Cited by 227Gender Roles and Identity StudiesGender and Feminist StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review.

Thompson, Edward H., Bennett, Kate M.·2015·Psychology of Men & Masculinity

Abstract

Over the 20 years since Thompson and Pleck’s review of masculinity measures, much has changed with respect to measurement of masculinity ideologies. In this review, we examine the theoretical foundations and psychometric properties of measures of masculinity ideologies. We frame the review with a brief discussion of the 2 distinct conceptualizations of masculinity ideologies, then provide a synopsis of the 16 measures that meet our selection criteria: have been used in empirical studies since 1995, were published in peer-reviewed psychology or gender-related journals, contain full presentation of psychometric properties, are not study-specific modifications of earlier scales, and focus directly or indirectly on masculinity ideologies. We show that there are now 2 generations of measures. The 1st focuses on the hegemonic, traditional masculinity ideologies in North America. The 2nd-generation theorizes local masculinities and explicitly recognizes that different groups of individuals hold different standards. These have begun to map the geography of masculinities for men of different birth cohorts, life stages, social classes, sexual orientations, cultures, and racial/ethnic communities. We conclude by suggesting that there is value for a 3rd generation of measures to capture the changing face of men’s gendered lives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0038609

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The CMNI has construct validity, discriminant validity between its subscales, and high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.85 for the Self-Reliance subscale).

    “Widely used in the literature, many studies have reported construct validity for the CMNI, along with discriminant validity between its subscales and high internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 for the Self-Reliance subscale; in this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86) [73].”
  • The 22-item CMNI demonstrates excellent concurrent validity, correlating well with the original instrument and other recognised measures of masculinity.

    “The 22-item instrument, which uses the two highest loading items for each of the 11 factors on the parent instrument, demonstrates excellent concurrent validity, correlating well with the original instrument [21] and other recognised measures of masculinity like the Gender Role Conflict Scale, the Brannon Masculinity Scale and the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale [22].”

    From Masculinity and suicidal thinking (2017) · cites this paper as [21]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 149 · Cited by 227

Authors
Thompson, E. H., & Bennett, K. M.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
Venue
Psychology of Men & Masculinity
Published
2015-04
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
115-133
ISSN
  • 1524-9220 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-151X
OpenAlex
W2319437963
Cited by
227
References
149
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8
FWCI
38.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychology of Men & Masculinity (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
masculinity ideology, psychometric properties, hegemonic masculinity, traditional masculinity, scale development, birth cohort, sexual orientation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review