↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
152 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
577 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Traditional Masculinity and Femininity: Validation of a New Scale Assessing Gender Roles
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sven Kachel, Melanie C. Steffens, Claudia Niedlich

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 577 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 573 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 109 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 12%
Student > Master 67 12%
Researcher 33 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 5%
Other 72 12%
Unknown 194 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 144 25%
Social Sciences 57 10%
Arts and Humanities 31 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 29 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 3%
Other 89 15%
Unknown 209 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2024.
All research outputs
#949,135
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,018
of 34,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,899
of 373,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#44
of 391 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 391 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.