Skip to main content
Log in

An Inductive Analysis of Young Adults’ Conceptions of Femininity and Masculinity and Comparison to Established Gender Inventories

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study provides an analysis of the content of feminine and masculine characteristics/behaviors described in writing by 366 young women and 289 young men from the U.S. Emergent characteristics/behaviors were placed into domains. For both femininity and masculinity, the domains of “physical differences related to sex” and “emphasized physical differences” emerged. For masculinity, additional domains were: “activities and interests focused on the body,” “powerful or oriented toward power,” and “emotion-control or emotionally-limited.” For femininity, additional domains were “lacking power,” “orientation to other people,” and “emotional.” We then compared the characteristics/behaviors and domains we discovered to gender inventories that are commonly used in the contemporary period. The masculine domains focused on physical differences, activities, and interests that emerged from the present study are mostly absent from these masculinity inventories. The domains focused on power and restricted emotion are evident in these inventories, but these inventories do not cover all of the characteristics within our domains. The feminine domains that emerged from the present study are more often covered in these inventories, but some of the specific feminine characteristics we found are not evident in these inventories. Results are discussed in terms of gender role theory, gender inequality, and potential application for qualitative and quantitative inquiries into the construction of gender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the bem sex-role inventory. Sex Roles,43, 499–528. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007119516728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,42, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berger, A., & Krahe, B. (2013). Negative attributes are gendered too: Conceptualizing and measuring positive and negative facets of sex-role identity. European Journal of Social Psychology,43, 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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, 425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brooks, C., & Bolzendahl, C. (2004). The transformation of US gender role attitudes: cohort replacement, social-structural change, and ideological learning. Social Science Research,33(1), 106–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00041-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brownlie, E. B. (2006). Young adults’ constructions of gender conformity and nonconformity: A Q methodological study. Feminism & Psychology,16(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353506067848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brumberg, J. J. (1997). The big project: An intimate history of American girls. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family,63, 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cartei, V., Cowles, H. W., & Reby, D. (2014). Spontaneous voice gender imitation in adult speakers. PLoS ONE,7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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, 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Crawley, S. L., Foley, L. J., & Shehan, C. L. (2008). Gendering bodies. Lantham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davis, L. R. (1997). The swimsuit issue and sport: Hegemonic masculinity in Sports Illustrated. Albany: State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1983). Assessment of gender stereotypes: Methodology and components. Psychological Documents,13, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Ferreira, M. C. (2005). Dynamic stereotypes about women and men in Latin America and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,36, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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, 556–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Englar-Carlson, M., & Kiselica, M. S. (2013). Affirming the strengths in men: A positive masculinity approach to assisting male clients. Journal of Counseling & Development,91, 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00111.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278–306). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing…or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983-2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly,40, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316634081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the personal attributes questionnaire. Sex Roles,7, 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hyde, J. S. (1994). Should psychologists study gender differences? Yes, with some guidelines. Feminism & Psychology,4(4), 507–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353594044004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kiesling, S. (2007). Men, masculinities, and language. Language and Linguistics Compass,1, 653–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00035.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Levant, R. F. (2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. American Psychologist,66(8), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Levant, R. F., Hirsch, L. S., Celentano, E., Cozza, T. M., Hill, S., MacEachern, M., et al. (1992). The male role: An investigation of contemporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,14, 325–337.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Levant, R. F., Richmond, K., Cook, S., House, A. T., & Aupont, M. (2007). The Femininity Ideology Scale: Factor structure, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and social contextual variation. Sex Roles,57(5–6), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9258-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Levant, R. F., Smalley, K. B., Aupont, M., House, A. T., Richmond, K., & Noronha, D. (2007). Initial validation of the male role norms inventory-revised (MRNI-R). The Journal of Men’s Studies,15, 83–100. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1501.83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lobb, A. (2013). The agony and the empathy: The ambivalence of empathy in feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology,23, 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353513497556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,4, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the conformity to feminine norms inventory. Sex Roles,52(7–8), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3709-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Melzer, S. (2018). Manhood impossible: Men’s struggles to control and transform their bodies and work. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Messner, M. A., & Sabo, D. F. (1990). Sport, men, and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mishkind, M. E., Rodin, J., Silberstein, L. R., & Streigel-Moored, R. H. (1986). The embodiment of masculinity: Cultural, psychological, and behavioral dimensions. American Behavioral Scientist,29, 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276486029005004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly,32, 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ness, K. (2012). Constructing masculinity in the building trades: ‘Most jobs in the construction industry can be done by women’. Gender, Work & Organization,19(6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00551.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Norona, J. C., Preddy, T. M., & Welsh, D. P. (2016). How gender shapes emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. J. Arnett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of emerging adulthood (pp. 62–86). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making,5, 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Parent, M. C., Kalenkoski, C., & Cardella, E. (2018). Risky business: Precarious manhood and financial investment decisions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,19, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the conformity to masculine norms inventory and development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory-46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,10, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory and development of an abbreviated version: The CFNI-45. Psychology of Women Quarterly,34, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01545.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to masculine norms: Psychometric properties of the conformity to masculine norms inventory-46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,12, 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Parent, M. C., Moradi, B., Rummell, C. M., & Tokar, D. M. (2011). Evidence of construct distinctiveness for conformity to masculine norms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,12, 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Parent, M. C., Schwartz, E. N., & Bradstreet, T. C. (2016). Men’s body image. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 615–626). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Peralta, R. L. (2007). College alcohol use and the embodiment of hegemonic masculinity among European American men. Sex Roles,56, 741–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ricciardelli, L. A., McCabe, M. P., & Ridge, D. (2006). The construction of the adolescent male body through sport. Journal of Health Psychology,11(4), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105306065018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Steiger, J. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods,9, 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Strough, J., Leszczynski, J. P., Neely, T. A., Flinn, J. A., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles,57, 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9282-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Synnott, A. (1987). Shame and glory: A sociology of hair. The British Journal of Sociology,38, 381–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/590695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,16, 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Toerien, M., & Wilkinson, S. (2003). Gender and body hair: Constructing the feminine woman. Women’s Studies International Forum,26(4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(03)00078-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V. (2000). The Adolescent femininity ideology scale: Development and validation of a new measure for girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly,24, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00219.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles,36, 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike C. Parent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parent, M.C., Davis-Delano, L.R., Morgan, E.M. et al. An Inductive Analysis of Young Adults’ Conceptions of Femininity and Masculinity and Comparison to Established Gender Inventories. Gend. Issues 37, 1–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-019-09246-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-019-09246-y

Keywords

Navigation