Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:17:49.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do the BSRI and PAQ Really Measure Masculinity and Femininity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Juan Fernández  and
Mª Teresa Coelleo
Juan Fernández*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Mª Teresa Coelleo
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan Fernández. Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Campus de Somosaguas. 28223 Madrid. (Spain). E-mail: jfernandez@psi.ucm.es. Web page: http://sites.google.com/site/jfsprofile/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The two most used instruments to assess masculinity (M) and femininity (F) are the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Two hypotheses will be tested: a) multidimensionality versus bidimensionality, and b) to what extent the two instruments, elaborated to measure the same constructs, classify subjects in the same way. Participants were 420 high school students, 198 women and 222 men, aged 12–15 years. Exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency analysis were carried out and log-linear models were tested. The data support a) the multidimensionality of both instruments and b) the lack of full concordance in the classification of persons according to the fourfold typology. Implications of the results are discussed regarding the supposed theory behind instrumentality/expressiveness and masculinity/femininity, as well as for the use of both instruments to classify different subjects into the four distinct types.

Los dos instrumentos más utilizados para valorar masculinidad y feminidad son el Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) y el Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Se pondrá a prueba la hipótesis de la multidimensionalidad frente a la de la bidimensionalidad. A su vez, se tratará de verificar hasta qué punto ambos instrumentos, que dicen medir lo mismo, clasifican a los sujetos de igual forma. Los participantes fueron 420 estudiantes de secundaria, 198 mujeres y 222 varones, de entre 12 y 15 años. Se llevaron a cabo análisis factoriales exploratorios y de consistencia interna y se pusieron a prueba modelos lineallogarítmicos. Los datos apoyan: a) la multidimensionalidad de ambos instrumentos y b) la falta de plena concordancia en la clasificación de las personas en función de la cuádruple tipología. Se analizan las implicaciones de los resultados tanto para la supuesta teoría subyacente –instrumentalidad/expresividad, masculinidad/feminidad– como para la utilización de ambos instrumentos a la hora de clasificar a los sujetos en cuatro tipos distintos.

Keywords

androgynymasculinityfemininityBSRIPAQlog-linear modelandroginiamasculinidadfeminidadBSRIPAQmodelo lineal-logarítmico
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , November 2010 , pp. 1000 - 1009
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agbayani, P., & Min, J. W. (2007). Examining the validity of the Bem Sex Role Inventory for use with Filipino Americans using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 15, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago, CA: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Baucom, D. H. (1976). Independent masculinity and femininity scales on the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 876.Google Scholar
Beere, C. A. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, S. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Cohen critiques. Jounrnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1047–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berzins, J. I., Welling, M. A., & Wetter, R. E. (1978). A new measurement of psychological androgyny based on the Personality Research Form. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 126–138.Google Scholar
Brems, C., & Johnson, M. E. (1990). Reexamination of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: The interpersonal BSRI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 484–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T., Gillaspy, J. A. Jr., & Thompson, B. (1997). The factor structure of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI): Confirmatory analysis of long and short forms. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 118–124.Google Scholar
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Caussinus, H. (1966). Contribution a l'ànalyse statistique des tableaux de corrélation. Annales de la Faculté de Sciences de l'Université de Toulouse, 29 (anné 1965), 77–182.Google Scholar
Choi, N., & Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 872–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2006). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 818–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2008). The Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Continuing theoretical problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 881–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colley, A., Mulhern, G., Maltby, J., & Wood, A. M. (2009). The short form BSRI: Instrumentality, expressiveness and gender associations among a United Kingdom sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to the famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407.Google Scholar
Díaz-Loving, R., Rocha, T. E., & Rivera, S. (2004). Elaboración, validación y estandarización de un inventario para evaluar las dimensiones atributivas de instrumentalidad y expresividad. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 38, 263–276.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ely, R., & Ryan, E. (2008). Remembering talk: Individual and gender differences in reported speech. Memory, 16, 395–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, J. (1983). Nuevas perspectivas en la medida de la masculinidad y feminidad. Madrid: Editorial de la Universidad Complutense.Google Scholar
Fernández, J., Quiroga, M. A., Del Olmo, I., & Rodríguez, A. (2007). Escalas de masculinidad y feminidad: estado actual de la cuestión. Psicothema, 19, 357–365.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Brewer, G., Fehl, K., & Neave, N. (2007). Instrumentality and lifetime number of sexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 747–756.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, G. E., Wallace, D. L., & Borst, T. S. (1994). Masculinity research: A review and critique. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 3, 3–14.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1968). The analysis of cross-classified data: Independence, quasi-independence, and interactions in contingency tables with or without missing entries. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63, 1091–1131.Google Scholar
Gough, H. G. (1952). Identifying psychological femininity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 12, 427–439.Google Scholar
Harris, A. (1994). Ethnicity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study of item selection for de Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 31, 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Heilbrum, A. B. (1976). Measurement of masculine and feminine sex roles identities as independent dimensions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 183–190.Google Scholar
Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929–941.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1998). LISREL8. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kaschak, E., & Sharratt, S. (1983). A Latin American Sex Role Inventory. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 18, 3–6.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1978). Janus: A summing up. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Konrad, A. M., & Harris, C. (2002). Desirability of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory for women and men: A comparison between African Americans and European Americans. Sex Roles, 47, 259–271.Google Scholar
Kracher, B., & Marble, R. P. (2008). The significance of gender in predicting the cognitive moral development of business practitioners using the Sociomoral Reflection Objective Measure. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 503–526.Google Scholar
Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1971). Factor analysis as a statistical method (2nd. ed.). London: Buterworths.Google Scholar
Lenney, E. (1991). Sex roles: The measurement of masculinity, femininity and androgyny. In Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 573–660). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leung, C., & Moore, S. (2003). Individual and cultural gender roles: A comparison of Anglo-Australians and Chinese in Australia. Current Research in Social Psychology, 8, 302–316.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 7, 57–78.Google Scholar
Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd. Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1985). The structure of masculinity/femininity: An application of confirmatory factor analysis to higher order factor structures and factorial invariance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 427–449.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., & Myers, M. R. (1986). Masculinity, femininity and androgyny: A methodological and theoretical critique. Sex Roles, 14, 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateo, M. A., & Fernández, J. (1991). La dimensionalidad de los conceptos de masculinidad y feminidad. Investigaciones Psicológicas, 9, 95–116.Google Scholar
Maznah, I., & Choo, P. F. (1986). The factor structure of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). International Journal of Psychology, 21, 31–41.Google Scholar
Myers, A., & Gonda, G. (1982). Utility of the masculinity-femininity construct: Comparison of traditional and androgyny approaches. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 514–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, P. A. (2004). An examination of the current usefulness of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Psychological Reports, 94, 1331–1336.Google Scholar
Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (Eds.). (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). The Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 996–1016.Google Scholar
Peng, T. K. (2006). Construct validation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory in Taiwan. Sex Roles, 55, 843–851.Google Scholar
Signorella, M. L. (1999). Multidimensionality of gender schemas: Implications for the development of gender-related characteristics. In Swann, W.B. Jr.,Langlois, J.H., & Gilbert, L.A. (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society. The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 107–126). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Spence, J. T. (1991). Do the BSRI and PAQ measure the same or different concepts? Psychology of Women Quarterly 15, 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex roles stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43–44.Google Scholar
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on Sex Role Attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.Google Scholar
Strong, E. K. (1936). Interest of men and women. Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 49–67.Google Scholar
Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Twenge, J. M. (1999). Mapping gender. The multifactorial approach and the organization of gender-related attributes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 485–502.Google Scholar
Uleman, J. S., & Weston, M. (1986). Does the BSRI inventory sex roles? Sex roles, 15, 43–62.Google Scholar
Vermunt, J. K. (1998). A general program for the analysis of categorial data. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Woo, M., & Oei, T. P. S. (2008). Empirical investigations of the MMPI Gender-Masculine and Gender-Feminine Scales. Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. L., Heitmiller, D., Andreasen, N. C., & Nopoulos, P. (2008). Morphology of the ventral frontal cortex: Relationship to femininity and social cognition. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 534–540.Google Scholar
Wong, F. Y., McCreary, D. R., & Duffy, K. G. (1990). A further validation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A multitraitmultimethod study. Sex Roles, 22, 249–259.Google Scholar