Journal of Counseling Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association

2013, Vol. 60, No. 2, 228 –238 0022-0167/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0031545

Male Role Norms Inventory–Short Form (MRNI-SF):

Development, Confirmatory Factor Analytic Investigation of Structure,
and Measurement Invariance Across Gender
Ronald F. Levant, Rosalie J. Hall, and Thomas J. Rankin
The University of Akron

The current study reports the development from the Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R;
Levant, Rankin, Williams, Hasan, & Smalley, 2010) of the 21-item MRNI-Short Form (MRNI-SF).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Confirmatory factor analysis of MRNI-SF responses from a sample of 1,017 undergraduate participants
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(549 men, 468 women) indicated that the best fitting “bifactor” model incorporated the hypothesized
7-factor structure while explicitly modeling an additional, general traditional masculinity ideology factor.
Specifically, each item-level indicator loaded on 2 factors: a general traditional masculinity ideology
factor and a specific factor corresponding to 1 of the 7 hypothesized traditional masculinity ideology
norms. The bifactor model was assessed for measurement invariance across gender groups, with findings
of full configural invariance and partial metric invariance, such that factor loadings were equivalent
across the gender groups for the 7 specific factors but not for the general traditional masculinity ideology
factor. Theoretical explanations for this latter result include the potential that men’s sense of self or
identity may be engaged when responding to questions asking to what extent they agree or disagree with
normative statements about their behavior, a possibility that could be investigated in future research by
examining the associations of the general and specific factors with measures of masculine identity.
Additional exploratory invariance analyses demonstrated latent mean differences between men and
women on 4 of the 8 factors, and equivocal results for invariance of item intercepts, item uniquenesses,
and factor variances-covariances.

Keywords: Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI-R), Male Role Norms Inventory–Short Form (MRNI-SF),
traditional masculinity ideology, measurement invariance, masculine identity

Levant et al. (1992) developed the Male Role Norms Inventory
(MRNI), a 57-item instrument with seven subscales that measure
the norms of traditional masculinity ideology and one subscale that
measures nontraditional male norms. The MRNI has been used
in over 40 empirical studies, including multicultural investigations
in the United States (examining masculinity ideologies in African
American, Latino(a), Asian American, and European American
communities), cross-national studies (in Russia, China, and Paki-
stan), and studies in which the relationships between masculinity
ideologies and other constructs have been examined (see also
Levant & Richmond, 2007, for a review of the MRNI studies
reported over the 15-year period from 1992 to 2007).
In 2007, a revision of the MRNI made several significant
changes, resulting in an instrument called the Male Role Norms
Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R; Levant et al., 2007). Support for the
This article was published Online First February 18, 2013.
Ronald F. Levant, Rosalie J. Hall, and Thomas J. Rankin, Department of
Psychology, The University of Akron.
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Samantha Gregus, Britney
Kurtz, Zac Brubach, Amanda Beck, Noelle Connell, Gregory Harrison,
Karolina Kristof, Allison Miller, Baron Rogers, and Eric Simon, all student
research assistants at the University of Akron.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald F.
Levant, Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, Akron, OH
44325-4301. E-mail: Levant@uakron.edu
hypothesized dimensionality of the MRNI-R was provided by an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) described in a second study of
the MRNI-R (Levant, Rankin, Williams, Hasan, & Smalley, 2010).
However, Levant et al. (2010) found some items were not associ-
ated as expected with their theorized subscales, necessitating re-
thinking of the meaning and names of some subscales. Specifi-
cally, the results suggested a slightly revised seven-factor
structure, based on 39 items: Avoidance of Femininity, Negativity
toward Sexual Minorities, Self-reliance through Mechanical Skills
(formerly Self-reliance), Toughness (formerly Aggression), Dom-
inance, Importance of Sex (formerly Non-relational Attitudes to-
ward Sexuality), and Restrictive Emotionality. The 2010 study
also supported the internal consistency of the MRNI-R total score
and the seven-factor analytically derived subscale scores, and
provided evidence of validity.
The current study reports the development of a Short Form of
the MRNI-R, called the MRNI-SF. Short forms of masculinity
instruments, such as the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inven-
tory (Parent & Moradi, 2009) and the Gender Role Conflict Scale
(Wester, Vogel, O’Neil, & Danforth, 2012) have appeared re-
cently, indicating an interest in instruments with good psychomet-
ric properties that can be completed quickly. Given the centrality
of traditional masculinity ideology to the Gender Role Strain
Paradigm (Levant, 2011), it seems important to have a short
multidimensional scale with good psychometric properties that
measures this construct. The initial step in our development of the

228
 MALE ROLE NORMS INVENTORY–SHORT FORM
MRNI-SF was the selection of three of the highest loading item-
level indicators for each latent variable, based on the Levant et al.
(2010) EFA of the MRNI-R. Care was taken in selecting the items
to ensure that their content minimized redundancy while reflecting
the desired construct. Next, a new sample was collected in the
current study to assess— using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
techniques—whether this smaller subset of items comprising the
MRNI-SF retained the hypothesized seven-factor structure and
desired pattern of factor loadings in a sample of college men and
women.
In addition to the more specific subscale scores that corre-
sponded to the dimensions identified by the previous factor anal-
ysis, measures that were predecessors of the MRNI-SF (i.e., the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
MRNI and the MRNI-R) were used to create a total score intended
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
to broadly represent traditional masculinity ideology in general.
Ideally, this more general latent construct also could be repre-
sented in our CFA model of the newly created MRNI-SF, along
with the seven more specific dimensions. Two potential alternative
model specifications accommodating a broad general factor were
considered: (a) a hierarchical model in which a general traditional
masculinity ideology latent factor was specified at the higher level,
thus implying that it causes each of the seven more specific lower
level latent factors, and (b) a “bifactor” model in which responses
to each measured indicator (i.e., item-level response) were mod-
eled as caused by both a general traditional masculinity ideology
latent factor and a specific latent factor corresponding to one of the
subscales. This latter model is similar to those used in modeling
the structure of measures of intelligence, in which specific subtest
scores are modeled as being caused both by a general intelligence
factor, g, and specific factors for particular abilities such as verbal
reasoning. Thus, in the current study, the fit of the MRNI-SF data
was assessed with respect to a seven-factor model without an
additional broad factor, as well as the two alternative models.
Do Men and Women Construe Traditional
Masculinity Ideology Similarly?
One topic that has been only partially addressed in prior re-
search is how both genders construe masculinity ideology. As
Whorley and Addis (2006) stated: “when we study masculinity
only in men we can easily fall prey to an implicit essentialism by
failing to distinguish . . .[sex and gender]; thoroughly studying
masculinity means understanding how it operates in the lives of
both men and women” (p. 656). Differential endorsements of
masculinity ideology by men and women have been investigated.
For example, Levant and Richmond (2007) summarized four stud-
ies using the MRNI total traditional score with U.S. participants
from African American, Latino(a), and European American com-
munities. They found that men tended to endorse traditional mas-
culinity ideology to a greater extent than did women and that,
within the United States, the effect size of gender was larger than
that of race/ethnicity.
However, a set of cross-national studies using the MRNI total
traditional score found that both men and women from China,
Russia, and Pakistan tended to endorse traditional masculinity
ideology to a greater extent than did U.S. men and women, that the
differences between men and women in these countries were much
smaller than for their U.S. counterparts, and that nationality had a
larger effect size than gender. These nation-level differences in
229
endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology may reflect dif-
ferences in gender empowerment between these countries. Women
in countries with lower empowerment may feel that they have no
choice but to subscribe to a traditional view of masculine norms,
which presupposes men’s dominance over women. According to
the Gender Empowerment Measure published by the United Na-
tions Development Programme (2007– 08), the United States is
ranked 12 out of 177 nations in gender empowerment, whereas
China, Russia, and Pakistan are ranked 81, 67, and 136, respec-
tively. The relatively high ranking on gender empowerment in the
United States is the result of five decades of feminist influence on
culture and legislation. U.S. women’s low endorsement of tradi-
tional masculinity ideology may thus reflect their rejection of male
dominance (Levant, 1996, 1997).
These previous results regarding mean differences across gen-
ders in the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology are
limited by the fact that they assumed, but did not assess, that the
MRNI instrument operated in the same manner for men and
women, that is, was equivalent or invariant across the genders.
Measurement invariance indicates whether scores from a measure
that operationalizes a construct have the same meaning over dif-
ferent populations, for example, those defined by gender (Meade
& Lautenschlager, 2004; Meredith, 1993). When comparing mean
differences, invariance over populations must be present in order
to rule out the possibility of “construct bias,” which implies that a
test measures something different in one group (e.g., men) than in
another (e.g., women).
It is indeed possible that traditional masculinity ideology means
something different to men than it does to women. Thus, the
second goal of the current study was to assess the measurement
invariance of the MRNI-SF across the two gender groups. The
assessment of measurement invariance is a multistep process, with
various levels (e.g., full vs. partial) and forms of invariance po-
tentially present. We used a series of CFA models to assess the
following hypothesized forms of invariance (Horn & McArdle,
1992; Meredith, 1993): (a) configural invariance, a weak form of
factorial invariance, which specifies that the same factor dimen-
sionality and pattern of fixed and free factor loadings holds across
groups and (b) (at least partial) metric invariance, which is a
stronger form of factorial invariance in that the unstandardized
factor loadings are proposed to be equal across groups. Results
from the metric invariance model were also used to address the
issue of whether men and women had equal factor means. Stronger
forms of invariance were also explored using CFA models, al-
though we did not hypothesize them, and view them as less critical
for our purposes, namely, (a) scalar invariance, which concerns
invariance of the regression intercepts; (b) invariance of unique-
nesses, which are the residuals of the indicators; and (c) invari-
ances of factor variances/covariances. In general, invariance across
gender for a given parameter was supported when the relative fit of
a more parsimonious invariance model was not significantly
poorer than that of a less constrained model, which did not force
gender equivalence on that parameter.
As noted above, we first assessed the relative fits of the seven-
factor, hierarchical, and bifactor models and then conducted the
invariance analyses with the best fitting model of these three. We
should note that there was a certain initial conceptual appeal to the
bifactor model, particularly when one considers invariance. In
light of the studies (limited though they may be) that revealed
 230 LEVANT, HALL, AND RANKIN
gender differences in the endorsement of traditional masculinity
ideology using the MRNI total traditional scale in U.S. samples,
we did not expect to find invariance on the general traditional
masculinity latent factor, whereas we did expect to find it on the
specific latent factors. That is, men and women are likely to have
very similar understandings of the specific norms for the male role,
as these are expected to be pervasive within a culture—thus
suggesting that we would find measurement invariance on the
specific latent factors. However, we also speculate that when men
respond to a measure of traditional masculinity ideology, they may
do so with a different mind-set than do women, potentially result-
ing in some degree of measurement invariance across genders.
Compared with women, when men respond to questions asking to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
what extent they agree or disagree with statements about how men
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
should think, feel, and behave, their sense of self or identity may
be more likely to become engaged. These questions may provoke
consideration not only of the cultural norms for men in general, but
also the thoughts about themselves, and what they personally are
likely to think, feel, or do.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from psychology, computer science,
and physics courses (the latter two disciplines were selected to
increase the number of male participants) from a large, public,
midwestern university in three collections of data during the
2009 –2011 academic years. Eleven hundred eighty participants
began the study, and 1,017 (549 men, 468 women) completed it,
for a completion rate of 86.2%. We estimate that approximately
3,000 students were solicited, so that about 39% of those solicited
agreed to participate. Most participants identified as White/Euro-
pean American (82.9%), although 9.1% identified as Black/Afri-
can American, and 6.7% identified as either Latino(a)/Hispanic,
Asian/Asian American, American Indian, Pacific Islander/Inuit,
Middle Eastern, or bi/multiracial. The remainder checked “other”
or did not respond. Ages ranged from 18 to 59 years, with a mean
of 21.18 years (SD ⫽ 5.00). The median age was 20, and the modal
age was 19. Most participants (94.8%) identified as heterosexual,
but 2.1% identified as gay/lesbian, 1.8% identified as bisexual, and
1.4% did not respond to this question. Most of the participants
indicated that they were in relationships, either dating one person
exclusively (37%) or married/partnered/engaged (13.4%); yet,
17.6% were engaged in casual nonexclusive dating, 29.9% were
not currently dating anyone, and 1.8% were divorced or separated.
The median family/household income was $40,001–$60,000. In
terms of self-identified socioeconomic status, most (54.2%) iden-
tified as middle class, 20.7% as lower middle class, 6.7% as lower
class, 15.8% as upper middle class, and .9% as upper class.
Procedure
The study was approved by the university Institutional Review
Board. Undergraduate students were solicited and offered extra
credit for their participation in the study, which involved filling out
a web-based survey using a survey utility licensed by the univer-
sity. Students who wished to participate provided their e-mail
address to the research assistant who had visited their classroom,
and were subsequently e-mailed the link to the online survey site.
The first page of the site reviewed the informed consent informa-
tion. Participants who consented clicked “yes” and were taken to
the survey. Measures were presented in the following order: De-
mographic Form (sex/gender, race/ethnicity, age, relationship sta-
tus, sexual orientation, family/household income, and socioeco-
nomic status), MRNI-R. Upon completion of the survey,
participants were provided with an educational briefing on the
study rationale and hypotheses.
Measure
The MRNI–Short Form (MRNI-SF). The MRNI-SF is a
short measure of traditional masculinity ideology developed in the
current study from the item pool of the longer MRNI-R; thus, we
first briefly describe this parent instrument. The MRNI-R has
seven-factor analytically derived subscales: Avoidance of Femi-
ninity, Negativity toward Sexual Minorities, Self-reliance through
Mechanical Skills, Toughness, Dominance, Importance of Sex,
and Restrictive Emotionality. As reported by Levant et al. (2010),
alpha coefficients for the MRNI-R ranged from .75 to .92 for
subscale scores, and .96 for the total scale score. Analyses of
men’s responses provided evidence for convergent validity based
on the significant correlation of the MRNI-R with the Male Role
Attitudes Scale (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1994), another measure
of traditional masculinity ideology. Evidence for discriminant va-
lidity was found through the nonsignificant correlation with the
Masculinity Scale of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire
(Spence & Helmreich, 1978), which fundamentally differs from
the MRNI-R because it measures masculine personality traits as
contrasted with normative expectations for masculine behavior.
Evidence was also found for concurrent validity through the sig-
nificant correlations with three scales that measure related con-
structs: the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (Mahalik et
al., 2003), the Gender Role Conflict Scale (O’Neil, Helms, Gable,
David, & Wrightsman, 1986), and the Normative Male Alexithy-
mia Scale (Levant et al., 2006).
The MRNI-SF was developed by selecting three of the highest
loading items from each subscale of the MRNI-R as reported in
Levant et al. (2010). Items were chosen to capture the specific
construct and to avoid redundancy. The resulting set of 21 items
(see Table 2 for item wordings) was expected to show a similar
seven-factor dimensionality to the MRNI-R. Responses to items
are made on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree,
7 ⫽ strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of
endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology. In the current
study, alphas for subscale scores ranged from .79 to .90 for men,
and from .75 to .88 for women; alphas for the total scale were .92
for men and .94 for women.
Analytic Approach
In the current study, CFA was implemented with the Mplus
Version 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2008) structural equation
modeling (SEM) software. Maximum likelihood robust (MLR)
estimation was used to accommodate any nonnormality in the data.
Analyses were first performed to confirm the seven-factor mea-
surement model for the total sample, then to assess whether either
of two proposed alternative measurement structures (i.e., the hier-
 MALE ROLE NORMS INVENTORY–SHORT FORM
archical and bifactor models) explicitly incorporating a traditional
masculinity factor provided a better fit to the data. The best fitting
model of these three was then used as a basis for specifying
multigroup models testing measurement invariance across men
and women.
The overall fit of the SEM models was assessed with the
chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic. However, this statistic may be
overly sensitive to minor and theoretically uninteresting sources of
model misfit, especially when sample sizes are large, as in the
current study. Thus, we also used a set of alternative fit indices that
are typically consulted to determine whether a model demonstrates
adequate fit (Kahn, 2006). These indices and the criteria used to
assess their values (see Kline, 2011) were the (a) comparative fit
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
index (CFI), where values of ⱖ .90 indicate reasonable fit; (b)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), where good
model fit is suggested by values of .05 or lower, and values
between .05 and .08 suggest reasonable fit; and (c) standardized
root-mean-square residual (SRMR), where values of less than .10
are considered good. As Kline (2011) noted, these criteria are rules
of thumb, and the indices should be regarded as providing descrip-
tive information about model fit, the value of which “. . . increases
when you report values of indices that as a set assess model fit
from different perspectives . . .” (p. 205).
Relative fits of relevant single- or multigroup SEM models were
compared with each other using (a) chi-square difference tests
(adjusted to take into consideration the use of the MLR estimator;
see Satorra & Bentler, 1999, and instructions at the Mplus website
by accessing http://www.statmodel.com/chidiff.shtml), (b) change
in CFI, and (c) a comparison of the values of the Bayesian
information criterion (BIC)—a parsimony-adjusted predictive in-
dex of fit. If the fit of a model is not worsened by imposing
equality constraints on the factor loadings or a similar parameter
such as the intercept, mean or variance, then the more constrained
model is preferred to the less constrained model because it is more
parsimonious. For example, a more parsimonious model would be
one in which a single set of factor loadings suffices for both
genders, rather than a separate set of loadings for each gender. The
chi-square difference test allows an assessment of whether the
decrement in fit associated with a more constrained model is
statistically significant. If it is not statistically significant, the more
parsimonious model would be preferred. However, the chi-square
difference test may be too sensitive to misfit when sample sizes
are large. Thus, two alternative indices were also consulted: the
change in CFI (Cheung & Rensvold, 2001) and a comparison of
the BIC values for the two models. Support for a more parsimo-
nious equality-constrained model would consist of a change in CFI
of less than .01 and a smaller BIC value for the constrained model.
Results
The data were screened before conducting statistical analyses to
eliminate random responding and data entry errors. A low level of
missing data was observed (zero to 18 missing responses per item,
with no evident patterns of nonresponse), and the average number
of missing responses per participant was .035. Because the rec-
ommended practice of full information maximum likelihood esti-
mation procedures was used (Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010),
no cases were deleted and no missing values were imputed; rather,
all available responses for each item were used in the analysis. The
231
data were only mildly nonnormally distributed, with values of
skew ranging from ⫺.77 to 1.27 and values of kurtosis ranging
from ⫺1.10 to .90. Hence (as noted above), we used the MLR
estimation procedure for all analyses and reported adjusted chi-
square statistics and corrected chi-square difference tests.
CFA of Total Responses to the MRNI-SF
The first CFA model that was tested (Model SG1) was a
single-group model, fit to a data set that combined responses of the
male and female participants. In this model, participant responses
to the 21-item MRNI-SF were used as indicators of seven hypoth-
esized factors. Each item-level indicator loaded on only one factor,
for a total of three indicators per factor. The purpose of this model
was to determine whether the seven-factor dimensionality of the
MRNI-R was maintained in this new, short form of the measure,
and whether the items loaded on factors in a manner consistent
with Levant et al.’s (2010) earlier MRNI-R results in another data
set (see Figure 1 and Table 2 to determine which specific items
were specified to load on a given factor).
The resulting chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic for the seven-
factor model was statistically significant, ␹2(168) ⫽ 680.060, p ⬍
.0001, indicating that the null hypothesis of perfect fit should be
rejected. However, the remaining indices were all within the
guidelines described earlier and suggested that the model fit ade-
quately, CFI ⫽ .949, RMSEA ⫽ .055, 90% CI [.050, .059],
SRMR ⫽ .041. Considering these criteria, a seven-factor solution
for the 21-item MRNI-SF appeared quite plausible. The fit statis-
tics for this and all subsequently tested single-group models are
displayed in Table 1.
Next, we assessed the two alternative structures (i.e., hierarchi-
cal and bifactor), both of which explicitly added a traditional
masculinity ideology factor to the initial model’s seven-factor
structure. The hierarchical factor model (SG2A) had two levels of
latent constructs. The lower level consisted of the initial seven
factors, and the higher level consisted of a single traditional
masculinity ideology latent construct whose indicators were the
seven lower level factors. This model is more parsimonious than
the initial seven-factor model, because it replaces the set of 21 free
covariances among the seven factors with the set of seven higher
order factor loadings. The hierarchical model implies that all
possible bivariate associations among the set of seven lower order
factors can be explained through their common association with
the single higher order factor (which represents the commonality
across different traditional masculine norms, and may be inter-
preted as a broad traditional masculinity ideology construct).
Overall, the hierarchical SG2A model had a borderline fit,
␹2(182) ⫽ 1043.874, p ⬍ .0001, CFI ⫽ .915, RMSEA ⫽ .068,
90% CI [.064, .072], SRMR ⫽ .067. However, the factor loadings
of the seven lower level factors on the single, higher order tradi-
tional masculinity ideology factor were all strong and statistically
significant, ranging in standardized values from .67 to .88, indi-
cating that the indicators shared substantial common variance that
spanned the seven traditional masculinity domains.
The hierarchical SG2A model is nested in the seven-factor SG1
model, and thus the relative fits of these two models can be
compared by determining the statistical significance of the differ-
ence in chi-square values for the two models. The hierarchical
SG2A model places more constraints on the relationships among
 232 LEVANT, HALL, AND RANKIN
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.

Figure 1. Preferred bifactor structure showing seven specific factors and one general factor. Factor indicators
show relevant Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised item numbers. RE ⫽ Restrictive Emotionality; SR ⫽
Self-reliance through Mechanical Skills; NT ⫽ Negativity toward Sexual Minorities; AF ⫽ Avoidance of
Femininity; IS ⫽ Importance of Sex; Do ⫽ Dominance; T ⫽ Toughness; TM ⫽ traditional masculinity ideology.
The set of seven specific factors are allowed to freely covary; the general factor is fixed to be orthogonal to the
seven specific factors.

the seven lower order factors than does the seven-factor SG1
model. Because of this, the hierarchical model would be expected
to show a poorer fit to the data; hence, if the restrictions lead to a
significantly poorer fit for the hierarchical model, the seven-factor
model is preferred. However, if the observed decrement in the fit
of the hierarchical model is not statistically significant, then it
would be preferred on the basis of parsimony.
The chi-square difference between the SG2A and SG1 models
was statistically significant, ⌬␹2 ⫽ 343.752, ⌬df ⫽ 14, p ⬍ .0001,
and in addition, the ⌬CFI was .035, a value greater than the cutoff
of .010. Finally, the BIC value was smaller (more desirable) for
the seven-factor SG1 model. These results suggest not only that
the SG2A model does not fit well in an absolute sense but also
that it fits significantly more poorly than does the seven-factor
SG1 model. On the basis of modification indices, we also
estimated an alternative hierarchical Model SG2B identical to
SG2A, except it freed three pairs of covariances between first-
order factor disturbances; however, this revised model still also
fit significantly more poorly than Model SG1 (p ⬍ .001; see
Table 1 for details).

Table 1
Model Fit Statistics and Comparisons of Nested Single-Group Models

Single-group model ␹2(df) CFI RMSEA estimate and 90% CI SRMR BIC

SG1: Seven-factor 680.060 (168) .949 .055 [.050, .059] .041 70294.163
SG2A: Hierarchical 1043.874 (182) .915 .068 [.064, .072] .067 70639.671
SG2B: Hierarchical ⫹
(covary factor disturb) 822.410 (179) .936 .059 [.055, .064] .055 70393.036
SG3: Bifactor 478.725 (147) .967 .047 [.042, .052] .030 70165.125

⌬␹2(df) p ⌬CFI Conclusion

Model comparison:
SG2A vs. SG1 343.752 (14) ⬍.001 .035 Prefer SG1
SG2B vs. SG1 135.444 (11) ⬍.001 .014 Prefer SG1
SG1 vs. SG3 162.284 (21) ⬍.001 .017 Prefer SG3
Note. In the model comparison section, the more parsimonious model is listed first. The conclusion is based on a joint consideration of ⌬␹2, ⌬CFI, and
a comparison of BIC values. CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation; CI ⫽ confidence interval; SRMR ⫽
standardized root-mean-square residual; BIC ⫽ Bayesian information criterion.
 MALE ROLE NORMS INVENTORY–SHORT FORM 233

Table 2
Factor Loadings and Intercorrelations From Single-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the MRNI-SF Using the Bifactor Model

General and specific factors

Scale and item TM F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

F1: Restrictive Emotionality (RE)

38. A man should never admit when others hurt his feelings. .51 .66
41. Men should be detached in emotionally charged situations. .43 .63
53. Men should not be too quick to tell others that they care about them. .52 .53
F2: Self-Reliance through Mechanical Skills (SR)
13. Men should have home improvement skills. .48 .79
14. Men should be able to fix most things around the house. .53 .74
36. A man should know how to repair his car if it should break down. .42 .48
F3: Negativity toward Sexual Minorities (NT)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1. Homosexuals should never marry. .51 .59

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

8. All homosexual bars should be closed down. .56 .69

25. Homosexuals should never kiss in public. .68 .47
F4: Avoidance of Femininity (AF)
7. Men should watch football games instead of soap operas. .70 .35
15. A man should prefer watching action movies to reading romantic novels. .67 .17
19. Boys should prefer to play with trucks rather than dolls. .83 .68
F5: Importance of Sex (IS)
16. Men should always like to have sex. .58 .49
20. A man should not turn down sex. .51 .55
43. A man should always be ready for sex. .56 .63
Dominance (Do)
2. The President of the U.S. should always be a man. .52 .60
3. Men should be the leader in any group. .44 .85
21. A man should always be the boss. .56 .58
Toughness (T)
42. It is important for a man to take risks, even if he might get hurt. .44 .42
45. When the going gets tough, men should get tough. .59 .49
48. I think a young man should try to be physically tough, even if he’s not big. .61 .46
Factor intercorrelations
F1: Restrictive Emotionality — ⫺.06 .24ⴱ .18 .39ⴱ .49ⴱ .34ⴱ
F2: Self-Reliance through Mechanical Skills — ⫺.15 .34 .17 ⫺.05 .40ⴱ
F3: Negativity toward Sexual Minorities — .02 ⫺.19 .45ⴱ ⫺.18
F4: Avoidance of Femininity — .10 .09 .20
F5: Importance of Sex — .27ⴱ .48ⴱ
F6: Dominance — .13
F7: Toughness —
Note. Item numbers refer to the number of the item in the Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised. Standardized factor loadings are reported. All factor
loadings are statistically significant at p ⬍ .05. All factor intercorrelations marked with an asterisk are statistically significant at p ⬍ .05. MRNI-SF ⫽ Male
Role Norms Inventory–Short Form; TM ⫽ general traditional masculinity ideology factor.

Next, a bifactor model (SG3) was investigated. In this model,
each of the item-level indicators was specified as being caused by
(i.e., had factor loadings on) both a general traditional masculinity
ideology latent factor and a specific latent factor corresponding to
one of the factors in the original seven-factor model. The general
traditional masculinity ideology factor was specified as orthogonal
to the seven specific factors, but those seven factors were allowed
to freely intercorrelate among themselves. The chi-square
goodness-of-fit statistic for the bifactor Model SG3 was statisti-
cally significant, ␹2(147) ⫽ 478.725, p ⬍ .0001, indicating that the
null hypothesis of perfect fit should be rejected. But all remaining
fit indices were well within the guidelines described earlier and
had values superior to those for the seven-factor structure Model
SG1, suggesting that in most aspects, the bifactor model fit the
data very well, CFI ⫽ .967, RMSEA ⫽ .047, 90% CI [.042, .052],
SRMR ⫽ .030.
The seven-factor Model SG1 is nested within the bifactor Model
SG3. Thus, support for the bifactor model would consist of show-
ing that it significantly improves fit over the more parsimonious
seven-factor Model SG1. Or conversely, because the SG1 model is
more parsimonious than the SG3 model, for it to be preferred, the
chi-square difference should not be statistically significant, any
drop in CFI should be less than .01, and it should have the lower
BIC value. However, when these two models were compared with
the chi-square difference test, the significant chi-square statistic
favored the SG3 model, ⌬␹2 ⫽ 162.284, ⌬df ⫽ 21, p ⬍ .0001. In
addition, the SG3 model had the higher (preferred) value of CFI,
with a ⌬CFI ⫽ .017. Finally, the smaller value of BIC for the
bifactor model also supported preferring it. Thus, the bifactor SG3
model fit better on all three criteria than did the seven-factor SG1
model.
Thus, of the set of single-group models tested and summarized
in Table 1, the bifactor model provided the superior fit to the data.
All factor loadings of this model were statistically significant for
the (a) General Traditional Masculinity Ideology factor, 21 items
with loadings ranging from .42 to .83, and (b) seven specific
factors of three items each corresponding to each of the subscales
found in Levant et al. (2010), with loadings ranging from .17 to .85
 234 LEVANT, HALL, AND RANKIN

(all but two of the loadings were ⬎ .40). The factor intercorrela-
tions among the seven specific factors ranged from .02 to .49 (all
correlations of specific factors with the general factor were fixed to
zero as is typical for this type of model); none of these correlations
was so high as to suggest redundancy in the factors. These results
are reported in greater detail in Table 2.
Assessment of Measurement Invariance of the
MRNI-SF Factor Loadings Across Gender
The second goal of this study was to use multigroup CFA of the
MRNI-SF responses to assess the hypothesized configural and
metric invariance across gender. Then, the preferred metric invari-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
factor loadings from this model in the male and female groups
revealed an interesting pattern. Namely, in the male group, all
factor loadings were statistically significant (p ⬍ .05), but in the
female group, although all 21 loadings on the seven factors rep-
resenting specific traditional masculinity ideology domains were
statistically significant, 13 of the 21 standardized loadings on the
general factor representing traditional masculinity ideology overall
were not statistically significant. This pattern of results is interest-
ing from a conceptual perspective, which we return to below. In
sum, however, we conclude that configural invariance was clearly
demonstrated in this data set for the seven specific factors and
provisionally for the general traditional masculinity factor (assum-
ing the potential for significant factor loadings for women in future

ance model was used to determine whether the latent factor means
models) and note that establishing configural invariance is a pre-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

were equal for men and women (we had expected that they would
not be). Other forms of invariance were then investigated in an
exploratory fashion. To meet these objectives, a series of nested
models was estimated, treating the male and female respondents as
separate subsamples in simultaneous estimations. All of these
models used as their fundamental structure the bifactor model,
which was found to be best fitting in the previous single-group
analyses. The chi-square change statistic provided a test of statis-
tical significance for model comparisons, and alternative indices
were also consulted. See Table 3 for the relevant multigroup
results.
Hypothesized forms of invariance: Configural and metric,
with accompanying tests of invariance of factor means.
Model MG1 imposed no equality constraints across gender groups
on any model parameters, and thus allowed for a very basic test of
configural invariance (i.e., that the factor dimensionality and as-
signment of items to factors was correct). As would be necessary
to conclude that configural invariance holds, this least parsimoni-
ous model in the series showed a good fit to the data, ␹2(307) ⫽
706.840, p ⬍ .0001, CFI ⫽ .956, RMSEA ⫽ .051, 90% CI [.046,
.056], SRMR ⫽ .037. However, an inspection of the estimated
condition for continuing on to tests of stronger factorial invariance
(Horn & McArdle, 1992; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).
Model MG2A constrained parallel factor loadings (i.e., for the
same item on the same factor) to be equal for men and women, and
thus allowed for a test of full metric invariance. Except for the
statistically significant chi-square statistic, overall the fit of Model
MG2A was acceptable, ␹2(341) ⫽ 749.862, p ⬍ .0001, CFI ⫽
.955, RMSEA ⫽ .049, 90% CI [.044, .053], SRMR ⫽ .044.
Furthermore, given that all factor loadings in this model were
equality constrained across the two groups, Model MG2A allowed
a comparison of each of the factor means by gender, thus providing
a test of the invariance of latent factor means. The means for the
traditional masculinity ideology general factor, and for four of the
seven specific factors (all except Negativity toward Sexual Minor-
ities, Avoidance of Femininity, and Toughness), were significantly
different for men versus women, with p values ranging from .050
to ⬍ .001. For all factor means except Self-Reliance through
Mechanical Skills, the difference had a positive sign, meaning that
men had higher values of these latent means than did women. The
two largest latent factor mean differences (unstandardized) were

Table 3
Model Fit Statistics and Comparisons of Nested Multiple-Group Models

Invariance model ␹2(df) CFI RMSEA estimate and 90% CI SRMR BIC

MG1: Configural 706.840 (307) .956 .051 [.046, .056] .037 69969.452
MG2A: Full metric 749.862 (341) .955 .049 [.044, .053] .044 69837.166
MG2B: Partial metric 718.399 (321) .956 .049 [.045, .054] .040 69928.411
MG3: Scalar (free intercepts)a 710.978 (308) .955 .051 [.046, .056] .039 69988.969
MG4: Uniquenesses 819.736 (342) .947 .052 [.048, .057] .045 69940.240
MG5: Variancesa 769.989 (328) .951 .051 [.047, .056] .041 69949.940
MG6: Variances ⫹ Covariances 807.160 (349) .949 .051 [.046, .055] .052 69865.430

⌬␹2(df) p ⌬CFI Conclusion

Model comparison:
MG2A vs. MG1 56.402 (34) .009 .001 Equivocal
MG2B vs. MG2A 33.913 (20) .027 .001 Equivocal
MG2B vs. MG1 22.807 (14) .063 .000 Prefer MG2B
MG2B vs. MG3 16.186 (13) .239 .001 Equivocal
MG4 vs. MG2B 79.150 (21) ⬍.001 .008 Equivocal
MG5 vs. MG2B 37.500 (7) ⬍.001 .005 Equivocal
MG6 vs. MG2B 81.501 (28) ⬍.001 .015 Equivocal
Note. In the model comparison section, the more parsimonious model is listed first. The conclusion is based on a joint consideration of ⌬␹2, ⌬CFI, and
a comparison of BIC values. CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ standardized root-mean-square
residual; BIC ⫽ Bayesian information criterion.
a
A nonpositive definite matrix was encountered in the estimation of this model.
 MALE ROLE NORMS INVENTORY–SHORT FORM
for Restrictive Emotionality (.92, p ⬍ .001) and Dominance (1.01,
p ⬍ .001).
When the more parsimonious metric invariance Model MG2A
was compared with the configural invariance Model MG1 to see
whether imposing equality constraints on all of the factor loadings
significantly degraded model fit, our criteria suggested conflicting
conclusions. The chi-square difference test was statistically signif-
icant, ⌬␹2(34) ⫽ 56.402, p ⫽ .009. By this criterion, Model
MG2A, specifying complete metric (factor loading) invariance, fit
significantly worse than did configural invariance Model MG1,
suggesting that full metric invariance was not obtained. However,
two other criteria—a ⌬CFI of .001 (less than the rule-of-thumb
criterion of .010) and a lower value of the BIC for Model MG2A—
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
suggest support for the more parsimonious Model MG2A over
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Model MG1. These latter two criteria may be less adversely
influenced by large sample sizes (such as our N of 1,017) than is
the chi-square difference test. Thus, the results of the test of this
model for metric invariance were equivocal, and interpretation
depends on which comparative fit criterion is given the most
consideration.
The pattern of conflicting results like that seen when comparing
Model MG2A with Model MG1 could be a result of partial metric
invariance—that is, a situation in which many factor loadings are
indeed equivalent across gender groups, but some are not. Thus,
we explored the potential for partial invariance in one further
metric invariance model, Model MG2B. As mentioned earlier,
theoretical arguments suggested to us that men and women might
not globally conceive of traditional masculinity ideology in the
same manner, and we observed a pattern of nonsignificant factor
loadings for women on the general traditional masculinity ideol-
ogy factor in Model MG1. Taken together, these considerations
suggested the potential for a modified model specifying partial
metric invariance across gender.
Model MG2B constrained parallel factor loadings to be equal
for men and women for the seven specific factors, but imposed no
equality constraints on the general traditional masculinity ideology
factor. Overall, this model fit adequately, ␹2(321) ⫽ 718.399,
p ⬍ .0001, CFI ⫽ .956, RMSEA ⫽ .049, 90% CI [.045, .054],
SRMR ⫽ .040. It also significantly improved model fit over the
full metric invariance Model MG2A by the change in chi-square
criterion, ⌬␹2(20) ⫽ 33.913, p ⫽ .027. However, the alternative
criteria of ⌬CFI (which equaled .001) and BIC favored Model
MG2A. Importantly, though, in contrast to the full metric invari-
ance Model MG2A, partial metric invariance Model MG2B did
not fit significantly worse than did the configural invariance Model
MG1 according to the chi-square change statistic, ⌬␹2(14) ⫽
22.807, p ⫽ .063. Model MG2B also fit as well as Model MG1 on
the basis of the ⌬CFI ⫽ .000, and was the preferred model of the
two on the basis of its lower BIC.
In sum, the results support configural invariance as well as the
metric equivalence of factor loadings in the two gender groups for
the seven specific factors. However, the results also suggest that
the general factor of traditional masculinity ideology may not
show metric invariance across gender. Interestingly, when factor
loadings for the seven specific factors are invariant but the load-
ings for the traditional masculinity ideology general factor are
freely estimated in the two groups, the loadings on the general
factor, although not equal for men and women, become statisti-
cally significant for both genders—thus indicating that a general
235
traditional masculinity ideology concept appears to exist for
women, but it may not be exactly the same construct for them as
for men.
Exploratory forms of invariance: Scalar, uniquenesses, vari-
ances, and covariances. At least partial metric invariance is a
precondition for testing additional forms of invariance (Vanden-
berg & Lance, 2000). Thus, given that partial metric invariance
was established with our data, we estimated exploratory models
specifying scalar invariance, invariance of uniquenesses, and in-
variance of factor variances and covariances. Partial metric invari-
ance Model MG2B served as the comparison model for signifi-
cance testing for all of these remaining forms of invariance.
Because we did not have specific expectations for these forms of
invariance— except that full invariance on these stricter forms was
unlikely—we report those results in the next several paragraphs
and in Table 3, but do not pursue them in great detail.
Model MG3 was estimated to investigate whether the measure
showed scalar invariance (i.e., invariance of the item intercepts)
across the gender groups. This model was identical to partial
metric invariance Model MG2B (which by default had equivalent
item intercepts across groups), except that it freed the item inter-
cepts to vary between the two groups and fixed the factor means to
zero in order to achieve identification. Model MG3 was less
parsimonious than Model MG2B because of the freed intercepts,
and thus was expected to fit better. However, if the test criteria for
comparing the fits of these two models showed no substantial
difference between the two models, we would conclude that scalar
invariance held.
Model MG3 fit reasonably well overall, ␹2(308) ⫽ 710.978, p ⬍
.0001, CFI ⫽ .955, RMSEA ⫽ .051, 90% CI [.046, .056],
SRMR ⫽ .039. When the fit of Model MG3 was compared with
Model MG2B, the fit indices provided equivocal information with
respect to whether there was full scalar invariance. The chi-square
difference test was not statistically significant, ⌬␹2(13) ⫽ 16.186,
p ⫽ .239, and ⌬CFI ⫽ .001, suggesting that scalar invariance held.
However, the BIC value was higher for the less parsimonious
Model MG3, which freed the item intercepts, suggesting the pos-
sibility that some intercepts were not invariant.
Model MG4 was estimated to investigate invariance of the
residuals of the item-level indicators, also known as uniquenesses.
Although the overall fit of this model was not excellent, it was
borderline acceptable, ␹2(342) ⫽ 819.736, p ⬍ .0001, CFI ⫽ .947,
RMSEA ⫽ .052, 90% CI [.048, .057], SRMR ⫽ .045. When
compared with Model MG2B, the chi-square difference test was
statistically significant, ⌬␹2(21) ⫽ 79.150, p ⬍ .001, and the BIC
value was higher for Model MG4, suggesting that invariance of
uniquenesses does not hold. However, the ⌬CFI ⫽ .008, suggest-
ing that the fit of Model MG4 does not differ substantially from
that of Model MG2B, raising the potential for partial uniqueness
invariance.
We also investigated the equivalence across genders of the
factor variances and factor covariances for the seven specific
factors only (these analyses should be performed only if metric
invariance is demonstrated, so should not be done for the general
factor of traditional masculinity ideology). The rows for Models
MG5 (variances) and MG6 (variances ⫹ covariances) in Table 3
report the results from tests of the models specifying invariance
across these parameters. On the basis of the chi-square difference
test, both models fit significantly more poorly than the relevant
 236 LEVANT, HALL, AND RANKIN

comparison model MG2B, indicating that at least some variances
differ by gender, ⌬␹2(7) ⫽ 37.500, p ⬍ .001, and that restrictions
of both variances and covariances to be equivalent are not tenable,
⌬␹2(28) ⫽ 81.501, p ⬍ .001. However, again making these con-
clusions equivocal, we note that (a) the ⌬CFI is only .005 (not
meeting the criterion of .01) for the restricted variance Model
MG5, suggesting the potential that the variances are “close
enough” in value across genders, and (b) the BIC value for the
restricted variance ⫹ covariance Model MG6 is smaller than for
the comparison MG2B model. Taken together, these results sug-
gest that although invariance is not perfect across the set of factor
variances and covariances, the values of these parameters are
likely still relatively similar across genders.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
MRNI-SF total and subscale scores except for the Self-reliance
through Mechanical Skills subscale. Where significant differences
occurred, men endorsed traditional masculinity to a greater extent
than did women.
Discussion
Our results build on previous research on the MRNI (summa-
rized in Levant & Richmond, 2007) and the MRNI-R (Levant et
al., 2010, 2007) to develop a short form of the instrument, namely,
the 21-item MRNI-SF. The MRNI-SF overcomes limitations of
some of the most commonly used measures of masculinity ideol-
ogy, such as the Male Role Norms Scale (Thompson & Pleck,

1986) and the MRNI, by assessing multiple dimensions of mas-

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

Descriptive Statistics for Men and Women on
MRNI-SF
Given the support for the new bifactor structure of the MRNI-SF
in the total sample, and for partial metric invariance across gender
groups, we provide raw score-based subscale and total scale scores
for the MRNI-SF, for purposes of comparison with future studies
in which this instrument is used. These scores were created by
averaging the observed values for the relevant items. Means,
standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for these subscales are
in Table 4, reported separately for men and women, along with the
results of significance tests comparing mean scores across men and
women. (Note that these mean comparisons are not identical to
comparisons made with the latent factor means.)
The alpha coefficients in Table 4 were evaluated using the
criteria developed by Ponterotto and Ruckdeschel (2007, p. 1003).
For the MRNI-SF subscales and total scale, those for men were
good (.80 –.84) to excellent (.85 and up), with the exception of
Toughness, which was moderate (.75–.79) at .79. Women’s alphas
were also good to excellent, with the exceptions of the moderate
alphas observed for the subscales of Toughness (.75), Importance
of Sex (.76), and Restrictive Emotionality (.76).
On the MRNI-SF, both men and women on average scored
toward the traditional end on two subscales, Self-reliance through
Mechanical Skills and Toughness. In addition, men on average
scored toward the traditional end on Avoidance of Femininity.
Significant mean differences by gender were found on all
culinity ideology that are confirmed by factor analysis and that
have evidence for reliability and validity. The MRNI-SF thus
provides a brief measure appropriate for assessing traditional mas-
culinity ideology—a construct central to the Gender Role Strain
Paradigm.
Implications of Empirical Results for Quality of
Measurement and Conceptual Understanding
Counseling Psychologists have taken the lead in research on the
linkages between masculinity and mental health. Researchers who
are interested in a brief measure of traditional masculinity ideology
that nevertheless allows for the assessment of specific dimensions
of that ideology should consider the MRNI-SF. The analyses that
we report provide empirical evidence for the hypothesized seven-
factor dimensionality of the specific MRNI domains, and they
strongly support the intended assignment of items to the specific
factors. The findings of partial metric invariance, and exploratory
results suggesting that there may be partial invariance for other
parameters (i.e., intercepts, uniquenesses, variances and covari-
ances), suggest that comparisons between genders on this instru-
ment are tenable. This is true particularly if researchers are work-
ing in a latent variable context such as that involved in testing
SEM models, an option that many researchers on this topic may
consider critical.
In addition, as a direct result of this study, our understanding of
the construct of traditional masculinity ideology was expanded by

Table 4
MRNI-SF Raw Score Means, Standard Deviations, and Coefficient Alphas by Gender

Men (n ⫽ 549) Women (n ⫽ 468)

Measure M SD 〈 M SD ␣ F(1,1015)

Restrictive Emotionality 2.92 1.22 .83 1.87 0.78 .76 257.84

Self-Reliance through Mechanical Skills 4.52 1.36 .86 4.41 1.41 .84 1.64, ns
Negativity toward Sexual Minorities 3.18 1.57 .88 2.29 1.34 .84 90.98
Avoidance of Femininity 4.24 1.52 .90 3.43 1.50 .88 72.62
Importance of Sex 3.76 1.51 .83 2.85 1.25 .76 106.88
Toughness 4.68 1.23 .79 4.08 1.23 .75 60.51
Dominance 3.05 1.39 .87 1.78 0.94 .80 282.04
MRNI-SF Total Score 3.74 1.05 .92 2.91 0.86 .94 185.68
Note. MRNI-SF scale scores may range from 1 to 7. Higher values indicate greater endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology. All gender
comparisons were statistically significant at p ⬍ .01 or better, except for a nonsignificant finding for the Self-Reliance through Mechanical Skills subscale.
MRNI-SF ⫽ Male Role Norms Inventory–Short Form.
 MALE ROLE NORMS INVENTORY–SHORT FORM
CFA results supporting a bifactor model. The bifactor model is
interesting because it implies that item-level responses on the
MRNI-SF reflect both a specific norm of traditional masculinity
ideology and a general factor reflecting an overarching traditional
masculinity ideology concept. Interestingly, the pattern of factor
loadings on the seven specific factors was invariant across gender
but varied somewhat across gender for the general factor, thus
supporting the partial metric invariance of this measure.
The mix of invariant and differential factor loadings for specific
versus general factors observed in this study was not unexpected.
Men and women are likely to have very similar concepts regarding
specific norms for the male role, as reflected in metric invariance
on the specific latent factors, because those norms are communi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cated very broadly within our culture to persons of both genders at
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
all ages. However, the lack of metric invariance for the general
traditional masculinity latent factor could indicate that men’s sense
of self or identity may be engaged in a manner somewhat different
than is experienced by women when responding to items asking to
what extent they agree or disagree with statements about how men
should think, feel, and behave. Future research should investigate
this possibility by examining the associations of both the general
and specific factors with measures of masculine identity, such as
Wade and Gelso’s (1998) Male Reference Group Identity Scale.
Not surprisingly, we observed significant differences both on
the latent factor means and on the raw score-based subscale means
for the general factor and most of the seven specific factors.
Interestingly, the tests of the latent factor means found significant
latent factor mean differences on all except the Negativity toward
Sexual Minorities, Avoidance of Femininity, and Toughness fac-
tors, whereas the subscale means indicated significant differences
on all subscales except the Self-Reliance through Mechanical
Skills score. Regardless, when significant differences were ob-
served, they were almost all in the direction of higher values for
men, with the exception of the Self-Reliance through Mechanical
Skills factor, which was endorsed more strongly by women. Both
the presence of these significant differences and their direction
help support the construct validity of the MRNI-SF. Future re-
search should focus on further assessing the convergent, discrim-
inant, and concurrent construct validity of the MRNI-SF, both for
the general traditional masculinity ideology factor and the seven
specific factors.
In addition, one empirical finding suggests potential particular
relevance of the specific factors of Restrictive Emotionality and
Dominance for an understanding of traditional masculinity ideol-
ogy. The six items comprising these two factors were observed to
show the largest gender differences in factor means. Specifically,
men tended to endorse these items noticeably more strongly than
did women. This is similar to findings from a study on an adoles-
cent version of the MRNI (Levant et al., 2012), which revealed that
there is a connection between Restrictive Emotionality and Dom-
inance for boys in that being constricted serves the purpose of
being dominant; that is, it is hard to dominate someone if you are
emotionally vulnerable to them. Finally, we mention that the
exploratory investigations of invariance in the tests of item unique-
nesses, factor variances, and factor covariances were not focal for
this particular study but may be of interest to future researchers as
the MRNI-SF continues to be used and studied. It may be that the
lack of clear-cut conclusions from these tests are characteristic of
the measure, but it may also be that they are a reflection of the
237
sample characteristics (i.e., a relatively younger college student
sample).
Implications for Practice With Consideration of
Boundary Conditions and Limitations
There are also implications of the measurement development
undertaken in this study for practicing Counseling Psychologists.
Given the association of its predecessor, the MRNI, with a range
of problematic individual and relational variables (Levant & Rich-
mond, 2007), the MRNI-SF may be of use to counselors who wish
to assess their clients’ endorsement of traditional masculinity
ideology to see whether what may be largely implicit assumptions
are in fact a source of conflict or stress. There may be cases in
which discussing a client’s overall scores and/or responses to
specific items may be of value in the counseling process, espe-
cially where the treatment plan incorporates a client’s “Gender
Role Journey” (O’Neil, 1996).
However, we wish to acknowledge some limitations of the
current study that, at present, may also place some boundaries
around the generalizations of results. Participants in the study were
all students from the same university, which draws primarily from
the surrounding midwestern geographic region. Most participants
were young, White, European American, middle class, and het-
erosexual. Future investigations should aim to recruit a more
diverse sample in terms of demographic and geographic charac-
teristics. Additionally, the self-report nature of the surveys intro-
duces the possibility of socially desirable responding and does not
allow for a multimethod evaluation of the data (e.g., including
interviewing), which is important in assessing construct validity.
We encourage future investigations with the MRNI-SF that con-
tinue to address these issues.
References
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2001). The effects of model parsimony
and sampling error on the fit of structural equation models. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 4, 236 –264.
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to
measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Re-
search, 18, 117–144. doi:10.1080/03610739208253916
Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research,
training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 34, 684 –718. doi:10.1177/0011000006286347
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-
eling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Levant, R. F. (1996). The crisis of connection between men and women.
Journal of Men’s Studies, 5, 1–12.
Levant, R. F. (1997). The masculinity crisis. Journal of Men’s Studies, 5,
221–231.
Levant, R. F. (2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity
using the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. American Psy-
chologist, 66, 765–776. doi:10.1037/a0025034
Levant, R. F., Good, G. E., Cook, S., O’Neil, J., Smalley, K. B., Owen,
K. A., & Richmond, K. (2006). Validation of the Normative Male
Alexithymia Scale: Measurement of a gender-linked syndrome. Psychol-
ogy of Men & Masculinity, 7, 212–224. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.7.4.212
Levant, R. F., Hirsch, L., Celentano, E., Cozza, T., Hill, S., MacEachern,
M., . . . Schnedeker, J. (1992). The male role: An investigation of norms
and stereotypes. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325–337.
Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Williams, C., Hasan, N. T., & Smalley, K. B.
(2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of the
 238 LEVANT, HALL, AND RANKIN
Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 11, 25–37. doi:10.1037/a0017637
Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2007). A review of research on masculinity
ideologies using the Male Role Norms Inventory. Journal of Men’s
Studies, 15, 130 –146. doi:10.3149/jms.1502.130
Levant, R. F., Rogers, B. K., Cruickshank, B., Rankin, T. J., Kurtz, B. A.,
Rummell, C. M., . . . Colbow, A. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis and
construct validity of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent-revised
(MRNI-A-r). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 354 –366. doi:
10.1037/a0029102
Levant, R. F., Smalley, K. B., Aupont, M., House, A., Richmond, K., &
Noronha, D. (2007). Initial validation of the Male Role Norms
Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R). Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 83–100.
doi:10.3149/jms.1501.83
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P.,
Gottfried, M., & Frietas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3–25.
doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item
response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for
establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Re-
search Methods, 7, 361–388. doi:10.1177/1094428104268027
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and facto-
rial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. doi:10.1007/BF02294825
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2008). Mplus user’s guide (5th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
O’Neil, J. M. (1996). The Gender Role Journey Workshop: Exploring
sexism and gender role conflict in a coeducational setting. In M. P.
Andronico (Ed.), Men in groups: Insights, interventions, psychoeduca-
tional work (pp. 193–213). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
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. doi:10.1007/BF00287583
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory and development of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 10, 175–189. doi:10.1037/a0015481
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male
roles: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles, 30, 481–501. doi:
10.1007/BF01420798
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An overview of coefficient
alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal con-
sistency coefficients with psychological research measures. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 105, 997–1014.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). A scaled difference chi-square test
statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 57, 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their
psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male norms.
American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. doi:10.1177/
000276486029005003
United Nations Development Programme. (2007– 08). Human development
report, 2011. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/
HDR_20072008_GEM.pdf
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recom-
mendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 3, 4 –70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002
Wade, J. C., & Gelso, C. J. (1998). Reference Group Identity Dependence
Scale: A measure of male identity. The Counseling Psychologist, 26,
384 – 412. doi:10.1177/0011000098263002
Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., O’Neil, J. M., & Danforth, L. (2012).
Development and evaluation of the Gender Role Conflict Scale Short
Form (GRCS-SF). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 199 –210.
doi:10.1037/a0025550
Whorley, M. R., & Addis, M. E. (2006). Ten years of psychological
research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant meth-
odological trends. Sex Roles, 55, 649 – 658. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-
9120-1
Received June 8, 2012
Revision received November 29, 2012
Accepted November 30, 2012 䡲