Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2012 American Psychological Association

2012, Vol. 13, No. 4, 354 –366 1524-9220/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029102

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Construct Validity of the Male

Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent-revised (MRNI-A-r)
Ronald F. Levant, Baron K. Rogers, Bridgette Cruickshank, Thomas J. Rankin,
Britney A. Kurtz, Christina M. Rummell, Christine M. Williams, and
Alexander J. Colbow
The University of Akron

The Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent-revised (MRNI-A-r) was assessed for

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

factor structure, convergent validity using the Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in

Relationships Scale, and discriminant validity using the Masculinity Scale of the Short
Form of Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Participants included 323 racially diverse
middle school boys and girls with a mean age of 12.8 years (SD ⫽ .92). Exploratory
factor analysis found a three factor structure: (1) Emotionally Detached Dominance; (2)
Toughness; and (3) Avoidance of Femininity. For the sample as a whole, the MRNI-A-r
and its factors had internal reliabilities ranging from .71 to .89. Some support was found
for convergent and discriminant validity. Boys endorsed traditional masculine norms to
a greater extent than did girls on the MRNI-A-r total scale and on factors 1 (Emotion-
ally Detached Dominance) and 2 (Toughness). African American boys endorsed
traditional masculine norms to a greater extent than did European American boys on the
MRNI-A-r total scale and factors 1 (Emotionally Detached Dominance) and 3 (Avoid-
ance of Femininity).

Keywords: masculinity ideology, male role norms, adolescents, measurement

Gender ideologies are beliefs about the roles
and behaviors thought to be appropriate for
either males or females. According to the Gen-
der Role Strain Paradigm (Pleck, 1981, 1995),
these ideologies vary by culture. Within a given
culture, the dominant gender ideologies influ-
ence how parents, teachers, and peers socialize
children, and thus, how children think, feel, and
behave in regard to gender-salient matters (Le-
vant, 1996a; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1994b).
In the Gender Role Strain paradigm, gender
roles and gendered behavior are thus thought to
be the result of social learning and social influ-
ence processes, instructed by gender ideolo-
This article was published Online First August 6, 2012.
Ronald F. Levant, Baron K. Rogers, Thomas J. Rankin,
Britney A. Kurtz, Christina M. Rummell, Christine M.
Williams, and Alexander J. Colbow, Department of Psy-
chology, The University of Akron; Bridgette Cruickshank,
Department of Counseling, The University of Akron.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr.
Sandra Spickard Prettyman, Steve Graef, and Amanda Beck
of the University of Akron.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Ronald F. Levant, Department of Psychology,
The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4301. E-mail:
levant@uakron.edu
354
gies—the central construct in the Strain Para-
digm.
Within this paradigm, masculinity ideology
refers specifically to internalized beliefs regard-
ing culturally defined standards or norms for
males’ roles and behaviors (Pleck, 1981, 1995).
Through social interactions resulting in rein-
forcement or punishment, masculinity ideology
informs, encourages, and constrains boys and
men to conform to the prevailing male role
norms by adopting certain socially sanctioned
masculine behaviors and avoiding certain pro-
scribed behaviors (Levant, 1996a). Further,
since a given culture’s masculinity ideology is
also learned by females, it also influences wom-
en’s and girls’ ideas of how men and boys
should behave.
It is thus important to consider that both men
and women hold specific masculinity ideolo-
gies. As Whorley and Addis (2006, p. 656)
noted: “when we study masculinity only in men
we can easily fall prey to an implicit essential-
ism by failing to distinguish . . . [sex and gen-
der]; thoroughly studying masculinity means
understanding how it operates in the lives of
both men and women.” Accordingly, we must
consider that males and females may have dif-
 MRNI-A-R
ferent views regarding the appropriate norms
for male behavior. In some societies (e.g., China
and Russia), men and women have been found
to be quite similar in their views of the norms
for male behavior, with both genders endorsing
the traditional masculine norms as the appropri-
ate norms for men’s behavior (Levant & Rich-
mond, 2007). However, in the U.S., adult
women tend to reject the traditional norms for
men’s behavior to a much greater extent that do
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
adult men (Levant & Richmond, 2007). These
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
differences are thought to reflect the influence
of feminism on U. S. women (and the lack,
thereof, on Chinese and Russian women), and
suggest that traditional masculinity ideology
may be a point of contention between the gen-
ders (Levant, 1996b, 1997). Given these gender
differences, it is important to study masculinity
ideologies (views regarding appropriate norms
for male behavior) in both males and females.
Researchers have created a variety of mea-
sures to operationalize and investigate varia-
tions in, and correlates of, the endorsement of
both traditional and nontraditional masculinity
ideologies (Thompson & Pleck, 1995; Thomp-
son, Pleck, & Ferrera, 1992). The Male Role
Norms Inventory (MRNI) defined seven male
role norms, or dimensions of traditional mascu-
linity ideology: Avoidance of Femininity, Fear
and Hatred of Homosexuals, Self-Reliance, Ag-
gression, Achievement/Status, Non-Relational
Attitudes toward Sexuality, and Restrictive
Emotionality (Levant et al., 1992). The MRNI
was designed to survey both men and women;
however, like most measures of masculinity
ideology, it was designed for use with adults.
Socialization processes begin at a young age
and seem to have a great impact on the de-
velopment of gender roles and gender-typed
behaviors for children and adolescents that
continue into adulthood (Levant, 2001). Fur-
thermore, during early adolescence many
gender-related issues arise, such as the inten-
sification of concerns about gender (Galam-
bos, Almeida, & Peterson, 1990), interests in
sexuality, concerns about aggression, sub-
stance use, and career development, to name a
few. In addition, early adolescence is a time
of heightened conformity in many domains,
especially those related to gender. Hence, it
seems particularly important to study mascu-
linity ideology in young adolescents.
355
Measuring the Masculinity Ideologies of
Adolescents
To date, only a few studies have reported
attempts to measure the masculinity ideologies
of adolescents. Pleck, Sonenstein, and Ku
(1993a; 1993b) developed the 8-item Male Role
Attitude Scale (MRAS) to be used with older
adolescent boys aged 15–19. Seven items were
adapted from Thompson and Pleck’s (1986)
Male Role Norm Scale (MRNS), a 26-item ab-
breviated version of the Brannon Masculinity
Scale, Short Form (Brannon & Juni, 1984)
which was designed for adults. Items most rel-
evant to the adolescent population were selected
and the wordings of items were simplified.
Items were chosen to represent the three facto-
rial dimensions of the MRNS: Status, Tough-
ness, and Anti-Femininity. Further, an addi-
tional item about sex, a topic left out of the
MRNS, was also included. While such brief
scales are useful for population-based epidemi-
ological surveys (which is what the MRAS was
intended for), they do not allow the more fine-
grained analyses that a broader set of subscales
would provide. Limitations of this instrument
include, thus, the small number of items which
covers only a small set of the male role norms,
and also its low reliability (the coefficient alpha
for the scale is .56 as reported by Pleck, Sonen-
stein, & Ku, 1994a), and the fact it has not been
developed to be administered to younger teens
nor teenage girls.
Chu, Porche, and Tolman (2005) developed
the Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Rela-
tionships Scale (AMIRS), a scale that assesses
attitudes and beliefs about appropriate behavior
for males within interpersonal relationships.
Designed specifically for use with adolescent
boys (aged 12–18), the AMIRS was derived
from adolescent boys’ narratives about their
perceptions and experiences of masculinity,
particularly in their peer relationships. Interest-
ingly, the AMIRS was found to be negatively
associated with self-esteem, which suggests the
problematic consequences that may be associ-
ated with boys’ endorsement of traditional mas-
culinity ideology. Limitations of this instrument
include its focus on relationships, which covers
only a subset of male role norms, and the fact
that it has not been designed to be administered
to teenage girls.
 356 LEVANT ET AL.
An adolescent version of the MRNI has been
developed, the Male Role Norms Inventory-
Adolescent (MRNI-A; Brown, 2002). The read-
ing and comprehension levels of the MRNI
were adapted in order to create an instrument
developmentally appropriate for use with
younger populations. Items for the adolescent
version were based on MRNI, but were changed
in two major ways. First, items were adapted
and new items were created to represent ado-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
lescent-specific contexts, for example, “It is ok
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
for a boy to ask for help fixing a flat tire on his
bike,” and “Boys should not be afraid to go
inside a ‘haunted house.’” We did include an
item related to work (“A boy must be able to
make his own way in the world.”). We chose to
emphasize sports (six items), as sports is a cen-
tral theme in boy’s lives (Messner, 1992). We
chose to not mention the school context, be-
cause school for many boys is associated with a
sense of failure (Pollack, 1998), and we did not
want to arouse negative feelings associated with
failure. Second, while certainly relevant to the
adolescent population, the scale developers de-
cided to not include the Fear and Hatred of
Homosexuals and Non-Relational Attitudes To-
ward Sexuality subscales, because they believed
that including such scales might create an in-
surmountable obstacle to gaining approval to
administer the inventory in schools with these
items included. Hence the MRNI-A had five
subscales: Restrictive Emotionality, Avoidance
of Femininity, Aggression, Achievement/
Status, and Self-Reliance.
Data were collected from American (N ⫽
172) and Scottish (N ⫽ 264) adolescent boys
and girls to evaluate the scale reliability and
construct validity of the MRNI-A (Levant,
Graef, Smalley, Williams, & McMillan, 2008).
Results indicated that the MRNI-A showed
good overall internal consistency for the scale
as a whole in both samples, but that the reliabil-
ity of the subscales ranged from just barely
adequate to poor. Evidence for convergent va-
lidity for the MRNI-A was found for both boys
and girls, and evidence for discriminant validity
was found for girls but not for boys. Consistent
with research on adults, females in both samples
endorsed less traditional views of masculinity
than did males. Scottish adolescents endorsed
less traditional views of masculinity than did
Americans, suggesting that traditional mascu-
line norms are less important among teens in
Scotland as compared to the U.S.
Revision of the MRNI-A
Given the limitations in subscale reliability
and discriminant validity for boys, the MRNI-A
was revised in the hopes of improving its reli-
ability and validity. Using the American data set
from Levant et al. (2008), the investigators an-
alyzed all of the MRNI-A items to determine if
removing the item would improve the coeffi-
cient alpha of its respective subscales, and, as a
result, removed two items—items which had
also been judged to have problems in wording
(items 38 and 42). We next simplified the lan-
guage (e.g., changed “If necessary a boy should
sacrifice friendships in order to get ahead” to “if
needed, a guy should stop being friends with
someone to be more popular”) and improved the
age-appropriateness of the remaining items
(e.g., “boys” was changed to “guys” for all
items) while preserving the content of items.
We also reworded all negatively worded (re-
verse-scored) items to be positively worded, as
recommended by DiStefano and Motl (2006).
These investigators demonstrated that, contrary
to the view that a mix of positively- and nega-
tively-worded items prevents response bias,
negatively-worded items on self-report surveys
actually tap method effects. The result was the
MRNI-A-revised (MRNI-A-r), a 41-item inven-
tory with the same five subscales as the
MRNI-A.
Purpose and Hypotheses of the Present
Study
The purpose of the present study was to as-
sess the factor structure of the MRNI-A-r using
exploratory factor analysis, assess its reliability
and convergent and discriminant validity
among boys and girls, and to examine how
response patterns differ by gender and race/
ethnicity.
We first hypothesized that the five-factor
structure for the MRNI-A-r would be supported,
corresponding to the five subscales of the
MRNI-A-r. We also planned to examine the
internal consistency reliability of the resultant
factors of the MRNI- A-r and of the total scale.
Second, we hypothesized that evidence
would be found for the convergent validity of
 MRNI-A-R
the MRNI-A-r by the instrument showing a
significant strong correlation with another mea-
sure of traditional masculinity ideology, the Ad-
olescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships
Scale (AMIRS; Chu et al., 2005). Since the
AMIRS is scaled in the same direction of the
MRNI-A-r, and in both cases higher scores in-
dicate greater endorsement of traditional mas-
culinity ideology, we would expect to find a
positive correlation. The rationale for this hy-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
pothesis is that both measures, consistent with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tenets of the Gender Role Strain Paradigm, take
a normative approach to studying gender roles,
and are designed to measure individuals’ atti-
tudes toward and beliefs about these roles.
Third, we hypothesized that evidence would
be found for the discriminant validity of the
MRNI-A by the instrument showing only small
positive correlations with a masculinity mea-
sure that views masculinity from a different
theoretical perspective, one which conceptual-
izes gender as a set of personality traits that are
appropriate for each sex. For this we used the
Masculinity Scale of the Short Form of the
Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ-M;
Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Our rationale for
this hypothesis is that, although both the
PAQ-M and the MRNI-A-r are measures of
masculinity, they approach it from different the-
oretical orientations, and hence would be un-
likely to be highly correlated with each other.
The PAQ-M conceptualizes masculinity as a set
of sex-typed instrumental personality traits,
whereas the MRNI-A-r conceptualizes gender
as a set of culturally defined normative expec-
tations for behavior. Specifically, we hypothe-
sized that evidence for discriminant validity of
the MRNI-A-r will be found by finding only
small-to-moderate positive correlations with the
PAQ-M for both boys and girls.
Fourth, we hypothesized that the response
patterns would differ by gender and race/
ethnicity. Based on prior research on the MRNI
(Levant & Richmond, 2007) and the MRNI-A
(Levant et al., 2008) we hypothesized that boys’
scores would be more traditional than that of
girls, and that African American teens’ scores
would be more traditional than that of European
American teens’ scores. These race/ethnicity
differences are postulated, in the theory of he-
gemonic masculinity (Connell & Messer-
schmidt, 2005), to arise from the marginaliza-
tion of males of color, and their resulting de-
357
fensive adaptation of strongly endorsing the
norms of dominant masculinity, one well-
known example of which is “Cool Pose” (Ma-
jors & Billson, 1992).
Method
Procedures
Permission was sought and granted to collect
data in three school systems from their respec-
tive school administrations. Following approval
by the University of Akron IRB, parental in-
formed consent and child assent were obtained
by research assistants going into the schools and
describing the study and the benefits of trying to
better understand masculinity and gender roles.
Research assistants distributed the question-
naires to those participants whose parents con-
sented and who assented to participate, which
they completed during class time. Anonymity of
results was protected by the separation of in-
formed consent and identifying information
from questionnaire results at the time of collec-
tion, such that no one is able to match personal
data to survey responses.
Participants
A racially diverse sample was sought. Hence,
data were gathered at three middle schools, one
of which was predominantly white (N ⫽ 106),
one of which was mostly white but had a more
mixed racial composition (N ⫽ 143), and one of
which was predominantly Black (N ⫽ 74).
Three hundred twenty-three students partici-
pated: 162 males, 157 females, and four who
did not indicate their gender. The students had a
mean age of 12.8 years (SD ⫽ .92). Two hun-
dred and 15 students (66.5%) listed their race/
ethnicity as white/European American, 61
(18.9%) as Black/African American, 19 (5.9%)
as Bi/Multiracial, and nine (2.8%) or fewer as
either Latino(a)/Hispanic, American Indian,
Asian/Asian American, Pacific Islander/Inuit,
Other, or did not respond to this question.
Measures
Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent-
revised (MRNI-A-r). The MRNI-A-r, a re-
vision of the Male Role Norms Inventory-
Adolescent (MRNI-A; Brown, 2002; Levant et
al., 2008) designed to measure individuals’ be-
 358 LEVANT ET AL.
liefs about appropriate behavior for adolescent
boys. The MRNI-A-r is a 41-item inventory in
which participants indicate the extent of their
agreement or disagreement with statements
concerning beliefs about how boys ought to
behave on a 7-point Likert scale (where 1 ⫽
Strongly Disagree to 7 ⫽ Strongly Agree) in
which higher scores correspond to more tradi-
tional views. The five subscales are: Avoidance
of Femininity (eight items, e.g., “A guy should
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
prefer football to sewing”), Self-Reliance (six
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
items, e.g., “Guys should always be able to
figure out what they should do”), Aggression
(eight items, e.g., “If someone else starts it, a
guy should be allowed to use violence to defend
himself”), Achievement/Status (eight items,
e.g., “Guys should do whatever it takes to be
cool”), and Restrictive Emotionality (11 items,
e.g., “Guys shouldn’t cry, especially in front of
others”).
Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Rela-
tionships Scale (AMIRS; Chu et al., 2005).
The AMIRS is a 12-item inventory that assesses
participants’ attitudes toward appropriate mas-
culine behavior in interpersonal relationships, in
which participants indicate the extent of their
agreement or disagreement on a 4-point Likert
Scale (where 1 ⫽ disagree a lot to 4 ⫽ agree a
lot), with statements concerning these attitudes.
After recoding three reverse-scaled items,
higher scores correspond to more traditional
views. A sample item is “It’s important for a
guy to act like nothing is wrong, even when
something is bothering him.” The scale devel-
opers reported a coefficient alpha for the scale
averaged over several samples ⫽ .70, evidence
for convergent and concurrent validity though
correlations of the AMIRS with measures of
normative masculinity, attitudes toward
women, and self-esteem, and evidence for dis-
criminant validity through a comparison of the
patterns of correlations of the AMIRS and a
measure of masculine personality traits with
measures of normative masculinity, attitudes to-
ward women, and self-esteem (Chu et al.,
2005). We modified the AMIRS in two ways.
First, we removed two items related to sex and
one item related to homosexuality because these
topics are sufficiently controversial that it
would be unlikely to gain approval for distribu-
tion in a middle school. Second we changed the
scaling from a 4-point scale to a 7-point scale
(1 ⫽ Disagree a lot to 7 ⫽ Agree a lot) to
increase the sensitivity of the scale. As such, our
9-item version resulted in a coefficient alpha of
.72 for boys and .62 for girls.
Masculinity Scale of the Short Form of
The Personal Attributes Questionnaire
(PAQ-M; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Dis-
criminant validity was assessed using the
PAQ-M. The PAQ-M is an 8-item scale which
is theoretically consistent with Gender Role
Identity Paradigm (Pleck, 1981, 1995), and as-
sesses how strongly individuals rate themselves
as having stereotypical masculine (instrumen-
tality/agency) personality traits. Participants
rate themselves on a 5-point scale which is
anchored by two dichotomous personality attri-
butes (e.g., “Not at all competitive/Very com-
petitive”). Items are scored so that higher scores
indicate higher stereotypical masculine (instru-
mentality/agency) personality traits. Cronbach
coefficient alpha of .65 for PAQ-M has been
shown in a prior study (Robitschek, 2003). For
this study, the PAQ-M coefficient alpha was .70
for boys and .62 for girls.
Demographic information sheet. On a
demographic information sheet developed for
this study, participants were asked to report
their sex/gender, age, and race/ethnicity.
Results
Data Cleaning and Missing Values
Before conducting statistical analyses the
data were thoroughly screened to ensure the
accuracy of the data file. There were missing
data as some participants did not respond to
every item. The data set consisted of 58 items
(41 for the MRNI-A-r, eight for the PAQ-M,
and nine for the AMIRS) which had been re-
sponded to by 323 participants, for a total
of 18,734 data points, of which 147 were miss-
ing (0.8%), with the number of missing re-
sponses per item ranging from 0 to 27. No
discernable patterns were found by visually in-
specting the missing data, which suggested that
they were missing at random. With a small
percentage of data points missing in a random
pattern from a large data set, the problem is less
serious, according to Tabachnick and Fidell
(2007). Nonetheless, we took a conservative
approach, and replaced missing values using
SPSS-17’s Linear Trend at Point method. This
is a regression-based imputation method, in
 MRNI-A-R
which other variables are used as IV’s to write
regression equations for the variable with miss-
ing data serving as DV. Cases with complete
data generate the regression equation. The equa-
tion is then used to predict the missing values
for the incomplete cases.
Test of Hypothesis 1
We hypothesized that exploratory factor
analysis of the MRNI-A-r would support the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
five subscale structure as represented by the five
subscales. Prior to the analysis, the suitability of
data for factor analysis was assessed. The sam-
ple size of 323 allows for 7.9 participants per
item. Costello and Osborne (2005) found
that 62.3% of the factor analyses they surveyed
had a participants per item ratio in the range
of ⱖ 5:1 and ⱕ 10:1. Tabachnik and Fidell
(2007, p. 613) note that “As a general rule of
thumb, it is comforting to have at least 300
cases for factor analysis.” The Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin value was .89, which exceeds the sug-
gested value of .6 (Kaiser, 1974). Bartlett’s Test
of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) was statistically
significant, again further supporting the fac-
torability of the correlation matrix.
To determine the number of factors to ex-
tract, we noted Kahn’s (2006) critique of such
commonly used methods as Kaiser’s criterion
(eigenvalues greater than 1) and Catell’s scree
test, and followed his recommendation to use
parallel analysis, which was performed using
O’Connor’s (2000) SPSS computer program.
One thousand randomized permutations of the
MRNI-A-r data were generated. Table 1 shows
the mean and 95th percentile eigenvalues de-
rived from these extensive repetitions, as well
as the actual eigenvalues computed from the
original raw data, all three of which were com-
Table 1
Parallel Analysis of the MRNI-A-R Scores
Using 1,000 Random Permutations of the
Raw Data
Mean random 95th percentile Raw data
Factor eigenvalues eigenvalues eigenvalues
1 1.78 1.93 10.12
2 1.69 1.66 2.95
3 1.62 1.61 1.90
4 1.56 1.57 1.47
5 1.51 1.50 1.32
359
puted for factors ranging from one to five. The
test involves determining the point at which the
actual raw data eigenvalue is lower than either
the mean or the 95th percentile eigenvalue.
There is some debate as to whether comparisons
should be made to the mean or the 95th percen-
tile eigenvalue (Glorfeld, 1995). Some recom-
mend the latter, on the grounds that observed
eigenvalues greater than the 95th percentile are,
in effect, significant at the 5% level (Hayton,
Allen, & Scarpello, 2004). An inspection of
Table 1 indicates that when the number of fac-
tors moves from 3 to 4, the raw data eigenvalue
changes from being larger than both the average
and 95th percentile eigenvalue at 3 factors, to
being smaller than both the average and 95th
percentile eigenvalue at 4 factors, thus indicat-
ing that a four factor structure best represents
the dimensionality of the data.
An exploratory factor analysis of the 41 MRNI-
A-r items was carried out using Principal Axis
Factoring (PAF). We selected Principal Axis Fac-
toring (PAF) rather than Principal Components
Analysis (PCA) because PAF analyzes only com-
mon variance in its search for underlying latent
structure; in contrast, PCA analyzes common,
unique, and error variance and is thus better
characterized as a data reduction technique than
a factor analytic one (Kahn, 2006). Given our
goal of understanding the latent structure of the
items and subscales comprising the MRNI-A-r,
PAF seemed the more appropriate technique.
Finally, we chose PAF rather than Maximum
Likelihood because PAF does not assume mul-
tivariate normality (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCa-
llum, & Strahan, 1999), which was important
given that some MRNI-A-r items evoke re-
sponses consistent with highly traditional mas-
culinity ideology, thus producing item skew
which would violate the assumption of multi-
variate normality. We fixed the number of fac-
tors to extract at four, and using Promax rota-
tion with Kaiser Normalization. This oblique
rotation criterion was chosen following
Preacher and MacCallum (2003), who empha-
sized that orthogonal criteria “are rarely defen-
sible because factors are rarely if ever uncorre-
lated in empirical studies” (p. 40).
The four factors accounted for 40.11% of the
variance. We set the minimum loading allow-
able to .35, which resulted in the removal of
eight items. In addition, four items were re-
moved because of cross-loading problems, fol-
 360 LEVANT ET AL.

lowing Tabachnick’s and Fidell’s (2007) sug-
gestion that items that load .32 or greater on a
second factor should be removed. The fourth
factor was not viable, as it had only three items,
one of which was eliminated because the load-
ing was less than .35, and two of which were
eliminated because of cross-loading problems.
The resulting 29-item 3-factor scale with factor
loadings, which accounts for 36.51% of the
variance, is displayed in Table 2.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
drawn from the original Restrictive Emotional-
ity subscale, six from the Achievement/Status
subscale, two from the Self-Reliance subscale,
and one from the Avoidance of Femininity sub-
scale. Based on the content of the items we
named this factor “Emotionally Detached Dom-
inance.” This reflects the fact that the prepon-
derance (81%) of the items came from two
subscales, Restrictive Emotionality (reflecting
emotional detachment) and Achievement/Status

Factor 1, accounting for 24.68% of the vari- (reflecting dominance). These two themes are
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ance, included 16 items, of which seven were also closely related, in that being emotionally

Table 2
MRNI-A-R Factors and Loadings From Principal Axis Factoring (Pattern Matrix)
Factor (Percent Variance Accounted for; Alpha)
Item Loading
Factor 1: Emotionally Detached Dominance (24.68%; ␣ ⫽ .89)
12. Guys should never tell others if they’re worried or afraid. (RE) .86
16. Guys shouldn’t ever show their feelings. (RE) .78
10. When in a group of guys and girls, guys should always make the final decision. (AS) .71
8. Guys shouldn’t cry, especially in front of others. (RE) .66
36. If a guy is in pain, it’s better for him to keep it to himself rather than to let people know. (RE) .64
26. Chores like doing the laundry or cooking aren’t for guys. (AF) .58
2. Guys should do whatever it takes to be cool. (AS) .52
33. Guys shouldn’t show fear. (RE) .51
28. Guys should not tell their friends they care about them. (RE) .49
14. A guy should win at any game he plays. (AS) .49
1. If needed, a guy should stop being friends with someone to be more popular. (AS) .45
5. A guy should never depend on someone else to help him. (SR) .44
11. It is not ok for a guy to ask for help fixing a flat tire on his bike. (SR) .44
30. It’s important to have the newest video game system. (AS) .43
34. When they’re sad or upset, guys should just “suck it up” and get over it. (RE) .41
20. In a group of guys and girls, it is up to the guys to get things organized and moving ahead. (AS) .37
Factor 2: Toughness (7.20%; ␣ ⫽ .71)
27. It’s important for a guy to be able to play it cool. (RE) .62
25. When the going gets tough, guys get tough. (A) .56
23. If someone else starts it, a guy should be allowed to use violence to defend himself. (A) .54
40. It’s important for guys to try hard to be the best. (AS) .50
17. A guy who can’t make up his mind will not be respected. (SR) .46
35. Boys should not throw baseballs “like a girl.” (AF) .39
39. A guy with no interest in adventure is not very cool. (A) .39
Factor 3: Avoidance of Femininity (4.63%; ␣ ⫽ .75)
32. Guys shouldn’t carry purses. (AF) .76
21. It is too girlish for a guy to wear make-up. (AF) .76
29. Guys should play with trucks rather than dolls. (AF) .64
18. Guys should not be allowed to wear skirts. (AF) .62
22. Sports like hockey and wrestling should be only played by boys. (AF) .40
4. A boy should prefer football to sewing. (AF) .40
Note. N ⫽ 162 males, 157 females, and four who did not indicate their gender. Capital letters in parentheses following
each item refer to the original subscales from which the item was drawn: AF ⫽ Avoidance of Femininity; SR ⫽
Self-Reliance; A ⫽ Aggression; AS ⫽ Achievement/Status; and RE ⫽ Restrictive Emotionality. We used the same numbers
for the items in the MRNI-A-r that we did for the corresponding items in MRNI-A (Levant et al., 2008), even though the
MRNI-A-r does not include items 38 and 42 from the MRNI-A.
 MRNI-A-R 361

detached serves the purpose of being domi-
nant—that is, it is hard to dominate someone if
you are emotionally vulnerable to them. The
two items from the Self-Reliance subscale are
related to the emotionally detached theme in
that they reflect a denial of neediness. The one
item from the Avoidance of Femininity sub-
scale related to the dominance theme in that it
reflects an unwillingness to do women’s work
which was beneath them.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
“It’s important for guys to try hard to be the
best.”
Factor 3, accounting for 4.63% of the vari-
ance, included six items, all of which were
drawn from the original Avoidance of Feminin-
ity subscale. Based on the content of the items
we named this factor “Avoidance of Feminin-
ity.”
Internal Consistency Reliability

Factor 2, accounting for 7.20% of the vari-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ance, included seven items, of which three were
drawn from the original Aggression subscale,
and one each from the Restrictive Emotionality,
Achievement/Status, Self- Reliance, and Avoid-
ance of Femininity subscales. Based on the con-
tent of the items we named this factor “Tough-
ness,” which reflects the fact that almost half
(43%) of the items came from the Aggression
subscale, and the other four items (originating
in various subscales) reflect aspects of tough-
ness. Three items reflect an “absence of softness
or sentimentality,” which is part of the defini-
tion of toughness according to the Free Mer-
riam-Webster Dictionary (Tough, 2010): “It’s
important for a guy to be able to play it cool”;
“A guy who can’t make up his mind will not be
respected;” and “Boys should not throw base-
balls ‘like a girl.’” One item reflects “uncom-
promising determination,” which is also part of
the definition of toughness according to the Free
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Tough, 2010):
We assessed the internal consistency reliabil-
ity of the factors of the MRNI- A-r and the total
scale. Over the entire sample the alpha for the
total 29-item scale was .89, the alpha for fac-
tor 1, Emotionally Detached Dominance, was
.89, the alpha for factor 2, Toughness, was .71,
and the alpha for factor 3, Avoidance of Femi-
ninity, was .75. Alphas for boys and girls on the
total scale and its factors, which range from .68
to .88, are shown in Table 3.
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics of study variables, in-
cluding the three factors of the MRNI-A-r, are
presented in Table 3.
Test of Hypothesis 2
We hypothesized that evidence would be
found for the convergent validity of the MRNI-
A-r by the instrument showing significant and

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach Alphas, and F, p, and Eta2 Values of Boys and Girls Scores on
Study Variables
Boys Girls
Scale M SD ␣ M SD ␣ F p Eta2
MRNI-A-r 3.99 .91 .88 3.30 .80 .87 51.27 ⬍.001 .14
Factor 1 3.36 1.07 .87 2.44 .87 .86 69.35 ⬍.001 .18
Factor 2 4.56 1.07 .71 4.02 1.04 .68 21.58 ⬍.001 .06
Factor 3 5.00 1.39 .74 4.75 1.36 .75 2.62 n.s. .01
AMIRS 3.53 1.03 .72 3.04 .89 .64 20.43 ⬍.001 .06
PAQ-M 3.76 .64 .70 3.68 .57 .62 1.48 n.s. .01
Note. N ⫽ 162 males, 157 females, and four who did not indicate their gender. MRNI-A-r ⫽ Male Role Norms
Inventory—Adolescent-revised total factored 29-item scale. Scores for the MRNI-A-r and its factors ranged from 1–7, with
higher scores indicating greater endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology. Factor 1 ⫽ Factor 1 of the MRNI-A-r,
Emotionally Detached Dominance; Factor 2 ⫽ Factor 2 of the MRNI-A-r, Toughness l; Factor 3 ⫽ Factor 3 of the
MRNI-A-r, Avoidance of Femininity; AMIRS ⫽ the Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale. Scores for
the AMIRS ranged from 1–7, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology.
PAQ-M ⫽ Personal Attributes Questionnaire⫺Male. Scores for the PAQ-M ranged from 1–5, with higher scores indicating
greater self-reported masculine-valued or instrumental personality traits.
 362 LEVANT ET AL.

Table 4 Femininity) did not show significant correla-

Bivariate Correlation Coefficients of Boys’ and tions with the AMIRS for either boys or girls.
Girls’ Scores on Study Variables
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 Test of Hypothesis 3
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱ
1. MRNI-A-r — .92 .77 .59 .62 .20
We hypothesized that evidence would be
2. Factor 1 .88ⴱⴱ — .61ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ .69ⴱⴱ .16ⴱ
3. Factor 2 .78ⴱⴱ .58ⴱⴱ — .28ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ found for the discriminant validity of the
4. Factor 3 .63ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ — .15 .10 MRNI-A by finding small positive correlations
5. AMIRS .42ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .15 — .05 with the PAQ-M for both boys and girls. Bi-
6. PAQ-M .28ⴱⴱ .19ⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .16ⴱ .11 — variate correlation coefficients of boys’ and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. N ⫽ 162 boys, 157 girls, and four who did not girls’ scores on study variables are displayed in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

indicate their gender. Correlations for boys are above the
diagonal; correlations for girls are below the diagonal;
MRNI-A-r ⫽ Male Role Norms Inventory—Adolescent-
revised. Factor 1 ⫽ Factor 1 of the MRNI-A-r, Emotionally
Detached Dominance; Factor 2 ⫽ Factor 2 of the MRNI-
A-r, Toughness; Factor 3 ⫽ Factor 3 of the MRNI-A-r,
Avoidance of Femininity; AMIRS ⫽ the Adolescent Mas-
culinity Ideology in Relationships Scale; PAQ-M ⫽ Per-
sonal Attributes Questionnaire⫺Male.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01, two-tailed.
strong positive correlations with the AMIRS.
Bivariate correlation coefficients of boys’ and
girls’ scores on study variables are displayed in
Table 4. For both boys and girls, the MRNI-A-r
total scale and factors 1 and 2 (Emotionally
Detached Dominance and Toughness, respec-
tively) showed significant and strong positive
correlations with the AMIRS, although the cor-
relations were larger for boys (.44 to .69) than
for girls (.27 to .46). Factor 3 (Avoidance of
Table 4. For boys, the MRNI-A-r total scale and
factors 1 and 3 (Emotionally Detached Domi-
nance and Avoidance of Femininity, respec-
tively) showed small positive correlations with
the PAQ-M (.10 to .20), whereas factor 2
(Toughness) showed a moderate positive corre-
lation with the PAQ-M (.33). For girls, only
factors 1 and 3 (Emotionally Detached Domi-
nance and Avoidance of Femininity, respec-
tively), showed small positive correlations (.16
to .19) with the PAQ-M, whereas the MRNI-A-r
total scale and factor 2 (Toughness) showed
moderate positive correlations with the PAQ-M
(.28 to .34).
Test of Hypothesis 4
As shown in Table 3, significant differences
emerged between the boys and girls on the
MRNI-A-r total scale and the first two factors
(Emotionally Detached Dominance and Tough-

Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and F, p, and Eta2 Values of African American and European American
Adolescents Scores on Study Variables
European
African Americans Americans
Scale M SD M SD F p Eta2
MRNI-A-r 3.94 .91 3.56 .85 9.27 .003 .03
Factor 1 3.31 1.15 2.77 .99 12.98 ⬍.001 .04
Factor 2 4.24 1.01 4.26 1.01 .01 n.s. .00
Factor 3 5.27 1.16 4.84 1.34 5.13 .024 .02
AMIRS 3.21 1.13 3.32 .91 .64 n.s. .00
PAQ-M 3.57 .71 3.74 .56 3.72 n.s. .01
Note. N ⫽ 61 African Americans and 215 European Americans. MRNI-A-r ⫽ Male Role Norms Inventory—Adolescent-
revised total factored 29-item scale. Scores for the MRNI-A-r and its factors ranged from 1–7, with higher scores indicating
greater endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology. Factor 1 ⫽ Factor 1 of the MRNI-A-r, Emotionally Detached
Dominance; Factor 2 ⫽ Factor 2 of the MRNI-A-r, Toughness; Factor 3 ⫽ Factor 3 of the MRNI-A-r, Avoidance of
Femininity; AMIRS ⫽ the Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale. Scores for the AMIRS ranged from
1–7, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology. PAQ-M ⫽ Personal Attributes
Questionnaire⫺Male. Scores for the PAQ-M ranged from 1–5, with higher scores indicating greater self-reported mascu-
line-valued or instrumental personality traits.
 MRNI-A-R
ness, respectively), with boys endorsing tradi-
tional masculinity ideology to a greater extent
than did girls (effect sizes ranged from .06 to
.18). No differences emerged between the boys
and girls on the third factor (Avoidance of Fem-
ininity), which both scored in a traditional di-
rection, suggesting that both boys and girls be-
lieve to an equal extent that boys should avoid
femininity.
Although this was not part of Hypothesis 4, it
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
is nonetheless of interest to observe that signif-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
icant differences also emerged between the boys
and girls on the AMIRS, with boys endorsing
traditional attitudes toward appropriate mascu-
line behavior in interpersonal relationships to a
greater extent than did girls (effect size ⫽ .06).
No differences emerged between the boys and
girls on the PAQ-M, suggesting that boys and
girls self-report stereotypical masculine (instru-
mentality/agency) personality traits about
equally.
A comparison between African American
and European American teens’ scores on the
study variables is displayed in Table 5. Signif-
icant differences emerged between African
American and European American teens’ scores
on the MRNI-A-r total scale and the first and
third factors (Emotionally Detached Dominance
and Avoidance of Femininity, respectively),
with African American teens endorsing tradi-
tional masculinity ideology to a greater extent
than did European American teens (effect sizes
ranged from .02 to .04). No differences emerged
on the second factor (Toughness), which both
groups scored in a traditional direction, suggest-
ing that African American and European Amer-
ican teens believe to an equal extent that boys
should be tough. No significant differences
emerged on the AMIRS, suggesting that Afri-
can American and European American teens
share similar attitudes toward appropriate mas-
culine behavior in interpersonal relationships,
nor on the PAQ-M, suggesting that African
American and European American teens self-
report stereotypical masculine (instrumentality/
agency) personality traits about equally.
Discussion
We set out to assess the factor structure of the
MRNI-A-r, its reliability and convergent and
discriminant validity, and variations in response
patterns by gender and race/ethnicity, with a
363
racially diverse sample of middle school boys
and girls. The hypothesized five-factor structure
for the MRNI-A-r was not supported, but in-
stead our data supported a three-factor structure.
The factors were Emotionally Detached Domi-
nance, Toughness, and Avoidance of Feminin-
ity. Whereas the third factor drew exclusively
from one subscale, the first two factors drew
mainly from 2 or 1 subscales, respectively, but
also included items from other subscales. The
fact that factors included items from several
subscales is not surprising, in that five subscales
resulted in three factors, and therefore items
from the larger number of subscales were com-
bined into the smaller number of factors. In
addition, the factor structure of the MRNI-A-r
resembles that of the MRNS: Emotionally De-
tached Dominance resembles the MRNS Status
factor, Toughness is the same as the MRNS
Toughness factor, and Avoidance of Femininity
is quite similar to the MRNS Anti-Femininity
factor. Although the MRNS was developed for
adults, the similarity in the two scales’ factor
structures adds some confidence to the present
results. Finally, the finding of only three factors
compared to the expected five suggests that
teens may conceptualize gender norms in a less
differentiated way than do adults, resulting in
fewer distinctions and thus, fewer factors.
The three factors of the MRNI-A-r and the
total scale showed adequate reliability for the
most part in this sample, (␣’s ranged from .68 –
.89). The marginal alpha of .68, for girls scores
on factor 2, is of concern. However these results
are an improvement over the original MRNI-A,
where the subscale alphas by gender ranged
from .36 to .76, and five of 10 were under .70.
We found some evidence for the convergent
validity of the MRNI-A-r total scale and fac-
tors 1 and 2 (Emotionally Detached Dominance
and Toughness, respectively) by their showing
significant strong positive correlations with the
AMIRS, with the evidence being stronger for
boys than for girls. An inspection of the items of
the AMIRS shows that none tap the content of
avoidance of femininity, perhaps explaining
why factor 3 (Avoidance of Femininity) did not
show significant correlations with the AMIRS
for either boys or girls. Further, although admit-
tedly post hoc, the lack of correlation of factor 3
(Avoidance of Femininity) with the AMIRS
could be viewed as evidence of its discriminant
validity. These results must be tempered by the
 364 LEVANT ET AL.
marginal reliability for girls on the AMIRS in
this study (.64), which may have resulted from
the removal of three items related to sex and
homosexuality, changing the scaling of the
measure, and the fact that we administered the
AMIRS to both boys and girls, even though it
was envisioned for use with boys only by the
scale developers.
We found some evidence for the discriminant
validity of the MRNI-A-r. For boys, the MRNI-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
A-r total scale and factors 1 and 3 showed small
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
positive correlations with the PAQ-M, whereas
factor 2 showed a moderate positive correlation.
For girls, only factors 1 and 3 showed small
positive correlations with the PAQ-M, whereas
the MRNI-A-r total scale and factor 2 showed
moderate positive correlations. Hence this hy-
pothesis received mixed support. Further, these
results must be tempered by the marginal reli-
ability for girls (.62) on the PAQ-M in this
study. This improves on the original MRNI-A,
which did not find any evidence for the discrim-
inant validity for boys.
We think that the evidence presented in this
study, which must still be regarded as prelimi-
nary, justifies the initial use of MRNI-A-r in
future studies. Investigators may choose to use
the three factors or the total score, as best fits
the research questions they are investigating.
Some limitations of this study stem from the
self-report nature of the measures, which intro-
duces the possibility of socially desirable re-
sponding and does not allow a multimethod
evaluation of the data (e.g., including interview-
ing), which is important in assessing construct
validity. In addition, the exploratory factor anal-
ysis was not conducted separately for boys and
girls because there was not a large enough sam-
ple size to do so. Future research might under-
take a measurement invariance analysis, to de-
termine whether the factor structures are the
same for both genders. In addition, future re-
search might undertake a confirmatory factor
analysis.
Future research on the discriminant validity
of the MRNI-A-r might adopt the strategy used
by Chu et al. (2005), by comparing the pattern
of correlations of the MRNI-A-r and the
PAQ-M with a range of other instruments. Fu-
ture research on the MRNI-A-r might also as-
sess the convergent and discriminant validity of
the three factors, and examine how MRNI-A-r
total and factor scores correlate with various
psychological and social indicators, such as
self-esteem, school performance, family rela-
tionships, and the like. In the long run, longitu-
dinal comparisons of individuals’ scores on the
adolescent and adult versions of the scale might
prove to be fruitful.
Although participants in the present study
were racially diverse, future research might ex-
amine additional populations to gather more
evidence about the measure’s psychometric
properties with other racial, ethnic-cultural, and
SES groups, and also with various phases of
adolescence.
Finally, the Gender Role Strain posits that
socialization processes begin at a young age and
impact the development of gender roles and
gender-typed behaviors for children and adoles-
cents that continue into adulthood (Levant,
2001). Having an additional measure of tradi-
tional masculinity ideology with good psycho-
metric properties for early adolescents may help
us to understand in greater depth how these
socialization processes work at a time when
gender concerns intensify.
References
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying
factors for various chi square approximations.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16, 296 –
298.
Brannon, R., & Juni, S. (1984). A scale for measuring
attitudes about masculinity. Psychological Docu-
ments, 14. (University Microfilms No. 2612).
Brown, J. (2002). Statistical analysis of a measure of
adolescent gender ideology, the Male Role Norms
Inventory-Adolescent: A pilot study. Unpublished
doctoral directed study, Nova Southeastern Uni-
versity, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Chu, J. Y., Porche, M. V., & Tolman, D. L. (2005).
The Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relation-
ships Scale: Development and validation of a new
measure for boys. Men and Masculinities, 8, 93–
115. doi:10.1177/1097184X03257453
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005).
Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept.
Gender & Society, 19, 829 – 859. doi:10.1177/
0891243205278639
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices
in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommenda-
tions for getting the most from your analysis. Prac-
tical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10. Re-
trieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v⫽
10&n⫽7
 MRNI-A-R
DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2006). Further inves-
tigating method effects associated with negatively
worded items on self–report surveys. Structural
Equation Modeling, 13, 440 – 464. doi:10.1207/
s15328007sem1303_6
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C.,
& Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological re-
search. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. doi:
10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Peterson, A. C.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex role atti-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tudes in early adolescence: Exploring gender in-
tensification. Child Development, 61, 1905–1914.
doi:10.2307/1130846
Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s
parallel analysis methodology for selecting the
correct number of factors to retain. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 55, 377–393.
doi:10.1177/0013164495055003002
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004).
Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor
analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 7, 191–205. doi:
10.1177/1094428104263675
Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling
psychology research, training, and practice: Prin-
ciples, advances, and applications. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 684 –718. doi:10.1177/
0011000006286347
Kaiser, H. H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity.
Psychometrica, 39, 31–36. doi:10.1007/
BF02291575
Levant, R. F. (1996a). The new psychology of men.
Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 27, 259 –265. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.27.3
.259
Levant, R. F. (1996b). The crisis of connection be-
tween men and women. Journal of Men’s Stud-
ies, 5, 1–12.
Levant, R. F. (1997). The masculinity crisis. Journal
of Men’s Studies, 5, 221–231.
Levant, R. F. (2001). Desperately seeking language:
Understanding, assessing and treating normative
male alexithymia. In G. R. Brooks and G. Good
(Eds), The new handbook of counseling and psy-
chotherapy for men (Vol. 1, pp. 424 – 443). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levant, R. F., Graef, S. T., Smalley, K. B., Williams,
C., & McMillan, N. (2008). The evaluation of the
Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent (MRNI-
A). Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, 2, 46 –
59. doi:10.3149/thy.0201.46
Levant, R. F., Hirsch, L., Celentano, E., Cozza, T.,
Hill, S., MacEachern, M., . . . Schnedeker, J.
(1992). The male role: An investigation of con-
temporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Coun-
seling, 14, 325–337.
365
Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2007). A review of
research on masculinity ideologies using the Male
Role Norms Inventory. Journal of Men’s Stud-
ies, 15, 130 –146. doi:10.3149/jms.1502.130
Majors, R., & Billson, J. M. (1992). Cool pose: The
dilemmas of Black manhood in America. New
York, NY: Lexington Books.
Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and
the problem of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for
determining the number of components using par-
allel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32,
396 – 402. doi:10.3758/BF03200807
Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm:
An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.),
A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993a).
Masculinity ideology and its correlates. In S. Os-
kamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in
contemporary society (pp. 85–110). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993b).
Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adolescent
males’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of So-
cial Issues, 49, 11–29. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1993.tb01166.x
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994a).
Attitudes toward male roles: A discriminant valid-
ity analysis. Sex Roles, 30, 481–501. doi:10.1007/
BF01420798
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994b).
Problem behaviors and masculinity ideology in
adolescent males. In R. D. Ketterlinus & M. E.
Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent problem behaviors: Is-
sues and research (pp. 165–186). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pollack, W. S. (1998). Real boys. New York, NY:
Random House.
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repair-
ing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine.
Understanding Statistics, 2, 13– 43. doi:10.1207/
S15328031US0201_02
Robitschek, C. (2003). Validity of Personal Growth
Initiative Scale scores with a Mexican American
college student population. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 50, 496 –502. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.50.4.496
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculine
instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their
relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147–163. doi:
10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00951.x
 366 LEVANT ET AL.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using
multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pear-
son Education.
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of
male norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–
543. doi:10.1177/000276486029005003
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1995). Masculinity
ideology: A review of research instrumentation on
men and masculinities. In R. F. Levant & W. S.
Pollack (Eds.), A new masculinity of men (pp.
129 –163). New York, NY: Basic Books.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Thompson, E. H., Pleck, J. H., & Ferrera, D. (1992).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Men and masculinities: Scales for masculinity ide-
ology and other masculinity-related constructs. Sex
Roles, 27, 573– 608. doi:10.1007/BF02651094
Tough. (2010). In Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Retrieved from http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/tough
Whorley, M., & Addis, M. E. (2006). Ten years of
research on the psychology of men and masculin-
ity in the United States: Methodological trends and
critique. Sex Roles, 55, 649 – 658. doi:10.1007/
s11199-006-9120-1
Received March 30, 2010
Revision received January 30, 2012
Accepted April 23, 2012 䡲