scale for assessing gender-role self-concept. It was expected that the TMF would correlate moderately with other gender-related scales.
That was the case for all gender-related scales in Study 1 where only a female sample was tested. Only correlations with the Childhood Gender-Behavior Scale were high, which could be due to selective memory recall and hence reflect current gender-related self-assessment see Bailey and Zucker, measured with the TMF. Correlations between the TMF and gender-related scales were smaller for a second sample of women Study 2 which could be due to differences in sampling and substitutions of scales e.
Connected to that, the incremental validity of the TMF for predicting women's sexual orientation was demonstrated in Study 1 only.
However, the male sample in Study 2 showed overall moderate correlations of the TMF and gender-related scales, but no additional ability of the TMF to predict sexual orientation. The fact that the TMF did not always demonstrate additional predictive value for explaining differences between groups does not indicate that it is superfluous. And the TMF predicted sexual orientation still better than established adjective-based instruments in women and men in Study 2 which was demonstrated after excluding the most predictive scales.
To deal with a common critique that self-report instruments measure differences in social desirability rather than true differences, we used an implicit measure of women's self-feminine vs. Study 1 showed that the correlations of these associations were higher for the TMF than for self-ratings of traits or behaviors. It is also a substantive finding of the present studies that goes beyond mere scale validation. Correlation analyses showed that gender-conformity on the TMF was significantly linked to perceived straightness for almost each presentation mode voice, face, and the combination of both for men and women.
Moreover, higher femininity in women was associated with higher voice pitch features average, variability, and range and higher masculinity in men was connected to less contact to gay men. Compared to other gender-related scales, the TMF was superior in convergent validity. In sum, this indicates that the TMF measures something fundamental regarding gender-related self-assessment. It is also another substantive finding of the present studies that goes beyond mere scale validation.
A limitation is that patterns of findings partially differed between women and men, and which specific criteria mattered in which sub-sample appeared a bit arbitrary e. However, in every case determining and predicting gender and sexual orientation, convergent, and criterion validity , as a rule the TMF was better than the one-item-measure e.
The TMF is designed as a self-assessment instrument for masculinity-femininity on a rather global level with regard to two different respects. First, the TMF is based on a trait rather than a normative approach see Thompson and Bennet, and conceptualizes masculinity-femininity as a long-term characteristic varying between people.
However, it does not exclude variation on masculinity-femininity within a person depending on different social, temporal, or regional contexts. Its focus is on a trait-like global average score across contexts. Second, it is more global because it focuses on a higher-order masculinity-femininity construct which is beyond specific components such as traits, interests, physical characteristics, or attitudes, and asks for an aggregated self-assessment across these domains.
The high test-retest reliability obtained over a 1-year period indicated stability rather than variance. However, it would be interesting to know which components mainly account for an individual's judgment of their own gender-related identity. The TMF could be a valuable instrument for future research dealing with that question. However, the TMF does not measure if participants' conceptions of gender-role identity aspects correspond to traditional views. However, large differences are not likely because people within one culture know about traditional gender roles.
Hence, it seems plausible that the problem of item aging is mitigated for the near future because of the more global wordings. Additionally, we are positive that the TMF can be used in different countries and cultures because of its global level of measurement. They found that the TMF was moderately connected to different aspects of social identification with one's own gender in the expected directions for men and women.
According to Leach et al. The TMF was shown to be linked to almost all of its different components individual self-stereotyping, in-group homogeneity, satisfaction, solidarity, and centrality for women and men except for in-group homogeneity for men. Future research should provide evidence for the applicability in non-German samples. In a nutshell, as long as societies assume differences in interests, attitudes, clothing style, and behavior between women and men, we suggest that the TMF provides a valuable addition to researchers' toolbox.
For example, are self-ratings on the TMF related to biological markers of masculinity-femininity such as waist-to-hip ratio and finger length i. Do self-ratings on the TMF predict behaviors in which large gender differences have been observed, such as socio-sexuality or animal cruelty? Are self-ratings on the TMF related to performance in domains where gender differences are reliable, such as mental rotation? Finally, are self-ratings on the TMF related to personality traits in which gender differences have been observed, such as self-esteem and social dominance orientation?
Generally, we believe that many different research questions related to gender-related self-assessments could benefit from using the TMF. 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. Additionally, we thank Julia Scholz and the reviewers for critical and valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
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. Abele, A. Eckes and H. Trautner Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum , — Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others.
Alvesson, M. 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. Athenstaedt, U. 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— CrossRef Full Text. On the content and structure of the gender role self-concept: including gender-stereotypical behaviors in addition to traits.
Women Q. Baeck, H. Pitch characteristics of homosexual males. Voice 25, — Bailey, J. Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation. Banse, R. Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift Exp. Beere, C. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Google Scholar. Bem, S. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Theory and measurement of androgynity: a reply to the pedhazur-tetenbaum and locksley-colten critiques. Blashill, A. Gay stereotypes: the use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes.
Sex Roles 61, — Bortz, J. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag. Camp, M. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona. Choi, N. The structure of the bem sex role inventory: a summary report of 23 validation studies. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Coleman, E. Assessment of sexual orientation. Constantinople, A. Masculinity-femininity: an exception to a famous dictum? Croft, A. The second shift reflected in the second generation: Do parents' gender roles at home predict children's aspirations?
Deaux, K. From individual differences to social categories: analysis of a decade's research on gender. Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Diekman, A. Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future.
Ebert, I. Warm, but maybe not so competent? Sex Roles 70, — Evers, A. Why do highly qualified women still earn less? Gender differences in long-term predictors of career success. Faul, F. Methods 39, — Fiske, S. A model of often mixed stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.
Greenwald, A. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Hayes, A. A Regression-Based Approach. Hofmann, W. A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures.
Howitt, D. Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology. Essex: Pearson Education. Kagan, J. Hoffman and L. Kite, M. Gender belief systems: homosexuality and the implicit inversion. Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Leach, C. Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical multicomponent model of in-group identification. Lippa, R. Sexual orientation and personality.
Sex Res. The relation between childhood gender nonconformity and adult masculinity—femininity and anxiety in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Sex Roles 59, — Madon, S. What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength. Sex Roles 37, — Munson, B. Loose lips and silver tongues, or, projecting sexual orientation through speech. Compass 1, — Niedlich, C. Ironic effects of sexual minority group membership: Are lesbians less susceptible to invoking negative female stereotypes than heterosexual women?
Nosek, B. Understanding and using the implicit association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Pierrehumbert, J. The influence of sexual orientation on vowel production. Rieger, G. Roth, J. Adaptation and validation of a German multidimensional and multicomponent measure of social identification.
Runge, T. Masculine instrumental and feminine expressive traits: a comparison between students in the United States and West Germany. Cross Cult. Safir, M. Tomboyism, sexual orientation, and adult gender roles among Israeli women. Sex Roles 48, — Sczesny, S.
Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles 51, — Sidanius, J. Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Smiler, A. Thrity years after the discovery of gender: psychological concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles 50, 15— Spence, J.
Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Steffens, M. Implicit association test: Separating transsituationally stable and variable components of attitudes toward gay men.
On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Avoiding stimulus confounds in Implicit Association Tests by using the concepts as stimuli. Strack, F. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Swank, E. Attitudes toward gays and lesbians among undergraduate social work students. Women Soc. Work 25, 19— Swazina, K. Geschlechtsspezifische Ideale im Wandel der Zeit [Gender-specific ideals through the ages].
When searching up the word feminine it came up with similar results. Now like the definitions of masculine, these definitions went straight to associating it with women. I want to talk about why masculinity and femininity are not the same things as gender and why they are two completely different things.
Now for some traits that are considered feminine. Traditionally feminine traits are considered bad or unwanted, I believe that is why women and men have taken to more masculine traits. In the workplace, I found it better to be dominant, assertive, and strong than it is to be caring, humble and emotional.
Now, why is this? Why have we taken these traits and immediately started labeling them? All of the feminine traits are associated with women, whereas the masculine traits are associated with men. We can say the same thing about a man who is seen crying or being caring, he can be considered weak, but if a woman is emotional or caring it is considered good or the way she is supposed to act.
It is time that society realizes that masculinity and femininity are not traits we associate with depending on gender, but instead depending on the character. To be balanced and better people, I believe we need to have both masculine traits and feminine traits.
Femininities and masculinities are plural and dynamic; they change with culture and with individuals. Points to keep in mind:. Masculinization refers to the development of male-specific morphology, such as the Wolffian ducts and male 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.
Faulkner, W.
0コメント