Conformity to Male Norms Inventory (CMNI)

1. Abstract

The Conformity to Male Norms Inventory (CMNI), originally developed by James R. Mahalik and colleagues in 2003, is an empirically operationalized psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate an individual’s behavioral, cognitive, and affective conformity to dominant, traditional masculine gender norms prevalent in contemporary Western society. Unlike broad, unidimensional masculinity-femininity trait paradigms that predominated mid-twentieth-century assessment, the CMNI conceptualizes masculine socialization through a multi-faceted, multidimensional social-constructionist framework. The instrument comprises 94 self-report items mapped across 11 discrete subscales: Winning (WIN), Emotional Control (EMOC), Risk-Taking (RISK), Violence (VIOL), Power Over Women (POW), Dominance (DOM), Playboy (PLAY), Self-Reliance (SELF), Primacy of Work (WORK), Disdain for Homosexuals (HOMO), and Pursuit of Status (POS). Participants register responses using a 4-point Likert-type scale spanning Strongly Disagree (0), Disagree (1), Agree (2), to Strongly Agree (3), yielding a multidimensional behavioral profile along with an overarching total conformity index.

Initial psychometric investigations with large collegiate and community samples established high internal consistency across subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients ranging from .72 (Pursuit of Status) to .91 (Emotional Control), and an aggregate internal reliability estimate of .94 for the total scale score. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses substantiate the robust structural integrity of the 11-factor architecture, while extensive construct, convergent, and criterion-related validity studies establish significant correlations with psychological distress, interpersonal hostility, depression, substance abuse, negative attitudes toward help-seeking, and gender role conflict. In modern psychometrics and counseling psychology, the CMNI serves as a benchmark assessment for untangling how hegemonic masculine scripts influence male psychological well-being, somatic health outcomes, clinical engagement, and relational dynamics.

2. Keywords

Conformity to Male Norms Inventory, CMNI, masculinity, masculine gender role socialization, hegemonic masculinity, gender role conflict, psychological help-seeking, health risk behaviors, psychometrics, counseling psychology, social constructionism, emotional control, power over women.

3. Authors

The original Conformity to Male Norms Inventory was conceptualized, developed, and validated by an interdisciplinary team of researchers and counseling psychologists led by:

• James R. Mahalik, Ph.D. – Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, United States. Correspondence concerning the development of the inventory was historically directed to Dr. Mahalik.
• Benjamin D. Locke, Ph.D. – Center for Counseling and Psychological Services, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States.
• Larry H. Ludlow, Ph.D. – Department of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, United States.
• Matthew A. Diemer, Ph.D. – School of Education, University of Michigan (formerly Boston College), Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States.
• Michael A. Gottfried, Ph.D. – Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania (formerly Boston College), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
• Ryan P. J. Scott, M.A. – Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, United States.
• Gary Freitas, Ph.D. – Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, United States.

4. Purpose

The theoretical and empirical motivation behind the creation of the Conformity to Male Norms Inventory (CMNI) emerged from significant conceptual, methodological, and clinical limitations within existing gender role assessments. For decades, psychological measurement of masculinity relied heavily upon personality trait inventories—most notably the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). While these instruments offered historic breakthroughs by disentangling masculinity from femininity, they conceptualized gender primarily as an enduring, internal, and bipolar personality trait (e.g., instrumentality versus expressiveness). Consequently, they failed to assess specific behavioral demands, systemic social expectations, emotional scripts, and power asymmetries enforced upon boys and men within patriarchal social systems.

Subsequent scales developed in the 1980s and 1990s, such as the Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS) developed by James O’Neil and the Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS) scale developed by Richard Eisler, made pivotal strides by examining the cognitive and emotional strain men endure when deviating from or struggling to meet masculine ideals. However, Mahalik and colleagues (2003) noted a critical empirical void: neither trait instruments nor conflict-focused measures directly assessed an individual’s explicit conformity, non-conformity, or behavioral adherence to the wide spectrum of culturally dictated masculine norms. The CMNI was engineered to isolate and quantify the specific behavioral, cognitive, and affective strategies men employ in response to cultural mandates, regardless of whether those strategies consciously induce conflict.

From an applied clinical perspective, the CMNI was intentionally designed to provide psychotherapists, counseling psychologists, and psychiatric clinicians with a granular diagnostic profile of a male client’s socialization pattern. Rather than labeling a client generically as “hypermasculine” or “traditional,” the CMNI illuminates specific behavioral vulnerabilities. For example, a client presenting with major depressive disorder, severe somatic complaints, and emotional detachment might demonstrate extreme conformity to the Emotional Control (EMOC) and Self-Reliance (SELF) subscales, while exhibiting low or moderate conformity to Violence (VIOL) or Power Over Women (POW). Identifying these specific profiles enables targeted clinical interventions, such as addressing the affective constriction that exacerbates depression or examining the self-reliance dogmas that impede therapeutic alliance and medical help-seeking.

In academic research, the CMNI serves as an essential tool within behavioral health, public health, social psychology, and sociology. Researchers utilize the scale to evaluate epidemiological disparities in male morbidity and mortality, such as hazardous alcohol consumption, dangerous driving, physical aggression, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated rates of completed suicide. By examining the individual subscales rather than relying exclusively on aggregate composite scores, researchers have discovered nuanced relationships: certain masculine norms (e.g., Emotional Control, Self-Reliance) consistently correlate with adverse psychological outcomes, whereas other norms (e.g., Primacy of Work, Pursuit of Status) demonstrate mixed or even adaptive associations under specific socioeconomic conditions.

5. Psychological Construct

The primary psychological construct captured by the CMNI is conformity to masculine norms, defined as the degree to which an individual meets, endorses, and enacts the explicit behavioral scripts, affective taboos, and cognitive attitudes that sociocultural institutions prescribe as appropriate for men. Mahalik and colleagues (2003) conceptualized masculine norms not as innate biological imperatives or static personality traits, but as shared cultural expectations maintained through social reinforcement, punishment, and ongoing interpersonal performance.

The construct is explicitly multidimensional, reflecting the understanding that no singular, monolithic “masculinity” exists. An individual may strictly uphold certain sociocultural mandates while openly rejecting or actively violating others. To capture this complexity, the CMNI operationalizes conformity across 11 discrete, empirically derived dimensions:

• Winning (WIN): Assesses the psychological imperative to compete intensely, succeed, and avoid failure at all costs. Individuals scoring high on this dimension view interpersonal and professional interactions primarily through a competitive lens, subscribing to the belief that victory validates their worth (e.g., “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”).
• Emotional Control (EMOC): Measures the active suppression, containment, and concealment of vulnerable affective states, particularly sadness, tenderness, anxiety, and fear. High scorers adhere strictly to the social mandate that men must remain stoic, impassive, and unemotional (e.g., “It is best to keep your emotions hidden”).
• Risk-Taking (RISK): Evaluates an individual’s willingness to engage in physically, socially, or financially hazardous behaviors to validate masculine courage or toughness. This dimension captures thrills, recklessness, and the deliberate pursuit of dangerous situations (e.g., “Taking dangerous risks helps me to prove myself”).
• Violence (VIOL): Captures the belief in the legitimacy, utility, and desirability of physical aggression and fighting as an acceptable problem-solving method or defense of honor (e.g., “I am willing to get into a physical fight if necessary”).
• Dominance (DOM): Measures the interpersonal drive to assert control, dictate group processes, and exercise authority over other individuals (e.g., “I should be in charge”).
• Playboy (PLAY): Assesses adherence to the norm that men should prioritize non-relational, casual, and multi-partner sexual conquests while consciously avoiding emotional intimacy or long-term romantic commitment (e.g., “If I could, I would frequently change sexual partners”).
• Self-Reliance (SELF): Gauges the rigid insistence upon solving personal, psychological, and physical problems entirely without external assistance, defining help-seeking as an intolerable admission of weakness or failure (e.g., “Asking for help is a sign of failure”).
• Primacy of Work (WORK): Evaluates the absolute prioritization of occupational duties, professional status, and vocational productivity over all other life domains, including health, family, and personal leisure (e.g., “My work is the most important part of my life”).
• Power Over Women (POW): Measures beliefs regarding the entitlement of men to exercise structural, interpersonal, and behavioral control, superiority, and dominance over women (e.g., “In general, I control the women in my life”).
• Disdain for Homosexuals (HOMO): Captures heteronormative defensiveness, homophobia, and an intense aversion to being perceived as gay, reflecting the historical cultural mandate equating true masculinity with compulsory heterosexuality (e.g., “I would be furious if someone thought I was gay”).
• Pursuit of Status (POS): Reflects the conscious pursuit of social prestige, prominence, high standing, and external recognition from peers and society (e.g., “It feels good to be important”).

Through this multi-component structure, the CMNI delineates the systemic tensions within masculine socialization. For instance, an individual might conform intensely to Primacy of Work and Winning without subscribing to Violence or Power Over Women, highlighting the theoretical necessity of evaluating masculine norms as a multidimensional matrix rather than a single continuous continuum.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the CMNI is rooted in social constructionism, contemporary gender role socialization theory, and R.W. Connell’s framework of hegemonic masculinity. Traditional trait theories of gender assumed that masculine characteristics were biologically ordained or fixed personality structures residing within the individual psyche. In contrast, social constructionist paradigms assert that gender is a dynamic, fluid, and culturally situated socio-historical system of meanings, expectations, and power hierarchies that individuals actively “perform” or negotiate within interpersonal contexts.

Mahalik and colleagues grounded the CMNI in Connell’s conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity, which posits that within any given historical period and cultural context, there exists an idealized, culturally dominant configuration of gender practice that legitimizes the global subordination of women and marginalizes non-conforming men. In dominant Western societies, hegemonic masculinity has traditionally demanded stoicism, heterosexuality, physical toughness, wealth accumulation, competition, and interpersonal dominance. Culturally, boys and men are socialized from early developmental stages through reinforcement, modeling, and severe social sanctions (e.g., peer rejection, bullying, emotional alienation) to internalize and display conformity to these dominant codes.

Furthermore, the CMNI integrates the Gender Role Strain Paradigm (GRSP) articulated by Joseph Pleck (1995). Pleck’s paradigm rests on several core propositions that challenge the functionalist “gender role identity” paradigm:

• Gender roles are inherently contradictory and inconsistent, placing unrealistic psychological demands upon individuals.
• A substantial proportion of individuals fail to fully conform to ideal gender roles, resulting in internal distress, devaluation, and social punishment.
• Conformity to certain gender roles is inherently dysfunctional, leading to compromised psychological well-being, interpersonal conflict, and heightened somatic vulnerabilities.
• Violating gender roles frequently elicits severe internal guilt, shame, and external social sanctions.

By incorporating Pleck’s framework, the CMNI evaluates conformity not merely as an intellectual philosophy or passive agreement with gender ideology, but as direct behavioral, affective, and cognitive enactment. It conceptualizes high conformity as a psychological commitment to enacting cultural scripts, which frequently induces profound behavioral rigidity. Consequently, the theoretical model posits that men who conform intensely to hegemonic norms often experience substantial psychological vulnerability when biological aging, economic instability, relationship breakdown, or physical illness impairs their ability to successfully execute those prescribed scripts.

7. Validity

The CMNI has undergone rigorous psychometric evaluation across diverse student, community, clinical, and international samples, establishing extensive evidence for its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the seminal validation study conducted by Mahalik et al. (2003), construct validity was established by evaluating correlations between CMNI subscales and pre-existing gender-related measures. The CMNI total score exhibited robust positive correlations with the Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS) total score (r = .57, p < .001) and its subscales, demonstrating that individuals who conform more strictly to masculine norms report elevated conflict related to restricted emotionality, success, power, and competition.

Furthermore, convergent validity was corroborated against the Brannon Masculinity Scale (BMS), demonstrating strong convergence with dimensions measuring emotional toughness, status, and anti-femininity. Subscale-level convergent validity is particularly strong: the CMNI Emotional Control subscale correlates powerfully with the GRCS Restricted Emotionality subscale (r = .71, p < .001), while the Winning subscale strongly aligns with the GRCS Success, Power, and Competition subscale (r = .63, p < .001). Conversely, the Power Over Women subscale exhibits substantial positive correlations with validated measures of sexist attitudes, including the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS) and the Neosexism Scale.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by demonstrating that CMNI subscales maintain low to non-significant associations with socially desirable responding as assessed by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (correlations typically ranging between -.08 and .12), indicating that participant responses reflect genuine self-appraisal rather than an artifact of impression management. Moreover, discriminant analyses conducted by Parent, Moradi, Rummell, and Tokar (2011) confirmed that conformity to masculine norms represents an empirically distinct construct from general personality traits (e.g., the Big Five taxonomy) and unmitigated agency, proving that the CMNI captures unique variance beyond standard trait psychology.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Extensive empirical research supports the predictive validity of the CMNI across numerous psychological, behavioral, and clinical domains:

• Psychological Distress and Depression: Meta-analytic investigations (e.g., Wong et al., 2017) demonstrate that specific CMNI subscales—most notably Self-Reliance, Emotional Control, and Playboy—exhibit moderate-to-strong positive correlations with clinical depression, generalized anxiety, and psychological distress.
• Help-Seeking Attitudes: High scores on Self-Reliance and Emotional Control consistently predict negative attitudes toward professional psychological help-seeking, reduced willingness to disclose emotional distress to physicians or therapists, and premature termination of counseling.
• Interpersonal Violence and Sexual Aggression: High scores on Power Over Women, Violence, and Playboy significantly predict self-reported sexual aggression, intimate partner violence perpetration, acceptance of rape myths, and hostile sexism.
• Health-Risk Behaviors: Elevated scores on Risk-Taking and Winning robustly predict heavy episodic alcohol abuse, illicit substance use, dangerous motor vehicle operation, and deliberate avoidance of routine preventative medical examinations.

8. Reliability

The Conformity to Male Norms Inventory exhibits outstanding internal consistency reliability and temporal stability across a broad spectrum of empirical investigations.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the original normative sample of 751 university men evaluated by Mahalik et al. (2003), the total CMNI score achieved a high Cronbach’s alpha of .94. The internal consistency estimates for the 11 individual subscales demonstrated strong reliability:

• Winning (WIN): α = .88
• Emotional Control (EMOC): α = .91
• Risk-Taking (RISK): α = .82
• Violence (VIOL): α = .84
• Power Over Women (POW): α = .87
• Dominance (DOM): α = .73
• Playboy (PLAY): α = .88
• Self-Reliance (SELF): α = .85
• Primacy of Work (WORK): α = .76
• Disdain for Homosexuals (HOMO): α = .90
• Pursuit of Status (POS): α = .72

All subscales comfortably exceed the conventional psychometric threshold of .70 for exploratory research, with nine of the 11 subscales exceeding .80, indicating high item homogeneity within each distinct latent construct.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability was evaluated by Mahalik et al. (2003) across a two- to three-week retest interval utilizing a collegiate subsample. The test-retest reliability coefficient for the aggregate CMNI total score was r = .95 (p < .001). Subscale test-retest coefficients demonstrated sustained stability across time:

• Winning: r = .93
• Emotional Control: r = .95
• Risk-Taking: r = .89
• Violence: r = .86
• Power Over Women: r = .93
• Dominance: r = .88
• Playboy: r = .94
• Self-Reliance: r = .89
• Primacy of Work: r = .88
• Disdain for Homosexuals: r = .96
• Pursuit of Status: r = .81

Subsequent psychometric examinations using diverse ethnic, racial, and sexual minority populations (e.g., Parent & Moradi, 2009, 2011) have continuously replicated acceptable to excellent reliability estimates across both full-length and abbreviated variants of the instrument.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the CMNI was established through systematic, multistage Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequently scrutinized via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial development phase, Mahalik et al. (2003) constructed an initial pool of over 700 potential items generated via comprehensive literature reviews, theoretical deduction, and focus groups. This pool was refined to 153 items and administered to an initial exploratory sample of 355 men. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) accompanied by Promax (oblique) rotation was executed, acknowledging that masculine norms, while conceptually separate, share underlying cultural intersections.

Scree plot examination, eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and conceptual interpretability supported an 11-factor solution. Items were retained only if they demonstrated salient factor loadings (≥ .35) on their primary theoretical factor and minimal cross-loadings (≤ .25) on non-target factors. This empirical reduction resulted in the definitive 94-item structure. The 11 factors accounted for approximately 49.3% of the total variance, demonstrating a clear, well-differentiated latent architecture.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Refinements

To evaluate whether the 11-factor structure generalized across independent populations, Parent and Moradi (2009) conducted comprehensive Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) on the full 94-item CMNI. While the theoretical 11-factor configuration was fundamentally validated, the original 94-item model exhibited marginal fit indices according to strict contemporary criteria (e.g., Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≈ .055–.060; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] ≈ .82–.85), primarily due to the large number of indicators per latent factor and minor residual item covariances.

Recognizing the need for a more parsimonious instrument for lengthy epidemiological survey batteries, Parent and Moradi (2009, 2011) applied rigorous item-response theory and CFA modification strategies to formulate abbreviated iterations, most notably the CMNI-46 (46 items; 9 factors) and the CMNI-22 (22 items). In the CMNI-46, the 11 factors were streamlined into 9 robust dimensions by eliminating items with redundant factor variance and combining or dropping unstable dimensions (such as Dominance and Pursuit of Status). The CFA for the CMNI-46 demonstrated superior fit across diverse demographic samples: χ²/df < 2.2, CFI ≥ .92, TLI ≥ .91, and RMSEA ≤ .046 (90% CI [.042, .049]). Nevertheless, the comprehensive 94-item CMNI remains the gold standard for clinical profiling and full-spectrum exploratory psychometrics where granular diagnostic resolution across all 11 unique masculine norms is required.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The 94-item CMNI is a multidimensional, self-administered psychometric assessment tool designed for adult and adolescent males aged 16 and older.

• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital/online administration.
• Target Population: Adolescent and adult men; cross-gender administrations have also been examined in comparative gender studies.
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes for the full 94-item instrument.
• Item Structure: 94 declarative statements reflecting attitudes, behaviors, and emotional scripts concerning social life, emotions, sex, work, violence, and status.
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert-type response format without a neutral midpoint to prevent equivocation:
  • Strongly Disagree (0)
  • Disagree (1)
  • Agree (2)
  • Strongly agree (3)
• Scoring Procedures:
  • The instrument incorporates both positively keyed items (reflecting conformity) and reverse-scored items (reflecting non-conformity or egalitarian beliefs). Reverse-scored items must be transformed prior to scale calculation (i.e., 0 = 3, 1 = 2, 2 = 1, 3 = 0).
  • Subscale scores are computed by summing or averaging the items mapped to each respective factor. Higher subscale scores denote greater conformity to that specific masculine norm.
  • An overall aggregate total score can be derived by summing all 11 subscale scores, representing global masculine norm conformity.
• Subscale Item Distributions:
  • Winning (WIN): Items 2, 12, 22, 31, 39, 48, 54, 67, 75, 89 (10 items)
  • Emotional Control (EMOC): Items 1, 14, 19, 27, 36, 43, 52, 65, 77, 88, 93 (11 items)
  • Risk-Taking (RISK): Items 11, 17, 24, 32, 40, 55, 60, 70, 82, 92 (10 items)
  • Violence (VIOL): Items 4, 15, 25, 34, 44, 62, 68, 79 (8 items)
  • Dominance (DOM): Items 6, 18, 69, 94 (4 items)
  • Playboy (PLAY): Items 3, 13, 28, 33, 38, 47, 58, 66, 72, 78, 83, 90 (12 items)
  • Self-Reliance (SELF): Items 10, 29, 45, 53, 74, 85 (6 items)
  • Primacy of Work (WORK): Items 8, 20, 30, 49, 56, 64, 76, 84 (8 items)
  • Power Over Women (POW): Items 9, 21, 35, 46, 57, 61, 71, 81, 86 (9 items)
  • Disdain for Homosexuals (HOMO): Items 5, 16, 23, 37, 42, 51, 63, 73, 80, 91 (10 items)
  • Pursuit of Status (POS): Items 7, 26, 41, 50, 59, 87 (6 items)

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Conformity to Male Norms Inventory (CMNI) was published in 2003 by the American Psychological Association (APA) in the flagship journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 3–25). The copyright for the academic publication is held by the American Psychological Association, while the underlying psychometric instrument was created by Dr. James R. Mahalik and co-authors.

The CMNI is generally accessible free of charge for non-commercial, academic, clinical training, and scientific research purposes. Researchers and clinicians intending to administer the full instrument or its abbreviated forms (e.g., CMNI-46, CMNI-22) are expected to obtain proper permission from the original lead author (Dr. James R. Mahalik at Boston College) or comply with standard APA fair-use scholarly attribution requirements. No standardized commercial fee or proprietary publisher paywall is required for non-profit academic thesis or dissertation research, provided appropriate scholarly citation is maintained.

12. References

• Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
• Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Gottfried, M., Scott, R. P., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
• Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Talmadge, W. T., & Scott, R. P. (2005). Using the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory to work with men in a clinical setting. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 661–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20099
• Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory. Sex Roles, 52(7–8), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3709-7
• Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory and the development of the CMNI-46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(3), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015481
• Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to masculine norms: Psychometric properties of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021904
• Parent, M. C., Moradi, B., Rummell, C., & Tokar, D. (2011). Evidence of construct distinctiveness for conformity to masculine norms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(4), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023837
• Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). Basic Books.
• Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038609
• Wong, Y. J., Ho, M. R., Wang, S. Y., & Miller, I. S. (2017). Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000176

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)