See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232460212

An Abbreviated Tool for Assessing

Conformity to Masculine Norms:
Psychometric Properties of the
Conformity to Mascu....

Article in Psychology of Men & Masculinity · October 2011

DOI: 10.1037/a0021904

CITATIONS READS

28 1,083

2 authors, including:

Mike C. Parent
University of Texas at Austin
39 PUBLICATIONS 584 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mike C. Parent on 23 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 12, No. 4, 339 –353 1524-9220/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021904

An Abbreviated Tool for Assessing Conformity to Masculine Norms:

Psychometric Properties of the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory-46
Mike C. Parent and Bonnie Moradi
University of Florida

The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory – 46 (Parent & Moradi, 2009) is a

useful tool with which to assess masculine gender role conformity. The CMNI-46
retained and built on the psychometric strengths of the original CMNI (Mahalik et al.,
2003) while offering greater efficiency at approximately half of the length of the
original measure. The present study offers additional examination of the reliability,
validity, and factor structure of the CMNI-46 with a sample of 255 college men. In this
sample, confirmatory factor analysis results suggested acceptable fit of the posited
factor structure. Evidence of reliability was garnered with Cronbach’s alphas in the
good to excellent range across subscales. Correlations with convergent and discrimi-
nant validity indicators were supportive of the validity of subscale scores in this sample,
but suggested some caution in interpreting scores on the Playboy subscale. Overall, the
findings offered psychometric support for use of the CMNI-46 in research and practice
pertaining to men and masculinity.

Keywords: conformity to masculine norms, masculinity, measurement, gender roles,

gender norms

Masculinity-related constructs are associated
with important aspects of psychological func-
tioning for men. For example, men’s adherence
to masculine norms and the strain associated
with such norms have been linked with intrap-
ersonal, interpersonal, attitudinal, and health
correlates including depression, anxiety, low
self-esteem, fear of intimacy, relationship dis-
satisfaction, negative attitudes toward help-
seeking, negative attitudes and hostility toward
women, rape myth acceptance, homophobia, re-
luctance to practice safer sex, substance abuse,
and poor dietary practices (for reviews see Le-
vant & Richmond, 2007, and O’Neil, 2008).
Therefore, assessing conformity to masculine
norms is important in psychological research
and practice that aims to understand men’s
health and interpersonal functioning and to ad-
This article was published Online First March 14, 2011.
Mike C. Parent, Department of Psychology, University of
Florida; Bonnie Moradi, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Mike C. Parent, Department of Psychology,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail:
michael.parent@ufl.edu
339
dress the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and soci-
etal implications of masculine norms for men
and women.
Psychological understanding of masculinity
has evolved from a view of the construct as a
personality trait (i.e., instrumentality) that was
the opposing or parallel dimension to femininity
(i.e., expressiveness), to a focus on the stress
and conflict associated with masculine gender
norms, and most recently, to level of adherence
to a multidimensional set of socially and per-
sonally constructed norms (for review see
Smiler, 2004). These conceptual developments
have been accompanied by parallel advance-
ments in operationalizing instrumentality (e.g.,
Bem Sex Role Inventory, Bem, 1974; Personal
Attributes Questionnaire, Spence & Helmreich,
1978), masculine gender role stress and conflict
(e.g., Gender Role Conflict Scale, O’Neil et al.,
1986; Male Gender Role Stress Scale, Eisler &
Skidmore, 1987), and conformity to masculine
norms (e.g., Male Role Norms Inventory
[MRNI], Levant et al., 1992; Brannon Mascu-
linity Scale [BMS], Brannon & Juni, 1984). The
distinctiveness of the constructs assessed by
these classes of measures is sometimes blurred
when hypotheses about level of adherence to
340 PARENT AND MORADI
masculine norms are tested using measures of
instrumentality or masculine stress and conflict
as proxies for conformity to masculine norms
(e.g., Smiler, 2004). To improve construct clar-
ity in research and practice pertaining to men
and masculinity, psychometrically sound and
practically useful measures of conformity to
masculine norms are needed (Smiler, 2004).
One such promising measure is the Conformity
to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI, Mahalik
et al., 2003), which was recently revised and
abbreviated to improve its psychometric prop-
erties and practical utility (CMNI-46; Parent &
Moradi, 2009). To advance assessment of men’s
conformity to masculine norms, the present
study offers a psychometric evaluation of the
CMNI-46 that builds on the initially garnered
support for this measure (Parent & Moradi,
2009). Specifically, the present study extends
Parent and Moradi’s (2009) analyses by evalu-
ating structural stability and reliability in a new
sample and by offering the first tests of conver-
gent and discriminant validity for the CMNI-46.
Development and Use of the CMNI
Mahalik et al. (2003) identified three distinc-
tive features of the CMNI relative to other mea-
sures of masculinity-related constructs. First,
the CMNI operationalizes masculinity multidi-
mensionally with subscales that reflect multiple
masculine norms. Second, the CMNI subsumes
the masculine norms assessed in other measures
of conformity to masculine norms (e.g., MRNI)
and assesses additional empirically grounded
norms as well. Finally, the CMNI contrasts with
measures of masculinity-related strain in that it
focuses on personal masculine gender role ad-
herence rather than stress or conflict associated
with such adherence (Mahalik et al., 2003). This
last distinction facilitates use of the CMNI in
studies of the potential maladaptive as well as
neutral or adaptive correlates of conformity to
masculine norms.
Research using the CMNI across samples of
men (e.g., college students, Australian men, Ke-
nyan men, gay men, men recruited from men’s
interests listserves, men who have been treated
for prostate cancer) has linked conformity to
masculine norm dimensions with health risk
behaviors such as unhealthy eating, unsafe sex,
smoking, alcohol use, drug use, and missing
medical appointments (Brown & Bond, 2008;
Burns & Mahalik, 2008; Hamilton & Mahalik,
2009; Liu & Iwamoto, 2007; Mahalik, Burns, &
Syzdek, 2007; Mahalik, Lagan, & Morrison,
2006; Mahalik, Walker, & Levi-Minzi, 2007).
CMNI scores also have been linked with inter-
personal and intrapersonal problems such as
higher levels of irritability, propensity for vio-
lence, dissatisfaction with intimate relation-
ships, unwillingness to seek psychological help,
distress related to perceiving oneself as not
muscular or toned enough, “old-fashioned” and
“modern” sexism, and use of alcohol to cope
with depression, as well as to lower levels of
perceived social support, self-acceptance, par-
enting self-efficacy, and satisfaction with life
(Burn & Ward, 2005; Cohn & Zeichner, 2006;
Good et al., 2006; Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005;
Mahalik et al., 2006; Rochlen, McKelley,
Suizzo, & Scaringi, 2008; Smiler, 2006).
In addition to such maladaptive correlates, neu-
tral or adaptive correlates of conformity to mas-
culine norms also have been identified using the
CMNI. For instance, in samples of college men,
total CMNI scores were related to greater self-
efficacy for traditionally masculine occupations
and mediated the relationship between Big Five
personality characteristics and vocational prefer-
ences (Bogaert, Fawcett, & Jamieson, 2009;
Tokar, Thompson, Plaufcan, & Williams,
2007). Furthermore, college men’s CMNI
scores were associated positively with self- and
rater-perceptions of the respondent’s attractive-
ness, suggesting that conformity to masculine
norms is associated with men’s self- and other-
perceived attractiveness (Bogaert et al., 2009).
Finally, college men’s CMNI scores were re-
lated positively with using exercise to cope with
depression (Mahalik & Rochlen, 2006).
Available literature also suggests distinctive
relations between CMNI subscales and criterion
variables. For example, Liu and Iwamoto
(2007) reported that Emotional Control was
correlated negatively whereas Winning and
Playboy were correlated positively with alcohol
use and binge drinking in a sample of Asian
American college students. Similarly, Tager
and Good (2005) found that Winning was re-
lated positively whereas Violence was related
negatively to self-acceptance. Such findings un-
derscore the utility of the multidimensional as-
sessment of masculine gender role conformity.
Thus, use of the CMNI is facilitating attention
to potential maladaptive, neutral, and adaptive
 RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46
correlates of conformity to masculine norms in
domains that are important to psychological re-
search and practice pertaining to men and mas-
culinity (e.g., mental health, risk behaviors, vo-
cational interests, interpersonal functioning).
In developing the CMNI, Mahalik et al. (2003)
reasoned that “the expectations of masculinity as
constructed by Caucasian, middle- and upper-
class heterosexuals should affect members of that
group and every other male in U.S. society who is
held up to those standards” (p. 5). Thus, while
there is some cultural variability in construal of
gender norms (e.g., Adler, 1993; Williams & Best,
1990), the CMNI was designed to assess individ-
ual differences and variability in conformity to
dominant U.S. cultural masculinity norms. The
original CMNI assessed conformity to 11 mascu-
line norms (Winning, Emotional Control, Primacy
of Work, Risk-taking, Violence, Heterosexual
Self-presentation,1 Playboy, Self-reliance, Power
over Women, Dominance, and Pursuit of Status).
Mahalik et al. (2003) developed this set of norms
through rational instrument construction methods
(i.e., literature review and focus groups) and psy-
chometric evaluation (i.e., exploratory factor anal-
ysis). Scores on the 11 masculine norms yielded
mostly low to moderate intercorrelations, support-
ing the multidimensionality of the CMNI. Low or
moderate correlations with scores on the Gender
Role Conflict Scale (O’Neil et al., 1986) and Mas-
culine Gender Role Stress Scale (Eisler & Skid-
more, 1987) demonstrated the distinctiveness of
the constructs assessed by CMNI subscales from
conflict and stress associated with masculine
norms. CMNI subscale items also demonstrated
acceptable reliability in Mahalik et al.’s (2003)
sample of mostly White college students.
In contrast to this generally promising psycho-
metric evidence, two of the CMNI subscales—
Dominance and Pursuit of Status—yielded lower
than acceptable reliability coefficients and validi-
ty-inconsistent data across studies. For example,
Dominance and Pursuit of Status scores were not
correlated significantly with social dominance ori-
entation (a convergent validity indicator); Pursuit
of Status scores were generally uncorrelated with
scores on another measure of masculine norms;
and across four age cohorts, Pursuit of Status
did not differentiate between women and men
for any age group (Mahalik et al., 2003; Smiler,
2006). In addition to these reliability and valid-
ity problems with the Dominance and Pursuit of
Status subscales, the length of the CMNI pre-
341
sented a response burden to participants and
short forms of the CMNI that lost the multidi-
mensionality of the measure were emerging in
some studies (Brown & Bond, 2008; Burns &
Mahalik, 2008; Hamilton & Mahalik, 2009;
Mahalik, Burns, et al., 2007; Rochlen et al.,
2008). Specifically, 11- and 22-item versions of
the CMNI were used to compute total scores for
a single construct of masculine norm confor-
mity. However, use of these abbreviated mea-
sures is problematic for two reasons. First, low-
to-moderate CMNI subscale intercorrelations
and the generally low internal consistency co-
efficients of the abbreviated measures suggest
the importance of assessing conformity to mas-
culine norms multidimensionally. Second, as-
sessment of multiple masculine norms was a
defining strength of the CMNI and an underpin-
ning of its construction (Mahalik et al., 2003;
Smiler, 2004); thus, loss of multidimensionality
is problematic from a theoretical standpoint.
Development of the CMNI-46
To address the need for an abbreviated ver-
sion of the CMNI that retained the multidimen-
sionality of the original measure, Parent and
Moradi (2009) developed the CMNI-46. They
conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
to evaluate the intended structure of CMNI data.
This analysis identified some structural validity
problems and informed the abbreviation of the
CMNI. Specifically, to form the CMNI-46,
strong indictors of each masculine norm were
retained while weaker indicators were deleted.
On the basis of item retention criteria and con-
ceptual grounds, Dominance and Pursuit of Sta-
tus, which demonstrated relatively lower reli-
ability and weak validity across studies, were
also eliminated.
The CMNI-46 yielded promising evidence of
reliability and validity in Parent and Moradi’s
(2009) sample of Canadian college men. Cron-
bach’s alpha’s for CMNI-46 subscale items
were in the good or excellent range (.77 to .91;
for criteria see Ponterotto & Ruckdeschel,
2007) and subscale scores had strong positive
1
Heterosexual Self-presentation was originally named
“Disdain for Homosexuals.” Parent and Moradi (2009) rec-
ommended that the subscale name be altered to better rep-
resent its item content. The subscale is referred to as “Het-
erosexual Self-presentation” throughout.
342 PARENT AND MORADI
correlations with scores on the corresponding
CMNI original form subscales. Additionally,
the CMNI-46 demonstrated superior model-
data fit relative to the original CMNI. Aside
from reporting strong correlations between
scores on the CMNI-46 and the original CMNI,
however, Parent and Moradi (2009) did not
evaluate the convergent or discriminant validity
of scores on the CMNI-46. Additional assess-
ment of validity is needed to ensure that the
constructs assessed by the CMNI-46 subscales
reflect the originally intended constructs of the
CMNI. As well, the factor structure of the
CMNI-46 needs to be assessed apart from Par-
ent and Moradi’s (2009) instrument develop-
ment study. A critique of many measures of
gender-related constructs is that they are subject
to little psychometric evaluation beyond the in-
strument development study (Smiler & Epstein,
2010). Indeed, Smiler and Epstein specifically
called for evaluations of factor structure and
construct validity in samples independent of the
instrument development samples.
Thus, the purpose of the present study is to
evaluate the psychometric properties of the
CMNI-46 by examining factor structure, inter-
nal consistency reliability, and convergent and
discriminant validity of data produced by the
measure in a sample independent of the instru-
ment development study. In the present study, it
is expected that the intended nine-factor oblique
solution, accounting for variance due to item
coding (i.e., reverse or not), will provide ade-
quate fit to CMNI-46 data. Additionally, it is
expected that CMNI-46 subscale items will
yield Cronbach’s alphas above .70, indicating
acceptable reliability (P. Kline, 1999; Pon-
terotto & Ruckdeschel, 2007). Finally, it is ex-
pected that CMNI-46 subscale scores will cor-
relate positively with scores on measures of
corresponding constructs and correlate negligi-
bly with impression management.
Method
Participants
Analyses were conducted with data from 255
college men. The following demographic infor-
mation is reported to outline the boundaries for
generalizability of the present findings. Partici-
pants ranged in age from 18 to 29 years
(M ⫽ 19.30, SD ⫽ 1.85, Mdn ⫽ 19.00; 1% did
not report their age). Regarding race/ethnicity,
59% of participants identified as White/
Caucasian, 17% as Hispanic/Latino, 11% as
Asian American/Pacific Islander, 7% as Afri-
can/African American/Black, 4% as Biracial or
Multiracial, 1% as Arabic American/Middle
Eastern, less than 1% as American Indian/
Native American, less than 1% as Indian, and
2% of participants did not report their race/
ethnicity. In terms of sexual orientation, 88% of
participants identified as exclusively heterosex-
ual/straight, 7% as mostly heterosexual/straight,
2% as exclusively gay, 1% as mostly gay, less
than 1% as bisexual, 1% of participants used an
open response option to identify outside of the
available options (e.g., “asexual”), and 1% of
participants did not report their sexual orienta-
tion identity. With regard to socioeconomic sta-
tus, 49% of participants identified as middle
class, 30% as upper-middle class, 15% as work-
ing class, 3% as lower class, 3% as upper class,
and 1% did not report their current social class.
Among the participants, 52% reported being
first year students, 20% second year, 15% third
year, 12% fourth year, 1% graduate or profes-
sional students, and 1% did not report their year
in university.
Instruments
Conformity to Masculine Norms-46
(CMNI-46; Parent & Moradi, 2009). The
CMNI-46 is a 46 item measure that assesses
conformity to nine masculine norms: Winning,
which assesses focus on success and winning in
general (six items; sample item: “In general, I
will do anything to win”); Emotional Control,
which assesses the degree to which respondents
report controlling the expression of their emo-
tions (six items; sample item: “I tend to keep my
feelings to myself”); Primacy of Work, which
assesses endorsement of work as a primary fo-
cus of life (four items, sample item: “My work
is the most important part of my life”); Risk-
taking, which assesses general voluntary expo-
sure to potentially dangerous situations (five
items, sample item: “I frequently put myself in
risky situations”); Violence, which assesses en-
dorsement of violence as an acceptable response
to certain situations (six items; sample item:
“Sometimes violent action is necessary”); Het-
erosexual Self-presentation, which assesses the
importance placed on being perceived by others
 RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46
as heterosexual and not gay (six items, sample
item: “I would be furious if someone thought I
was gay”); Playboy, which assesses endorse-
ment of sexual activity with casual partners
(four items; sample item: If I could, I would
frequently change sexual partners”); Self-
reliance, which assesses reluctance to seek help
and preference to rely on oneself (five items;
sample item: “I hate asking for help”); and
Power over Women, which assesses general
perceived control over women (four items; sam-
ple item: “In general, I control the women in my
life”). Responses are made on a four-point scale
(0 ⫽ Strongly disagree, 3 ⫽ Strongly agree). In
the instrument development study with Cana-
dian college men, CMNI-46 subscales yielded
large positive correlations with their parent
CMNI subscale (r range .89 to .98, Mdn ⫽ .95)
and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were accept-
able: .86 for Emotional Control, .83 for Win-
ning, .84 for Playboy, .86 for Violence, .84 for
Self-reliance, .84 for Risk-taking, .78 for Power
over Women, .77 for Primacy of Work, and .91
for Heterosexual Self-presentation (Parent &
Moradi, 2009). One aim of the present study is
to reexamine CMNI-46 Cronbach’s alpha reli-
ability coefficients in an independent sample.
Brannon Masculinity Scale (BMS; Bran-
non & Juni, 1984). A number of BMS sub-
scales were used as convergent validity indica-
tors for CMNI-46 subscales. Specifically, the
Male Machine subscale (BMS-MM) con-
tains 16 items that reflect belief in agency and
success as markers of masculinity (sample item:
“A man must always remember that a winner
never quits, and a quitter never wins”) and was
used as the convergent validity indicator for the
Winning subscale of the CMNI-46. The BMS-
Conceal Emotions subscale (BMS-CE) con-
tains 16 items that measure participants’ belief
that men should hide or conceal their emotions
(sample item: “I might find it a little silly or
embarrassing if a male friend of mine cried over
a sad love scene in a movie”) and was used as
the convergent validity indicator for the Emo-
tional Control subscale of the CMNI-46. The
BMS – Breadwinner subscale (BMS-BR) con-
tains 15 items that measure participants’ belief
in the importance of having a “good job” and
being a provider to one’s family (sample item:
“Success in his work has to be a man’s central
goal in his life”) and was used as the convergent
validity indicator for the Primacy of Work sub-
343
scale of the CMNI-46. The BMS – Violence
and Adventure subscale (BMS-VA) contains 15
items that reflect a drive for danger, adventure,
and violence (sample item tapping risk taking:
“A real man enjoys a bit of danger now and
then,” sample item tapping violence: “I think it
is wrong for a grown man to ever get in a
fistfight that he might possibly have avoided,”
reverse coded) and was used as the convergent
validity indicator for the Risk-taking and Vio-
lence subscales of the CMNI-46. The BMS –
Toughness subscale (BMS-TO) contains 16
items that reflect the belief that men should be
ready for confrontation and stand up for them-
selves (sample item tapping violence: “A man
must never let anyone push him around, no
matter who they are,” sample item tapping win-
ning: “I admire the kind of athlete who will stay
in the game, even when he has an injury that is
causing him some pain”) and was used as the
convergent validity indicator for the Violence
and Winning subscales of the CMNI-46. Re-
sponses to all BMS subscale items are made on
a seven-point scale (0 ⫽ Strongly disagree, 6 ⫽
Strongly agree). Appropriate items are reverse
coded and item ratings are averaged, with
higher scores indicating greater conformity to
the norm assessed by each subscale. In terms of
validity, BMS subscale scores were generally
correlated positively with indicators of depres-
sion, gender role conflict, and conflict between
work and family in a sample of African Amer-
ican men (Brewer, 1998). In a sample of college
student men whose race/ethnicity was not re-
ported, Cronbach’s alphas for BMS subscale
items ranged from .82 to .89 (Brannon & Juni,
1984). In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas
were .86 for BMS-MM, .89 for BMS-CE, .82
for BMS-BR, .82 for BMS-VA, and .84 for
BMS-TO items.
Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI; Le-
vant et al., 1992). A number of MRNI sub-
scales were used as the convergent validity indi-
cators for CMNI-46 subscales. Specifically, the
MRNI – Homophobia subscale (MRNI-HO) con-
tains five items reflecting dislike for male ho-
mosexuality and the superiority of heterosexu-
ality (sample item: “It is disappointing to learn
that a famous athlete is gay”) and was used as
the convergent validity indicator for the Hetero-
sexual Self-presentation subscale of the CMNI-
46. The MRNI – Attitudes toward Sex subscale
(MRNI-AS) contains 10 items reflecting en-
344 PARENT AND MORADI
dorsement of the norms that men should be
emotionally detached from, good at, and driven
to have sex (sample item: “A man should al-
ways be ready for sex”) and was used as the
convergent validity indicator for the Playboy
subscale of the CMNI-46. The MRNI – Self-
reliance subscale (MRNI-SR) contains seven
items that reflect attitudes about independence,
autonomy, and reluctance to seek help (sample
item: “A man should never count on someone
else to get the job done”) and was used as the
convergent validity indicator for the Self-
reliance subscale of the CMNI-46. Responses to
all MRNI subscale items are made on a seven-
point scale (0 ⫽ Strongly disagree, 6 ⫽
Strongly agree). Appropriate items are reverse-
coded and item ratings are averaged, with
higher scores indicating greater conformity to
the norm assessed by each subscale. In terms of
validity, scores on the MRNI subscales have
been correlated positively with alexithymia and
reluctance to seek psychological help in a com-
munity sample of mostly White men (Berger,
Levant, McMillan, Kelleher, & Sellers, 2005),
and correlated negatively with emotional
awareness (Bray, 2003). In terms of reliability,
items on the MRNI subscales have yielded
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from the
.50s to .80s (Berger et al., 2005; Levant &
Richmond, 2007; Liu, 2002). Cronbach’s alphas
in the present study were .71 for MRNI-HO, .73
for MRNI-AS, and .69 for MRNI-SR items.
Gender-Based Attitudes toward Marital
Roles scale (GBATMR; Hoffman & Kloska,
1995). The GBATMR was used as the con-
vergent validity indicator for the Power over
Women subscale of the CMNI-46. The
GBATMR assesses endorsement of traditional
gender roles and power over women in cross-
gender relationships. The measure has six items
(sample item: “Men should make the really
important decisions in the family”) and re-
sponses are made on a four-point scale (0 ⫽
Strongly disagree, 3 ⫽ Strongly agree). Item
ratings are averaged, with higher scores indicat-
ing greater endorsement of patriarchal power
distributions in relationships. In terms of valid-
ity, fathers’, children’s, and mothers’ scores on
the GBATMR were correlated positively with
mothers doing more of the household work
(Hoffman & Kloska, 1995). GBATMR items
had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .85 with a
sample of fathers recruited through the schools
that their children attended (Hoffman & Kloska,
1995). In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha
for GBATMR items was .88.
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Respond-
ing Impression Management Subscale
(BIDR-IM; Paulhus, 1994). The BIDR-IM
was used to evaluate the discriminant validity of
CMNI-46 subscales scores. The BIDR-IM as-
sesses presentation of an unrealistically positive
portrayal of oneself to others (Paulhus, 1994).
The BIDR-IM has 20 items (sample item: “I
have never dropped litter on the street”), and
responses are made on a seven-point scale (0 ⫽
Not true, 6 ⫽ Very true). Appropriate items are
reverse coded and the number of extreme re-
sponses (i.e., 6 and 7) is totaled to yield an
overall score, with higher scores indicating
greater impression management. Paulhus
(1994) reported that the BIDR-IM items yielded
Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .75 to .80 in
samples of undergraduate students. In the pres-
ent sample, Cronbach’s alpha for BIDR-IM
items was .78.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from a posting
for the study through the undergraduate par-
ticipant pool and from email announcements
over psychology course listserves at a large
public university in the Southeastern United
States. Participants completed the survey on-
line through the authors’ institution. Partici-
pants were informed that the study was about
masculinity and health behaviors (other data
from this sample are reported in Parent &
Moradi, in press). Those recruited from the
participant pool received credit toward a re-
search participation requirement and those re-
cruited from courses received extra course
credit as allowed by their course instructor.
Upon linking to the survey, participants
viewed a page containing the study’s in-
formed consent information, including insti-
tutional review board approval, and clicked a
link indicating that they had reviewed this
information prior to beginning the survey.
Upon completing the survey, participants
viewed a debriefing sheet that thanked them
for their participation and reiterated the re-
searchers’ contact information.
 RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46
Results
The initial data set consisted of 297 cases.
Missing data were handled following the con-
siderations summarized in Schlomer, Bauman,
and Card (2010). Specifically, as a first step, 31
men who were missing more than 20% of data
on any given subscale were removed from anal-
ysis. For the remaining participants, missing
data were replaced for each subscale using
NORM (Schafer, 2000) to conduct expectation
maximization algorithms with a maximum
of 25 iterations. In total, 21 participants each
had a single missing data point replaced. These
were reasonable steps for handling missing data
in the present study because the volume of
missing data was low and missing values were
dispersed throughout the data set and did not
appear to be the result of systematic error or
reliable external causation (see Enders, 2001;
Schafer & Graham, 2002; Schlomer et al.,
2010). Regarding normality, 11 cases were
identified as multivariate outliers at the item
level on CMNI-46 items, having Mahalanobis
distances significant at p ⬍ .001 (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1996); because multivariate outliers vi-
olate the assumptions of maximum likelihood
estimation, and because the variant scores po-
tentially represented careless responding, these
cases were removed from the analysis. The final
data set (N ⫽ 255) met guidelines summarized
by Weston and Gore (2006) for univariate nor-
mality at the CMNI-46 item level (for CFA) and
at the subscale levels (for convergent and dis-
criminant validity analyses). Generally, the
sample’s CMNI-46 subscale means fell near the
middle (1.50) of the 0 to 3 possible response
range; the pattern of means was similar to that
obtained by Parent and Moradi (2009).
Factor Structure
We examined the factor structure of the
CMNI-46 using Amos 6.0 (Arbuckle, 2005)
with maximum likelihood estimation to conduct
a CFA. Researchers have averred that sample
sizes of 200 or greater are adequate for CFA
(e.g., R. B. Kline, 2005; Quintana & Maxwell,
1999) and models with greater degrees of free-
dom require smaller sample sizes to achieve
higher power than do models with fewer de-
grees of freedom (MacCallum, Browne, & Sug-
awara, 1996). Thus, the present sample size was
345
deemed adequate for the analyses. To evaluate
model fit, we followed recommendations to re-
port the comparative fit index (CFI), the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
with 90% confidence interval, the standardized
root-mean-square residual (SRMR), the chi-
square statistic with degrees of freedom (␹2),
and the chi-square-over degrees of freedom ra-
tio (␹2/df; R. B. Kline, 2005; Schermelleh-
Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003; Wor-
thington & Whittaker, 2006). Criteria for ac-
ceptable fit have ranged from CFI greater than
or equal to .90 and RMSEA and SRMR less
than or equal to .10, to more conservative cri-
teria of CFI greater or equal to .95, RMSEA less
than or equal to .06, and SRMR less than or
equal to .08 (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; Quintana
& Maxwell, 1999). In addition, Schermelleh-
Engel et al. (2003) recommended that ␹2/df
ratios under two indicate good fit and between
two and three indicate acceptable fit. Weston
and Gore (2006) suggested use of less stringent
criteria with sample sizes of less than 500 and
numerous researchers (e.g., Schermelleh-Engel
et al., 2003; Weston & Gore, 2006) have argued
that model evaluation must take into account
sample size, number of degrees of freedom, and
theoretical bases for the models, rather than
relying solely on fit indices.
The model was constructed with each item
constrained to load onto its intended latent con-
struct, and latent variables were allowed to cor-
relate. In addition, consistent with modeling of
method variance (e.g., Green, Goldman, & Sa-
lovey, 1993; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vo-
gel, 2007), we included two orthogonal factors
representing the variance associated with direc-
tion of item coding based on the scoring instruc-
tions (that is, positively coded items loaded onto
one factor and reverse-coded items loaded onto
a separate factor, and these factors were not
allowed to covary).
The chi-square statistic of the model was
␹2(908, N ⫽ 255) ⫽ 1337.18, p ⬍ .001. Fit indices
for the model were CFI ⫽ .92; RMSEA ⫽ .04, 90%
CI: .04, .05; SRMR ⫽ .06; ␹2/df ⫽ 1.47 and
taken together, suggested acceptable fit. All
items loaded significantly onto their intended
CMNI-46 factor. Factor loadings are presented
in Table 1. Latent variable correlations, pre-
sented in Table 2, were generally small and
many were near zero. Analysis of modification
indices suggested potential cross-loading be-
346 PARENT AND MORADI

Table 1
Standardized Factor Loadings for Items on the CMNI-46
Method factors Method factors
CMNI-46 CMNI-46
factor Positive Reverse factor Positive Reverse
Item loading Uniqueness coded coded Item loading Uniqueness coded coded
Winning Violence items
22 0.80 0.36 0.06 19 0.78 0.40 0.03
15 0.61 0.63 0.32 4 0.69 0.52 0.32
7 0.59 0.65 0.09 9 0.62 0.61 0.27
33 0.59 0.65 0.38 30 0.60 0.64 0.08
27 0.55 0.70 0.28 41 0.59 0.65 0.31
1 0.47 0.78 0.17 34 0.57 0.67 0.25
Emotional control Heterosexual self-presentation
40 0.87 0.24 0.13 24 0.91 0.17 0.06
25 0.82 0.33 0.26 14 0.84 0.29 0.15
32 0.80 0.37 0.14 17 0.84 0.30 0.25
13 0.76 0.43 0.21 37 0.70 0.51 ⫺0.01
45 0.66 0.57 0.23 5 0.66 0.56 0.07
18 0.62 0.62 0.37 46 0.61 0.62 ⫺0.14
Primacy of work Playboy
11 0.79 0.38 0.21 2 0.77 0.41 0.14
39 0.75 0.44 0.15 21 0.77 0.41 0.24
31 0.67 0.55 0.24 12 0.64 0.59 0.15
23 0.60 0.64 0.05 36 0.62 0.61 0.28
Risk-taking items Self-reliance
8 0.78 0.39 0.00 38 0.76 0.42 ⫺0.03
16 0.73 0.46 ⫺0.12 43 0.73 0.46 0.03
6 0.72 0.48 0.30 10 0.70 0.51 0.04
28 0.62 0.62 0.38 3 0.69 0.52 ⫺0.02
35 0.58 0.66 0.43 26 0.67 0.56 0.27

Power over women

29 0.78 0.39 0.32
42 0.71 0.49 0.17
44 0.70 0.51 0.40
20 0.49 0.76 0.31
Note. Item numbers reflect the item number on the complete CMNI-46. All CMNI-46 subscale factor loadings are
significant at p ⬍ .01.

tween the Winning item “Winning is not my
first priority” and the Violence factor. Specifi-
cally, the largest modification index was for the
covariance between the uniqueness (i.e., resid-
ual or error term) of this item and the Violence
factor (MI ⫽ 20.26), but freeing this parameter
did not result in notable change in fit index
values, ␹2(907, N ⫽ 255) ⫽ 1319.00 p ⬍
.001, CFI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .04, 90% CI: .04,
.05, SRMR ⫽ .06, and ␹2/df ⫽ 1.45, or a high
cross-loading (-.27, p ⬍ .001). The modifica-
tion indices involving other items were nota-
bly smaller (less than 16). Thus, overall, mod-
ification indices did not suggest notable
cross-loading problems or need for model
modification.
Reliability
Internal consistency reliability was assessed
by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for items on the
CMNI-46 subscales ranged from .78 to .89,
with a median value of .82 (see Table 2). Ac-
cording to Ponterotto and Ruckdushel’s (2007)
matrix for interpreting Cronbach’s alpha, all
reliability estimates fell within the good to ex-
cellent ranges.
 RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46 347

Validity

0.78
0.89
0.80
0.82
0.83
0.89
0.80
0.84
0.81
0.85
␣ To assess convergent validity of CMNI-46
0.45
0.54
0.54
0.46
0.49
0.66
0.65
0.49
0.57
0.25
subscale scores, we examined their correlations
SD

Note. N ⫽ 255. Values above the diagonal represent larent variable intercorrelations; values below the diagonal represent bivariate correlations among mean scores.
with corresponding convergent validity indica-
tors. Also, we assessed discriminant validity by
1.66
1.45
1.36
1.45
1.84
1.80
1.28
1.33
1.07
1.51
examining correlations of CMNI-46 subscale
M

scores with impression management. Pursuant

to recommendations for correcting for measure-
ⴱⴱ

0.30ⴱⴱ
0.43ⴱⴱ
0.28ⴱⴱ

0.66ⴱⴱ
0.17ⴱ
0.18ⴱ
0.17ⴱ

ment unreliability in validity testing (Hoyt,

0.43

0.11
9

Warbasse, & Chu, 2006; Schmitt, 1996), we

adjusted both convergent and discriminant va-
0.37ⴱⴱ

0.16ⴱⴱ
0.37ⴱⴱ
lidity correlations using the correction for atten-
0.14

⫺0.02
⫺0.05
⫺0.10
0.10
⫺0.13
8

uation due to measurement error, given as

r ab
0.26ⴱⴱ

0.25ⴱⴱ
0.43ⴱⴱ
ⴱ

0.15ⴱ

0.20ⴱ

冑␣ a ⫻ ␣ b
0.19

0.08

⫺0.03

⫺0.06
7

Where rab is the raw correlation between each

ⴱⴱ

0.27ⴱⴱ

0.37ⴱⴱ
0.57ⴱⴱ

variable and its validity indicator, ␣a is the

0.15ⴱ
0.25

⫺0.11
⫺0.07

⫺0.03
0.10
6

Cronbach’s alpha of the first component (i.e.,

the CMNI-46 subscale), and ␣b is the Cron-
CMNI-46 Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Latent Variable Intercorrelations

bach’s alpha of the second component (i.e., the

ⴱⴱ

0.16ⴱⴱ
0.20ⴱⴱ

0.19ⴱⴱ
0.47ⴱⴱ
0.19ⴱ

validity indicator).
0.23
0.05
⫺0.02

⫺0.09
5

As reported in Table 3, convergent validity

coefficients for CMNI-46 subscales ranged
from .24 to .94, Mdn ⫽ .43. Abiding by Co-
ⴱⴱ

0.20ⴱⴱ

0.19ⴱⴱ
0.31ⴱⴱ
0.15ⴱ

hen’s (1992) guidelines of small (r ⫽ below

0.29
⫺0.14
⫺0.07

⫺0.08

⫺0.01
4

.30), medium (r ⫽ .30 to .49), and large (r ⫽ .50

and above) effect sizes for correlation coeffi-
cients, two convergent validity correlations fell
0.21ⴱⴱ
0.20ⴱⴱ
0.10
⫺0.10

⫺0.03
⫺0.04
⫺0.08
0.06
0.03

in the small range, five fell in the medium range,

3

and four fell in the large range. In general,

CMNI-46 subscale scores correlated most
strongly with scores on intended validity indi-
0.27ⴱⴱ

0.34ⴱⴱ

0.53ⴱⴱ
ⴱ

0.13ⴱ

0.16ⴱ
0.20

⫺0.09
⫺0.10
0.07

cators. Furthermore, in addition to their conver-

2

gent validity correlations, CMNI-46 Power over

Women, Heterosexual Self-presentation, and
Winning scores each yielded medium correla-
0.19ⴱⴱ

0.21ⴱⴱ
0.21ⴱⴱ
0.21ⴱⴱ

0.30ⴱⴱ
0.59ⴱⴱ
0.14ⴱ
0.08

0.11
1

tions with a number of other validity indicators

suggesting that these three masculinity norms
cut across multiple masculinity constructs cap-
Heterosexual self-presentation

tured by the validity indicators in this study.

As indicated in Table 3, discriminant validity
coefficients ranged from ⫺.03 to ⫺.48, Mdn ⫽
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
Power over women

⫺.11, with eight of the nine correlations repre-

Emotional control
Primacy of work

CMNI-46 Total

senting small effects and one correlation in the

Self-reliance

upper medium range. Thus, corrected correla-

Risk-taking
Violence
Winning

tions between CMNI-46 subscales and

Playboy

BIDR-IM scores generally supported the dis-

Table 2

criminant validity of CMNI-46 subscale scores,

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

with the exception of the ⫺.48 corrected corre-

ⴱ
348 PARENT AND MORADI

Table 3
Corrected Correlations Between CMNI-46 Subscales and Validity Indicators
Validity indicators
Male Role Norms
Brannon Masculinity Scale Inventory
CMNI-46
subscale MM CE BR VA TO HO AS SR GBATMR BIDR-IM
Winning 0.28 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.26 0.30 0.31 ⫺0.20
Emotional control 0.21 0.49 0.26 0.16 0.22 0.30 0.21 0.23 0.20 ⫺0.06
Primacy of work 0.19 0.04 0.38 ⫺0.04 0.13 0.05 0.21 0.22 0.20 ⫺0.03
Risk-taking 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.43 0.20 0.01 0.35 0.07 0.17 ⫺0.28
Violence 0.13 0.28 0.06 0.63 0.30 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.15 ⫺0.07
Heterosexual self-
presentation 0.41 0.49 0.27 0.26 0.40 0.82 0.31 0.31 0.60 ⫺0.11
Playboy 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.28 0.17 0.13 0.59 0.08 0.24 ⫺0.48
Self-reliance 0.13 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.24 0.16 ⫺0.10
Power over
women 0.50 0.37 0.42 0.40 0.52 0.69 0.74 0.52 0.94 ⫺0.28
Validity mean 3.17 3.36 2.90 3.14 3.51 2.57 2.62 3.85 1.13 5.09
Validity SD 0.74 0.82 0.72 0.67 0.72 1.15 0.78 0.81 0.59 3.58
␣ 0.86 0.89 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.71 0.73 0.69 0.88 0.78
Note. All correlations have been corrected for attenuation. Bolded values represent correlations between CMNI-46
subscales and intended validity indicators. MM ⫽ Male Machine; CE ⫽ Conceal Emotions, BR ⫽ Breadwinner; VA ⫽
Violence and Adventure; TO ⫽ Toughness; HO ⫽ Homophobia; AS ⫽ Attitudes toward Sex; SR ⫽ Self-reliance;
GBATMR ⫽ Gender-Based Attitudes Toward Martial Roles; BIDR-IM ⫽ Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
Impression Management.

lation between CMNI-46 Playboy scores and
BIDR-IM.
Discussion
The present study undertook the first analyses
of the reliability, validity, and factor structure of
the CMNI-46 since its development. Such anal-
yses are important to ensure that the CMNI-46
measures the constructs it is intended to mea-
sure and to inform future use of the CMNI-46 in
research and practice. Overall, findings sup-
ported the psychometric properties of the
CMNI-46 with the present sample of mostly
White and heterosexual college students.
With regard to factor structure, the fit indices
collectively provided structural support for the
CMNI-46. All fit indices suggested acceptable fit
within the context of the present sample size and
model characteristics. However, CFI failed to
reach .95, which has been suggested as a target
cut-off value by some researchers (e.g., Hu &
Bentler, 1999). The lower fit suggested by the CFI
relative to the other fit indices may be a result of
some moderate subscale intercorrelations on the
CMNI-46 as fit indices such as CFI can be nega-
tively impacted by minor deviations from simple
structure (Beauducel & Wittmann, 2005). Indeed,
Beauducel and Wittmann suggested that in CFAs
of measures of constructs for which indicators
may be expected to have moderate factor load-
ings, which may exhibit minor deviations from
simple structure, and in which latent variables
may demonstrate moderate correlations (e.g.,
models such as Big Five traits, measures of atti-
tudes or beliefs, or gender conformity), “models
would only have a chance to be accepted when
incremental fit indexes . . . are not used for model
evaluation” (p. 72). In addition, the CFI has been
found to be negatively impacted when models
contain a large number of variables as is the case
in the present study (Kenny & McCoach, 2003).
Thus, within the present model and data condi-
tions, the preponderance of fit index values sup-
ported the factor structure of the CMNI-46 as a
multidimensional measure of masculine norms.
Related to the dimensionality of the
CMNI-46 and its parent measure, we reiterate
prior cautions regarding the interpretation of
total CMNI scores given the multidimensional-
ity of masculine norms (e.g., Parent & Moradi,
2009). Specifically, the generally low subscale
and latent variable intercorrelations (see Table
2) reflect the multidimentionality of the CMNI
 RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46
and call into question use of total CMNI and
CMNI-46 scores, rather than subscale scores, as
variables in research. In the present study, we
reported Cronbach’s alpha and correlations in-
volving the CMNI-46 total item set for the sake
of consistency and comparison with prior stud-
ies using CMNI total scores. However, the mul-
tidimensionality of masculine norms and the
CMNI raises questions about interpreting the
CMNI or CMNI-46 total item set as unidimen-
sional and internally consistent. We encourage
consideration of this caution and the conceptual
meaning of CMNI total scores in future re-
search.
With regard to reliability, items on all sub-
scales of the CMNI-46 yielded good or excel-
lent Cronbach’s alphas as defined by Ponterotto
and Ruckdeschel’s (2007) matrix for estimating
adequacy of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Be-
cause Cronbach’s alpha is associated positively
with number of items (Ponterotto & Ruckde-
schel, 2008), it is notable that even with the
abbreviated length, the CMNI-46 Cronbach’s
alphas approximate values across studies using
the full-length CMNI.
In examining the corrected correlations of
each CMNI-46 subscale with the convergent
validity indicators (i.e., looking within rows in
Table 3), the preponderance of evidence sug-
gests that CMNI-46 subscale scores correlated
most strongly with scores on their intended va-
lidity indicators. Specifically, corrected correla-
tions between CMNI-46 subscale scores and
validity indicators ranged from .24 to .94, with
a median value of .43. Thus, corrected conver-
gent validity correlations represented generally
medium to large associations according to Co-
hen’s (1992) criteria.
Examining correlations of each validity indi-
cator with CMNI-46 subscales suggests addi-
tional notable patterns. Specifically, CMNI-46
Power over Women scores yielded the largest
correlation with their intended validity indica-
tor, but also had medium to large correlations
with every validity indicator in the study. Sim-
ilarly, CMNI-46 Heterosexual Self-presentation
scores yielded the largest correlation with their
intended validity indicator, but also had me-
dium to large correlations with most other va-
lidity indicators. Finally, Winning scores
yielded medium correlations with their intended
convergent validity indicators as well as with a
number of other validity indicators. One inter-
349
pretation of these patterns is that a number of
the validity indicators (e.g., Male Machine,
Conceal Emotions, Breadwinner) have limited
associative specificity with the CMNI-46 sub-
scales; that is, these CMNI-46 subscales may
tap a broader range of masculine norms than
intended. But it is important to note that the
associative nonspecificity is concentrated in
Heterosexual Self-presentation, Power over
Women, and Winning subscales and does not
reflect general misspecificity. Conceptually, it
may be that the masculinity norms of power
over women, heterosexual self-presentation,
and winning thread across the masculinity con-
structs captured by the validity indicators in this
study. This hypothesis is consistent with bivari-
ate correlations among the subscales and total
score; these three subscales demonstrate the
three highest correlations with the CMNI-46
total score. Such a thread of masculine, hetero-
sexual, patriarchal hegemonic power is consis-
tent with feminist theory and feminist therapy
conceptualizations of interconnections among
heterosexism, sexism, and domination (e.g.,
Lorde, 1984; Moradi, Fischer, Hill, Jome, &
Blum, 2000; Pharr, 1988) and suggests that
such interconnections are reflected in construals
of masculinity.
In terms of discriminant validity, corrected
correlations between CMNI-46 subscales and
BIDR-IM scores were generally small (from
⫺.03 to ⫺.28), with the exception of the ⫺.48
corrected correlation between CMNI-46 Play-
boy scores and BIDR-IM. We suggest two pos-
sible interpretations for this association. First,
the association may reflect that participants
were responding to Playboy items in a socially
desirable manner, and that actual endorsement
of the Playboy norm is different from that indi-
cated by self-reports on the CMNI-46. Second,
Paulhus (1994) suggested that although IM
scores are correlated with scores on measures of
deception and role-playing, the IM scale may
also overlap conceptually with “social conven-
tionality” (p. 23) evidenced by moderate corre-
lations of IM scores with personality dimen-
sions of conscientiousness and agreeableness.
Thus, some of the negative association between
Playboy and BIDR-IM items may reflect sub-
stantively meaningful overlap between endorse-
ment of Playboy items and rejection of social
conventionality. That is, persons who are highly
agreeable and conscientiousness would not be
350 PARENT AND MORADI
expected to endorse Playboy items that reflect
defiance of social conventions of monogamy
(e.g., “I would feel good if I had many sexual
partners,” “If I could, I would frequently change
sexual partners”). Thus, the negative associa-
tion between the BIDR-IM and Playboy items
may reflect actual lower endorsement of the
Playboy norm for more socially conventional
persons. Nevertheless, the strong association
between Playboy and BIDR-IM items suggests
cautious interpretations of scores on the Play-
boy norm in future research.
Limitations and Implications for Research
and Practice
The present findings can inform practice and
research concerning masculinity. Mahalik, Tal-
madge, Locke, and Scott (2005) described the
application of the CMNI to clinical work. This
application focused on assessing and discussing
with the client the role of gender conformity (or
nonconformity) in his or her life, and exploring
the potential costs and benefits of that confor-
mity (or nonconformity). Such applications are
consistent with feminist therapy, which empha-
sizes encouraging clients to evaluate the ef-
fect of gender roles in their lives (e.g., Ches-
ter & Bretherton, 2001; Moradi et al., 2000;
Worell & Johnson, 2004). The CMNI-46 of-
fers clinicians an abbreviated tool to use in
conducting such assessment with clients, and
the present study supports the psychometric
utility of the CMNI-46.
In terms of research, the findings of the pres-
ent study can inform future work that employs
the CMNI-46. Researchers may be more confi-
dent in the conceptual clarity and factor struc-
ture of the CMNI-46, and this clarity along with
the abbreviated length of the CMNI-46 can
make the measure more usable in research and
practice. However, psychometrics of the
CMNI-46 need to be evaluated with diverse
populations (including racial/ethnic and sexual
minority populations). In such research, it is
important to recall that the CMNI-46 and its
parent instrument are designed to assess confor-
mity to dominant cultural norms in the U.S.,
based on the premise that U.S. men of various
backgrounds are held to dominant cultural con-
struals of masculinity. In addition to evaluating
the psychometrics of the CMNI-46 with diverse
populations, however, it is important to con-
sider cross-cultural variability in masculine
norms themselves. Some norms may be appli-
cable across cultures and other norms may be
culture-specific (e.g., Adler, 1993; Williams &
Best, 1990). For example, Williams and Best
(1993) found cross-country variability in the
perceived valence and differentiation of mascu-
line and feminine characteristics. Masculine
norms also evolve across time. Thus, attention
to shifts in masculine norms across cohorts and
time periods is needed. The CMNI-46 can be
used as a base for future modifications to cap-
ture the evolving nature of masculine norms; as
additional norms are identified across time and
cultures, or as current norms recede, these tem-
poral and cultural variations can be incorporated
into the measure.
In addition, it is important to consider that
though the present study used a sample of men,
and though the CMNI has been applied mostly
in samples of men, masculine norms are not
applicable exclusively to men (e.g., Smiler,
2006), and the CMNI-46 may prove useful in
assessing women’s level of conformity to mas-
culine norms as well. Indeed, researchers have
used the CMNI in investigations of women’s
vocational interests (Tokar et al., 2007) and
energy drink consumption and “jock” identity
(Miller, 2008). Investigations of the psychomet-
ric properties of the CMNI-46 with diverse sam-
ples of women could expand the utility of this
measure in future research and practice.
Finally, some researchers have contended
that acontextual measures of gender roles
merely recapitulate trait-like personality con-
structs, and as such provide limited usefulness
in assessing more dynamic and situationally
constructed manifestations of gender role con-
formity (Addis, Mansfield, & Syzdek, 2010).
As such, research that disentangles personality-
like variables from CMNI scores may be useful
in helping researchers to articulate effects of
gender conformity beyond personality corre-
lates, and experimental research might examine
situational alterations or saliencies in gender
role conformity.
Overall, findings supported the factor struc-
ture, reliability, and validity of CMNI-46 data
with the present sample, and speak to the utility
of this measure as a tool for assessing confor-
mity to masculine norms. The present sample
characteristics (mostly White, heterosexual col-
lege students) form the boundaries for general-
 RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46
izability of the results. Further investigations of
the psychometric properties of the CMNI-46 are
important, especially as the measure is applied
in diverse samples, across cultures, and with
women.
References
Addis, M. E., Mansfield, A. K., & Syzdek, M. R.
(2010). Is “masculinity” a problem? Framing the
effects of gendered social learning in men. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 77–90. doi:
10.1037/a0018602
Adler, L. L. (1993). International handbook on gen-
der roles. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos (Version 6.0) [Com-
puter Program]. Chicago: SPSS.
Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. (2005). Simulation
study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with
slightly distorted simple structure. Structural
Equation Modeling, 12, 41–75. doi:10.1207/
s15328007sem1201_3
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psycholog-
ical androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215
Berger, J. M., Levant, R., McMillan, K. K., Kelleher,
W., & Sellers, A. (2005). Impact of gender role
conflict, traditional masculinity ideology, alexithy-
mia, and age on men’s attitudes toward psycholog-
ical help seeking. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
ity, 6, 73–78. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.6.1.73
Bogaert, A. F., Fawcett, C. C., & Jamieson, L. K.
(2009). Attractiveness, body size, masculine sex
roles and 2D:4D ratios in men. Personality and
Individual Differences, 47, 273–278. doi:10.1016/
j.paid.2009.03.011
Brannon, R., & Juni, S. (1984). A scale for measuring
attitudes about masculinity. Psychological Docu-
ments, 14, 6 –7 (ms2612).
Bray, L. H. (2003). Traditional masculine ideology
and normative male alexithymia. (Doctoral disser-
tation, University of Alberta, 2003). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 65, 75.
Brewer, A. M. (1998). The relationships among gen-
der role conflict, depression, hopelessness, and
marital satisfaction in a sample of African-
American men. (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State
University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 59, 3049.
Brown, L. J., & Bond, M. J. (2008). An examination of
the influences on health-protective behaviors among
Australian men. International Journal of Men’s
Health, 7, 274 –287. doi:10.3149/jmh. 0703.274
Burn, S. M., & Ward, A. Z. (2005). Men’s confor-
mity to traditional masculinity and relationship
satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6,
254 –263. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.6.4.254
351
Burns, S. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2008). Treatment
type and emotional control as predictors of men’s
self-assessed well-being following treatment for
prostate cancer. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
ity, 9, 55– 66. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.9.2.55
Chester, A., & Bretherton, D. (2001). What makes femi-
nist counseling feminist? Feminism & Psychology, 11,
527–545. doi:10.1177/0959353501011004006
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cohn, A., & Zeichner, A. (2006). Effects of mascu-
line identity and gender role stress on aggression in
men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 179 –
190. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.7.4.179
Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine
gender role stress: Scale development and compo-
nent factors in the appraisal of stressful situations.
Behavior Modification, 11, 123–136. doi:10.1177/
01454455870112001
Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likeli-
hood algorithms available for use with missing
data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128 –141.
doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7
Good, G. E., Schopp, L. H., Thomson, D., Hathaway,
S., Sanford-Martens, T., Mazurek, M. O., & Mintz,
L. B. (2006). Masculine roles and rehabilitation
outcomes among men recovering from serious in-
juries. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 165–
176. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.7.3.165
Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993).
Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
1029–1041. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.64.6.1029
Hamilton, C. J., & Mahalik, J. R. (2009). Minority
stress, masculinity, and social norms predicting
gay men’s health risk behaviors. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 56, 132–141. doi:10.1037/
a0014440
Hoffman, L. W., & Kloska, D. D. (1995). Parents’
gender-based attitudes toward marital roles and
child-rearing: Development and validation of new
measures. Sex Roles, 32, 273–295. doi:10.1007/
BF01544598
Hoyt, W. T., Wabasse, R. E., & Chu, E. Y. (2006).
Construct validation in counseling psychology re-
search. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 769 –
805. doi:10.1177/0011000006287389
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of num-
ber of variables on measures of fit in structural equation
modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333–351.
doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
Kimmel, S. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Body image
concerns of gay men: The roles of minority stress
352 PARENT AND MORADI
and conformity to masculine norms. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1185–
1190. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1185
Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological
testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of struc-
tural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Levant, R. F., Hirsh, L., Celantano, E., Cozza, T.,
Hill, S., MacEcheron, M., & Schnedeker, J.
(1992). The male role: An investigation of con-
temporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Coun-
seling, 14, 325–337.
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
Liu, W. M. (2002). Exploring the lives of Asian
American men: Racial identity, male role noms,
gender role conflict, and prejudicial attitudes. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 107–118. doi:
10.1037/1524 –9220.3.2.107
Liu, W. M., & Iwamoto, D. K. (2007). Conformity to
masculine norms, Asian values, coping strategies,
peer group influences, and substance use among
Asian American men. Psychology of Men & Mas-
culinity, 8, 25–39. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.8.1.25
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and
speeches by Audrey Lorde. Berekley, CA: Cross-
ing Press.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara,
H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure models. Psy-
chological Methods, 1, 130 –149.
Mahalik, J. R., Burns, S. M., & Syzdek, M. (2007).
Masculinity and perceived normative health be-
haviors as predictors of men’s health behaviors.
Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2201–2209. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.035
Mahalik, J. R., Lagen, H. D., & Morrison, J. A.
(2006). Health behaviors and masculinity in Ke-
nyan and U.S. male college students. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 7, 191–202. doi:10.1037/
1524 –9220.7.4.191
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer,
M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003).
Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms
Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3–25.
doi:10.1037/1524–9220.4.1.3
Mahalik, J. R., & Rochlen, A. B. (2006). Men’s
likely responses to clinical depression: What are
they and do masculinity norms predict them? Sex
Roles , 55, 659 – 667. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-
9121-0
Mahalik, J. R., Talmadge, W. T., Locke, B. D., &
Scott, R. P. (2005). Using the Conformity to Mas-
culine Norms Inventory to work with men in a
clinical setting. Journal of Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 61, 661– 674. doi:10.1002/jclp.20101
Mahalik, J. R., Walker, G., & Levi-Minzi, M. (2007).
Masculinity and health behaviors in Australian
Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 240 –
249. doi:10.1037/1524 –9220.8.4.240
Miller, K. E. (2008). Wired: Energy drinks, jock
identity, masculine norms, and risk taking. Journal
of American College Students, 56, 481– 490. doi:
10.3200/JACH. 56.5.481– 490
Moradi, B., Fischer, A. R., Hill, M. S., Jome, L. M., &
Blum, S. A. (2000). Does “feminist” plus “therapist”
equal “feminist therapist”? An empirical investigation
of the link between self-labeling and behaviors. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 24, 285–296. doi:
10.1111/j.1471–6402.2000.tb00211.x
O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of re-
search on men’s gender role conflict using the
Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research para-
digms and clinical implications. The Counseling
Psychologist, 36, 358 – 445. doi:10.1177/
0011000008317057
O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., &
Wrightsman, L. (1986). Gender Role Conflict
Scale: College men’s fear of femininity, Sex
Roles, 14, 335–350.
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory
factor analysis of the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory and development of the Confor-
mity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychol-
ogy of Men & Masculinity, 10, 175–189. doi:
10.1037/a0015481
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (in press). His biceps
become him: A test of objectification theory’s ap-
plication to drive for muscularity and propensity
for steroid use in college men. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology.
Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Balanced Inventory of Desir-
able Responding: Reference manual for BIDR Ver-
sion 6. Unpublished manuscript, Department of
Psychology, University of British Columbia, Van-
couver, BC.
Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism.
Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An
overview of coefficient alpha and a reliability ma-
trix for estimating adequacy of internal consis-
tency coefficients with psychological research
measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 997–
1014.PMid:18229554.
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implica-
tions of recent developments in structural equation
modeling for counseling psychology research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485–527. doi:
10.1177/0011000099274002
Rochlen, A. B., McKelley, R. A., Suizzo, M., &
Scaringi, V. (2008). Predictors of relationship sat-
isfaction, psychological well-being, and life satis-
 RELIABILITY VALIDITY FACTOR STRUCTURE OF CMNI-46
faction among stay-at-home fathers. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 9, 17–28. doi:10.1037/1524 –
9220.9.1.17
Schafer, J. L. (2000). NORM (version 2.03) [Computer
software]. Retrieved from http://www.stat.psu.edu/
⬃jls/misoftwa.html
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data:
Our view of the state of the art. Psychological
Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037/1082-
989X.7.2.147
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller,
H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: Tests of significance and descriptive
goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychologi-
cal Research, 8, 23–74.
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010).
Best practices for missing data management in
counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 57, 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient
alpha. Psychological Assessment, 4, 350 –353. doi:
10.1037/1040 –3590.8.4.350
Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery
of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of
masculinity. Sex Roles, 50, 15–26. doi:10.1023/B:
SERS.0000011069.02279.4c
Smiler, A. P. (2006). Conforming to masculine
norms: Evidence for validity among adult men and
women. Sex Roles, 54, 767–775. doi:10.1007/
s11199-006 –9045-8
Smiler, A. P., & Epstein, M. (2010). Measuring gen-
der: Options and issues. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R.
McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in
psychology (pp. 133–157). doi:10.1007/978 –1-
4419 –1465-1_7
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity
and femininity: Their psychological dimensions,
View publication stats
353
correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: Univer-
sity of Austin Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using
multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
Tager, D., & Good, G. E. (2005). Italian and Amer-
ican masculinities: A comparison of masculine
gender role norms. Psychology of Men & Mascu-
linity, 6, 264 –274. doi:10.1037/1524 –
9220.6.4.264
Tokar, D. M., Thompson, M. N., Plaufcan, M., &
Williams, C. M. (2007). Precursors of learning
experiences in Social Cognitive Career Theory.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 319 –339.
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel,
D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relation-
ship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, validity,
and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 88, 187–204.PMid:17437384.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide
to structural equation modeling. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 719 –751. doi:10.1177/
0011000006286345
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex
stereotypes: A multinational study. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Worell, J., & Johnson, D. (2004). Therapy with wom-
en: Feminist frameworks. In R. K. Unger (Ed.),
Handbook of the psychology of women and gender
(pp. 317–329). New York: Wiley and Sons.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale
development research: A content analysis and rec-
ommendations for best practices. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 806 – 838. doi:10.1177/
0011000006288127
Received June 11, 2010
Revision received August 27, 2010
Accepted October 11, 2010 䡲