August 20, By girlwhocaresabouttheworld. Like Post Submit a post. Image Credit. Discover other stories from young voices around the world -and share yours! Register in our web , follow us on Twitter or use the hashtag VoicesOfYouth on your social media channels. Ready to speak up for the issues you care about? View the discussion thread.
Related Stories Submit a Post. Human Rights. By Elyes Ayadi. In contrast, regarding gender-role behavior and childhood behavior, expected differences between lesbians and straight women were obtained. Similarly, the implicit association of self with feminine was stronger in straight women than lesbians, confirming expectations. Table 3. Table 2 shows bivariate correlations, along with internal consistencies.
Internal consistencies of all measures were excellent, with the lowest score obtained for BSRI masculinity. A noteworthy correlation was a strong negative one between the TMF factors masculinity and femininity, suggesting that a one-dimensional measure could be sufficient.
Hence, we recoded all masculine items and then averaged all items of the TMF to obtain a supplementary measure, TMF total. TMF masculinity and femininity correlated in the expected direction with all other measures except for BSRI masculinity. BSRI masculinity did not correlate significantly with any other measure, suggesting that it measured something different from all other measures of masculinity in the study.
All other correlations were in the expected direction. Of particular interest, the implicit association of self-feminine correlated positively with TMF femininity and negatively with TMF masculinity, as expected.
Similar, but somewhat weaker relations were obtained between the IAT and most other measures. In order to test whether lesbians, bisexual, and straight women would be classified correctly based on the different measures of masculinity-femininity, we carried out an ordinal regression analysis. Thus, based on their self-assessment on the TMF as masculine-feminine and based on the masculine everyday behaviors participants said they carried out, they could be classified quite well as lesbians, bisexual, or straight women.
Because this approach needs a continuous dependent variable, in contrast to all other analyses in the present paper, we did not use the classification as lesbian, bisexual, or straight in this case, but the continuous Kinsey-like scale with scores ranging from 1 to 7. Figures 2 , 3 summarize the findings. TMF masculinity and femininity were related with sexual orientation in expected ways in line with the findings reported in Table 3. Only one direct effect was significant in addition to the indirect effect: Whereas all other findings were in line with the interpretation of full mediation via the TMF, masculine everyday behavior was still related to sexual orientation when the TMF was included in the equation.
This suggests that the TMF mediated the relationship between sexual orientation and masculine behavior only partially. Figure 2. Figure 3. In Study 1, we found that the reliabilities of both the femininity and the masculinity subscales of the TMF were high. Moreover, they correlated so strongly in a negative way that one may also conceive of the scale as one-dimensional, ranging from masculinity to femininity. We found several pieces of evidence for the validity of the scale.
First, it correlated in the expected directions with all other measures of masculinity and femininity that we used, except for BSRI masculinity, which largely confirms Hypothesis 7. Feminine traits as well as masculine and feminine behaviors can be predicted quite well from scores on the TMF. The strongest correlations were obtained with self-rated childhood gender conformity. Notably, confirming Hypothesis 6, correlations with an implicit measure of one's self-feminine vs.
Additionally, the TMF was related to participants' sexual orientation more strongly than any other measure see ANOVA results in Table 3 , with lesbians reporting lower femininity and higher masculinity than bisexual or straight women confirming Hypothesis 3a and b.
When predicting participants' sexual orientation from the masculinity and femininity measures, neither feminine, nor masculine traits, nor feminine everyday behavior, nor the self-feminine association contributed. Instead, confirming Hypothesis 8, masculine everyday behavior and the TMF were able to predict participants' sexual orientation very well, attesting to the usefulness of two rather new conceptualizations of measuring masculinity and femininity. Mediation analyses were in line with the idea that feminine traits and feminine everyday behavior differ by sexual orientation because of a globally more feminine gender-role self-concept.
This confirms Hypothesis 5. Masculine traits also tend to differ by sexual orientation because of lesbians' globally more masculine gender-role self-concept. Further, masculine everyday behavior also differs by sexual orientation because of lesbians' globally more masculine gender-role self-concept, but a direct effect of masculine behavior on sexual orientation remained. A speculative explanation for the latter finding is that it may depend partly on the gender of one's relationship partner which behaviors one carries out.
For example, given that couples typically divide housework in ways mirroring traditional gender roles e. In other words, in addition to personal preferences, the presence or absence of other-gender people in the household who choose to take care of certain chores may determine which chores one does i.
The aim of Study 2 was to replicate and extend Study 1's findings. We used data of a research project on social perception. As in Study 1, we used a known-groups approach, this time contrasting lesbians, gay men, and straight women and men.
With the exception of small adjustments, gender-related scales were identical to Study 1. For determining criterion validity, we also focused on other features. In order to determine the TMF's test-retest reliability, we re-invited male participants after 1 year for female participants no contact data were available.
We expected gender-related characteristics to correlate moderately with the TMF Hypothesis 7 and we assumed the TMF to predict sexual orientation better than the other gender-related scales Hypothesis 8. Furthermore, we assumed that participants with higher gender-conform scores on the TMF would report less contact with lesbians and gay men Hypothesis 10 , would show rather gender stereotypical voice pitch characteristics Hypothesis 11 , and would be more likely to be rated as straight Hypothesis 9.
A moderate 1-year reliability was expected Hypothesis 12 as well as a moderate predictive validity for the second measurement of gender-related features Hypothesis Overall German participants attended the study at the first measurement point.
Based on their Kinsey-like scale scores, 15 participants who rated themselves as bisexual were excluded from further analyses because of the small group size. Among the remaining 96 participants, there were 24 lesbians Kinsey scores: 1—2 , 21 straight women 6—7 , 25 gay men 1—2 , and 26 straight men 6—7. A total of 37 men attended the post-test. According to their Kinsey-like scale scores 18 identified as gay 1—2 and 19 as straight 6—7. Between those attending the post-test and those who did not, merely one difference was significant after adjusting the significance level for multiple tests.
The same measures as in Study 1 were used in the following manner. Thus, the 6-item-version of the TMF was used. High values on CGRB indicated a high degree of gender conformity. Moreover, we included the following measures. We used the German version Runge et al. It consists of two independent scales measuring gender-related personality traits.
To describe participants' voice pitch i. Mean fundamental frequency f0 indicates the average voice pitch, f0 standard deviation is a measure for voice pitch variability, and f0 range is used to evaluate voice pitch range.
For computing f0 range, we computed the difference between the f0 Hence, higher scores indicate higher perceived straightness. At first measurement, participants filled out an online questionnaire in which all psychological and sociodemographic characteristics were collected.
In the second step, they were invited to a speech lab to provide recordings of spontaneous spoken speech and text reading as well as a photograph of their face. The sampling of women took place in a phonetic laboratory in the Center of General Linguistics in Berlin and was done by a female investigator, whereas the sampling of men took place at a phonetic laboratory of the University of Jena and was done by a male investigator.
Voice pitch characteristics were measured on the basis of spontaneous speech. In the last step we asked judges to rate speech recordings, facial photographs, and the combination of both dichotomously regarding sexual orientation for a randomly selected subset of 18 lesbians, gay men, straight women, and men, respectively Kachel et al. Male participants were re-invited after 1 year to the phonetic laboratory of the University of Jena.
All results refer to the first measurement except for those that are explicitly indicated to belong to second measurement. It replicated all findings of the pilot study. In detail, a KMO criterion of 0. An additional exploratory factor analysis with PAF of participants at second measurement replicated the findings indicating a one-dimensional factor structure. The one-factor solution was confirmed by graphical scree-plot analysis.
Which of the gender-related instruments are able to predict a person's gender and sexual orientation? Simple-effects tests with Bonferroni adjustment were added. Table 4 shows main and interaction effects as well as mean scores for all gender-related instruments separately for lesbians, straight women, gay, and straight men.
Table 4. Both effects explained more variance in the TMF than in all other gender-related instruments in this study. Hence, comparing lesbians and gay men constituted a stricter test of all scales. In short, the TMF showed the expected mean differences between all groups, it was the only scale in this study that was able to detect differences between lesbians and gay men, and it showed the largest mean difference between straight women and men.
Furthermore, the TMF differentiated the groups as expected see Figure 4. Additionally, the TMF was best in predicting gender on the basis of scale scores as can be seen in Table 5 in which results of binary logistic regression models for all gender-related scales are shown.
Almost identical percentages of women and men were correctly classified. Compared to all other measures under investigation, the TMF seemed to be the most precise instrument to differentiate between women and men regardless of their sexual orientation.
Figure 4. Mean TMF scores separately for gender and sexual orientation. Error bars represent standard errors of means. Table 5. Regarding TMF, group differences in women's sample were already mentioned above. As in Study 1, straight women described themselves as more feminine compared to lesbians on the GRB-F.
Means were particularly close together for adjective-based gender-related instruments such as the GEPAQ. Reliabilities and correlations on all gender-related instruments can be seen in Table 6. Three out of five correlations with the TMF were significant. The correlations for the first two instruments were in the expected direction: The more feminine the women rated themselves on the TMF, the higher their scores on behavior-based femininity GRB-F and childhood gender-conformity CGRB.
Moreover, after adjusting the significance level according to the Bonferroni formula, the correlation was not significant anymore. Table 6.
Reliabilities and bivariate correlations of gender-related scales for women and men in Study 2 at first measurement. Can the TMF predict women's sexual orientation better than other measures? We added the TMF in the last step of a binary regression model. Results can be seen in Table 7. In contrast to Study 1, the TMF did not outperform all other measures. Only the GRB-F was found to predict women's sexual orientation. Table 7. Stepwise, logistic regression analysis for predicting women's sexual orientation based on gender-related scales in study 2 at first measurement.
As indicated in Table 4 , all differences in the male subsample were in the expected directions. As for the female subsample, the TMF did not predict sexual orientation better than other measures when it was added in the last step of a binary regression model see Table 8.
This could be interpreted as suggesting that TMF does not contribute at all to explaining sexual orientation. To answer these questions, in a supplementary binary regression model, only adjective-based scales were included as predictors. Table 8. Stepwise, logistic regression analysis for predicting men's sexual orientation based on gender-related scales in study 2 at first measurement.
We collected data on several psychological and acoustic criterion characteristics. We computed bivariate correlation coefficients for the TMF with these characteristics in order to test the criterion validity of TMF separately for women see Table 9 and men see Table Additionally, correlations for all other gender-related scales included in Study 2 were computed as a comparison.
Table 9. Bivariate correlations of gender-related instruments and criterion characteristics for women in study 2. Table Bivariate correlations of gender-related instruments and criterion characteristics for men in study 2. All correlations were in the expected direction: The higher women spoke on average and the higher their voice pitch range and variability, the more likely they rated themselves as feminine.
The TMF showed 9 out of 16 possible significant correlations which is more than any other gender-related scale. CGRB followed with 6 out of 16 possible significant correlations. Hence, the TMF showed higher convergent validity than the other gender-related scales. Table 11 contains findings regarding test-retest reliability and predictive validity.
According to the intercorrelation of TMF scores at first and second measurement, 1-year reliability for the TMF was 0. Hypothesis 12 was confirmed. Reliabilities and correlations for gender-related measures between first columns and second rows Measurement in Study 3. As can be seen in Table 11 , both correlations were significant, of moderate size, and in the expected directions, confirming Hypothesis In Study 2, we found that all TMF items loaded strongly on one single factor at first and second measurement, replicating the pilot study and confirming Hypothesis 1 again.
The TMF showed sufficient reliabilities for women and men. Confirming Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, the TMF turned out to be the best gender-related instrument for differentiating straight and gay men at first and second measurement and lesbians and straight women compared to all other scales used in Study 2 see Table 4.
The evidence for high incremental validity in predicting women's sexual orientation from Study 1 could not be replicated nor extended to men. We assume that the inclusion of GRB-F in the regression model reduced apparent error variance and thus changed the relation between GRB-M and sexual orientation from descriptive to statistically significant.
However, as GRB-M was again non-significant in Step 3 of the regression model, we suggest that masculine everyday behavior was not strongly related to sexual orientation in our women's sample. However, when including adjective-based instruments only, TMF predicted sexual orientation in women and men better than established adjective -based instruments.
Partially confirming Hypothesis 7, the TMF showed moderate correlations with some other gender-related scales. Importantly, the TMF was connected to multiple criterion characteristics for women e. The TMF revealed moderate test-retest-reliability and predictive validity confirming Hypotheses 12 and Gender research has developed many instruments to measure different aspects of self-ascriptions of gender stereotypical features, including attributes, behaviors, interests, and attitudes Beere, The TMF was shown to reliably measure an underlying, one-dimensional construct, and it was found to be a valid instrument for assessing masculinity-femininity because it a successfully differentiated between groups that were expected to differ women vs.
Whereas, some well-established, adjective-based scales e. In line with Choi and Fuqua , high correlations between the separate TMF femininity and masculinity scales as shown in Study 1 suggest a bipolar, one-dimensional use of this instrument reflecting laypersons' ideas of masculinity and femininity as two extremes of one continuum.
All items were shown to load on one factor and represent a one-dimensional construct masculinity-femininity. Moreover, in spite of its brevity, the TMF showed high internal consistencies across all studies as well as satisfactory test-retest reliability in a sample of men. However, the one-dimensionality of the TMF was demonstrated with participants identifying themselves as women or men. Possibly, the two-dimensional TMF version is superior than the one-dimensional version for samples that comprise a larger number of participants transgressing or rejecting the binary gender system e.
Future research is needed to clarify that question. One could object against using the bipolar TMF scale that its midpoint is ambiguous. 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.
Instead, we tend to hold stereotypes of others that link personality with the masculinity or femininity of their faces. The researchers cite previous research suggesting that men with very masculine features tend to be perceived as cold, dishonest, violent, and uncooperative. Other research demonstrates that feminine facial traits, even on men, signal warmth, honesty, and cooperativeness.
The researchers put the stereotypes to the test in two experiments. First, they asked 43 heterosexual female Princeton students aged 18—23 to rate a set of white male faces on stereotypically masculine and feminine personality traits, such as warmth feminine and dominance masculine. Then they recruited a group of 88 heterosexual women aged 18—69 to rate the same faces in an online survey.
0コメント