Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS)

1. Abstract

The Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS), developed by Donald R. McCreary and D. Kent Sasse in 2000, represents the gold standard psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s cognitive preoccupation with, and behavioral pursuit of, an increase in muscle mass and muscular definition. Historically, psychological research on body image and eating disorders focused almost exclusively on the “drive for thinness,” a construct heavily biased toward female populations seeking weight reduction and adipose tissue minimization. The DMS addressed a critical theoretical and clinical void by providing a psychometrically sound measurement tool tailored to the muscular mesomorphic body ideal predominantly pursued by adolescent boys and adult men, while also demonstrating significant applicability among women engaged in modern athletic and fitness subcultures.

The DMS is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that evaluates two distinct but correlated lower-order dimensions in males: Muscularity-Oriented Attitudes (evaluating internal subjective desires for increased muscular bulk, body dissatisfaction rooted in perceived muscular deficits, and cognitive beliefs linking muscularity to confidence and self-worth) and Muscle-Enhancing Behaviors (quantifying behavioral efforts to induce hypertrophy, such as weight training, hyper-caloric dietary adjustments, and nutritional or pharmacological supplement consumption). Items are scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 6 (“Always”). Psychometric evaluations across diverse adolescent, collegiate, competitive athletic, and clinical cohorts have consistently documented strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .85 to .91 for males and exceeding .80 for females), exceptional test-retest reliability across 7- to 10-day intervals (.84 to .96), robust factorial validity through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and clear convergent, discriminant, and known-groups validity. The DMS serves as an indispensable tool in clinical psychology, sports psychology, and public health for the early identification of body image disturbances, risk profiles for muscle dysmorphia, and the illicit use of anabolic-androgenic steroids.

2. Keywords

Drive for Muscularity Scale, DMS, body image, muscle dysmorphia, muscularity-oriented attitudes, muscle-enhancing behaviors, male body dissatisfaction, mesomorphic ideal, psychometrics, Donald R. McCreary, anabolic steroids, body dysmorphic disorder.

3. Authors

The Drive for Muscularity Scale was originated and psychometrically formalized by Donald R. McCreary, Ph.D., in collaboration with D. Kent Sasse, M.D., MPH.

Donald R. McCreary, Ph.D., is an internationally recognized social psychologist and research methodologist whose foundational scholarship has focused on men’s gender role socialization, male body image, health psychology, and operational stress within high-reliability organizations. Dr. McCreary has held academic and research appointments at Brock University (St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada), York University (Toronto, Canada), and Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC). His seminal contributions to psychometrics in body image literature reshaped modern paradigms surrounding gender-specific body ideals, demonstrating that male body dissatisfaction manifests predominantly as a desire for hyper-muscularity rather than emaciation. Dr. McCreary has authored numerous peer-reviewed empirical papers, book chapters, and psychometric reviews on the drive for muscularity.

D. Kent Sasse, M.D., MPH, FACS, FACRS, co-developed the instrument during his medical and epidemiological training. Dr. Sasse is an accomplished surgeon, clinical researcher, and author based in Reno, Nevada, affiliated with the University of Nevada School of Medicine. His clinical insights into adolescent physical development, surgical anatomy, and physiological outcomes contributed significantly to the conceptualization of the behavioral items embedded within the DMS, specifically regarding muscle hypertrophy behaviors, dietary supplementation, and perceived structural deficits.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Drive for Muscularity Scale is to quantify the cognitive, affective, and behavioral manifestations of an individual’s motivation to attain an increasingly muscular physique. Prior to the development of the DMS at the turn of the 21st century, empirical investigations into body image dissatisfaction were heavily dominated by clinical measures such as the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) and the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT). Although these legacy scales demonstrated exceptional utility for detecting anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and the classical “drive for thinness” common among females, they exhibited profound ceiling and floor distortions when administered to adolescent boys and adult men. The normative male body dissatisfaction pattern does not center upon becoming thin; rather, it revolves around the pursuit of a mesomorphic somatotype characterized by broad shoulders, well-developed pectorals, muscular arms, a narrow waist, and low body fat percentage.

Consequently, researchers who previously relied on thinness-oriented scales erroneously concluded that men experienced minimal body image distress. The DMS was specifically constructed to eliminate this assessment bias. It provides a standardized metric that captures:

• Subjective Muscularity Preoccupation: The subjective cognitive appraisal that one’s current physical frame is insufficiently muscular, regardless of objective physiological muscle mass, lean tissue distribution, or body composition.
• Compulsive Behavioral Routines: Hyper-focused muscle-enhancing regimens, including compulsive weightlifting routines, rigid adherence to high-protein or hyper-caloric nutrition, and reliance on commercial ergogenic dietary aids.
• Clinical Risk for Muscle Dysmorphia: Screening capability for pathological extremes of male body image disturbance, specifically muscle dysmorphia (historically referred to as “reverse anorexia” or “bigorexia”), an obsessive-compulsive variant of body dysmorphic disorder.
• Pharmacological Risk Identification: Early detection of cognitive precursors and attitudes favoring the acquisition and administration of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) and related unapproved performance-enhancing substances.
• Epidemiological and Sport Applications: Monitoring cross-sectional and longitudinal shifts in body image distress across recreational gym-goers, collegiate student-athletes, bodybuilders, and fitness subcultures across both sexes.

5. Psychological Construct

The overarching construct evaluated by the instrument is the Drive for Muscularity (DM). In contemporary psychometrics, DM is formally defined as an individual’s ongoing cognitive perception that their physique lacks sufficient muscular development and mass, coupled with a persistent desire and behavioral commitment to add bulk, density, and definition to their body frame, independent of their objective degree of adiposity or actual muscularity.

Importantly, the construct is bifurcated into two primary, theoretically distinct yet functionally intercorrelated domains, particularly among male cohorts:

Muscularity-Oriented Attitudes

This cognitive-affective dimension captures the psychological distress, body dissatisfaction, and perceptual distortions tied to muscularity. Individuals exhibiting elevated scores on this subscale experience profound cognitive preoccupation regarding their physical size. Key facets include:

• Perceived Anatomical Deficiencies: Targeted dissatisfaction with specific muscle groups, most notably the upper extremities (arms), the torso (chest), and the lower extremities (legs). Individuals experience an intrusive sense of physical inadequacy regardless of objective hypertrophy.
• Muscularity-Derived Self-Worth: The cognitive belief that interpersonal confidence, social dominance, romantic attractiveness, and personal self-efficacy are contingent upon acquiring greater muscle mass (e.g., believing that one would feel fundamentally more confident or look substantially better if one gained 10 pounds of muscle bulk).
• Psychological Dependence on Bulk: Emotional vulnerability characterized by shame, diminished self-esteem, or social physique anxiety when one perceives oneself as small, frail, or non-dominant in comparison to peers or media ideals.

Muscle-Enhancing Behaviors

This behavioral dimension encompasses the practical actions, compensatory strategies, and daily routines systematically executed to stimulate skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Key behavioral manifestations include:

• Resistance Training Compulsion: Lifting weights specifically to increase muscle size rather than solely for cardiovascular health, functional mobility, or athletic conditioning. A crucial psychopathological marker within this domain is the presence of exercise guilt, where individuals experience acute affective distress or cognitive interference if an established weight-training session is missed.
• Dietary Manipulation and Hyper-Caloric Ingestion: Conscious efforts to maintain a massive caloric surplus, adhering to rigid macronutrient protocols, and consuming substantial quantities of protein or weight-gain shakes to avoid catabolism and promote anabolism.
• Ergogenic and Pharmacological Supplementation: The routine consumption of commercial workout supplements, protein formulations, and creatine, extending into contemplation or execution of anabolic-androgenic steroid use to circumvent natural biological limits of muscular development.
• Functional and Social Interference: Allocation of excessive cognitive and temporal resources toward training schedules, often resulting in social withdrawal, disrupted occupational or academic responsibilities, and prioritization of gym regimens over interpersonal relationships.

Gender Nuances in the Construct

Although initially developed with a heavy emphasis on male adolescent and adult morphology, empirical research has confirmed that females also display measurable levels of drive for muscularity. However, the qualitative manifestation of the construct exhibits gender-specific divergence. In male populations, DM is primarily characterized by the pursuit of raw hypertrophic bulk, strength, and mesomorphic vascularity. Among female populations, elevated drive for muscularity often intersects with the cultural desire for a “toned,” firm, athletic, and fit physique without excessive bulk. Consequently, while the cognitive desire for muscular tone is robust in women, extreme behaviors such as consuming massive caloric surpluses or contemplating anabolic steroid use typically show lower baseline endorsement among females, producing distinct structural and factorial variations across sexes.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Drive for Muscularity Scale is rooted in an integration of several prominent psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary theories of human development, body representation, and gender identity.

1. The Tripartite Influence Model

Originally formulated by J. Kevin Thompson and colleagues (1999), the Tripartite Influence Model posits that body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviors stem from the pervasive influences of three primary sociocultural socialization agents: peers, parents, and mass media. When applied to the drive for muscularity, the model emphasizes that media depictions of men have experienced dramatic, hyper-muscular escalation over recent decades. Media representations—ranging from action hero cinema and superhero comic books to men’s fitness magazines and digital social media platforms—consistently portray unattainable, dehydrated, hyper-mesomorphic physiques as the cultural archetype of masculine success.

Through the dual psychological mechanisms of internalization of the muscular ideal and social comparison processes (Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory), individuals evaluate their actual physical self against this idealized standard. The resulting discrepancy produces negative self-directed affect, low self-esteem, and body dissatisfaction, which directly stimulates the cognitive and behavioral drive for muscularity measured by the DMS.

2. Gender Role Socialization and Hegemonic Masculinity

The construct of DM is inextricably intertwined with gender role socialization theories (e.g., Pleck’s Gender Role Strain paradigm; Mahalik’s Conformity to Masculine Norms). Western cultural scripts equate true masculinity with physical dominance, emotional fortitude, stoicism, and physical formidability. Connell’s conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity highlights that physical strength and muscular stature serve as visible somatic markers of masculine entitlement, authority, and power. Men who feel inadequate regarding traditional masculine gender role expectations often compensate by modifying their somatic presentation—using muscle bulk as armor against perceived emasculation or social vulnerability. Empirical investigations systematically show that conformity to specific masculine norms, such as dominance, winning, risk-taking, and status pursuit, correlates positively with DMS scores.

3. Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Muscle Dysmorphia

Within clinical psychopathology, the DMS aligns directly with the cognitive-behavioral conceptualization of muscle dysmorphia formalized by Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia (2000) under the umbrella of “The Adonis Complex.” This framework describes a cyclical feedback loop wherein individuals harbor core cognitive schema of physical frailty and inferiority. These maladaptive schemas generate intrusive, catastrophic thoughts regarding personal smallness, leading to compulsive compensatory behaviors (strenuous lifting, hyper-alimentation, steroid experimentation, mirror checking, and social physique avoidance). The behavioral subscale of the DMS captures the operationalization of these safety and compensatory behaviors, while the attitude subscale indexes the core cognitive vulnerability.

4. Evolutionary Psychology of Male Formidability

From an evolutionary perspective, human male morphology evolved under intense sexual selection pressures involving intrasexual competition (male-male combat and status contests) and intersexual mate choice. Skeletal muscle mass, upper-body strength, and the classic V-shaped torso served ancestral humans as honest phenotypic cues of genetic health, immuno-competence, pathogen resistance, and direct combat formidability. Consequently, modern psychological mechanisms naturally incline males to monitor their muscular standing relative to potential intrasexual competitors, providing an evolutionary substrate upon which modern sociocultural pressures amplify the drive for muscularity.

7. Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Drive for Muscularity Scale has been rigorously evaluated across dozens of empirical investigations worldwide, establishing exceptional construct, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Construct Validity

Construct validity has been verified through extensive factor analytic investigations, item-total correlation matrices, and assessments of potential confounding response biases. Analyses conducted by McCreary, Sasse, Sumnanth, and Currier (2004) demonstrated that in male cohorts, the DMS reliably decomposes into two coherent lower-order latent factors: Muscularity-Oriented Attitudes and Muscle-Enhancing Behaviors, both of which load onto a single higher-order global Drive for Muscularity latent construct. In addition, construct validity requires that self-report measures remain unaffected by systemic socially desirable responding. In a rigorous test conducted by Duggan and McCreary (2004) across self-selected samples of heterosexual and gay men utilizing Paulhus’s Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), DMS scores demonstrated non-significant correlations with both impression management and self-deceptive enhancement, confirming that DMS responses reflect genuine psychological self-appraisals rather than social desirability artifacts.

Concurrent and Known-Groups Validity

Concurrent validity evaluates the degree to which an instrument differentiates between natural groups that theoretically should display disparate levels of the target construct:

• Gender-Based Differentiation: Across dozens of independent studies, male cohorts systematically score significantly higher than female cohorts on overall DMS scores, as well as on nearly all individual behavioral and attitudinal items.
• Weight-Training vs. Non-Weight-Training Populations: McCreary and Sasse (2000) demonstrated a robust positive correlation (r = .24) between DMS scores and weekly resistance training frequency. Subsequent cross-sectional research (e.g., Rutsztein, 2004) confirmed that individuals who regularly engage in structured resistance training score substantially and significantly higher on both the attitude and behavior subscales than sedentary peers or individuals who engage strictly in cardiovascular exercise.
• Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Users: In a seminal investigation by Choi, Pitts, and Grixti (2005), weight trainers who actively abused anabolic steroids exhibited significantly higher DMS composite and behavioral scores than natural, non-steroid-using resistance trainers, confirming the instrument’s diagnostic sensitivity to severe, clinically significant manifestations of muscularity pursuit.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly demonstrated through significant correlations between the DMS and theoretically adjacent psychological, behavioral, and personality constructs:

• Alternative Muscularity Measures: Baxter and von Ranson established strong, statistically significant positive correlations between the DMS and scores on a modified gender-neutral version of the Swansea Muscularity Attitudes Questionnaire (SMAQ).
• Body Image Dimensions: Studies utilizing the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ; Holden et al., 2002; Davis et al., 2005) demonstrated that elevated DMS scores correlate positively with Appearance Orientation, Fitness Orientation, and Fitness Evaluation. Interestingly, Cafri and Thompson (2004) observed that DMS scores did not correlate with static muscular silhouette rating discrepancies, underscoring that the DMS measures a complex cognitive-behavioral drive rather than simple visual somatotype discrepancy.
• Self-Esteem and Psychological Well-Being: Among male samples, DMS scores demonstrate consistent, statistically significant negative correlations with global self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; Duggan & McCreary, 2004; McCreary & Sasse, 2000; Jacobs et al., 2004). Men with intense muscularity preoccupations frequently experience lower self-worth. Notably, this inverse association is generally absent or negligible in female cohorts.
• Personality Trait Profiles: Davis et al. (2005) demonstrated that higher DMS scores are positively and significantly linked with neuroticism, self-oriented perfectionism, and socially prescribed perfectionism, highlighting the obsessive cognitive control underlying the construct.
• Conformity to Masculine Norms: Significant positive associations have been confirmed between the DMS and the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003; McCreary et al., 2005), particularly norms emphasizing physical dominance, self-reliance, and emotional control.

Discriminant Validity

A psychometrically robust measure of drive for muscularity must be conceptually distinct from traditional measures of eating pathology and female-oriented body dissatisfaction. Because the drive for muscularity is not the polar opposite of the Drive for Thinness (DT), DMS scores should not be strongly negatively correlated with eating disorder indices. However, because visible skeletal muscle mass requires a relatively low layer of subcutaneous adipose tissue, individuals striving for muscular definition must also monitor their body fat. Consequently, psychometric evaluations (e.g., McCreary & Sasse, 2000) demonstrate low-to-moderate positive correlations (typically ranging between r = .30 and .40, sharing between 9% and 16% of common variance) between the DMS and measures such as the EDI Drive for Thinness subscale and the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26). This shared variance confirms that while lean definition requires fat control, the DMS measures an independent, specialized axis of body image modification distinct from classical anorexia or bulimia nervosa.

8. Reliability

The Drive for Muscularity Scale demonstrates exemplary reliability across multiple methodological indices, including internal consistency, item-homogeneity analyses, and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Extensive empirical testing across community, collegiate, and athletic populations has documented robust internal consistency reliability coefficients:

• Male Populations: In both initial validation studies and subsequent worldwide investigations, Cronbach’s alpha for the full 15-item DMS typically spans from .85 to .91. When evaluated at the subscale level in males, the Muscularity-Oriented Attitudes subscale routinely yields alphas between .84 and .88, while the Muscle-Enhancing Behaviors subscale demonstrates alphas between .81 and .87.
• Female Populations: In female samples, total scale internal consistency reliability consistently exceeds .80 (often falling between .82 and .86). Because the two-factor solution does not reliably split in females, the global alpha remains the primary metric of internal consistency.
• 14-Item Adaptation: In research designs where Item 10 (“I think about taking anabolic steroids”) is excluded—frequently done in studies of young adolescents or non-clinical populations where base rates of steroid ideation are negligible—alpha reliability remains exceptionally stable, ranging between .84 and .90.

Corrected Item-Total Correlations

Item-homogeneity assessments demonstrate that individual items correlate robustly with the composite scale score. Across diverse validation studies, corrected item-total correlations consistently range from .37 to .65. These values sit comfortably within the optimal range recommended by psychometric theorists (e.g., Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), confirming that every item contributes meaningfully to the latent construct without generating excessive, redundant multi-collinearity.

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

In a benchmark psychometric appraisal conducted by Cafri and Thompson (2004), the temporal stability of the DMS was evaluated over a 7- to 10-day test-retest interval among a representative sample of young adult men. The observed test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients were exceptionally high:

• Total DMS Score: r = .93
• Muscularity-Oriented Attitudes Subscale: r = .84
• Muscle-Enhancing Behaviors Subscale: r = .96

These findings prove that the DMS possesses outstanding temporal stability across short intervals while remaining sensitive to long-term behavioral interventions, clinical therapies, or experimental manipulations.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the Drive for Muscularity Scale has been rigorously evaluated utilizing both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across multiple international investigations.

Structural Discrepancy Across Genders

The definitive factor structure of the DMS was clarified by McCreary, Sasse, Sumnanth, and Currier (2004) through principal axis factoring and structural equation modeling:

Male Structural Model: Bifactorial Lower-Order / Unidimensional Higher-Order

In male populations, EFA with oblique rotations and CFA consistently reveal a robust two-factor lower-order structure that loads cleanly onto a single, dominant higher-order latent factor representing global Drive for Muscularity:

• Factor 1: Muscularity-Oriented Attitudes: Composed of 7 items assessing cognitive dissatisfaction, perceived muscular inadequacy, and desired size across anatomical sites (e.g., arms, chest, legs) and social-evaluative beliefs (confidence, appearance, bulk). Standardized factor loadings typically range between .52 and .82.
• Factor 2: Muscle-Enhancing Behaviors: Composed of 8 items indexing resistance training frequency, hyper-alimentation, protein shake consumption, ergogenic supplementation, exercise guilt, and steroid ideation. Standardized factor loadings typically range between .46 and .85.
• Model Fit: In CFA models specifying these two lower-order factors loading onto a single higher-order factor, the structural data demonstrate exceptional goodness-of-fit indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .92, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .90, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .06. Consequently, for male respondents, researchers may reliably report the total DMS score alongside distinct subscale scores for attitudes and behaviors.

Female Structural Model: Unidimensional Architecture

In sharp contrast to the clear bifactorial structure found in males, the two-factor solution does not replicate when the DMS is administered to female cohorts. In EFA and CFA analyses conducted with adolescent girls and women, the behavioral items exhibit unstable psychometric performance. Several behavioral items—most notably Item 5 (“I try to consume as many calories as I can in a day”), Item 8 (“Other people think I work out with weights too often”), and Item 10 (“I think about taking anabolic steroids”)—exhibit extremely low communalities, near-zero item endorsement rates, or split cross-loadings across factors.

Because traditional female muscle enhancement emphasizes muscular toning, firmness, and cardiovascular fitness rather than massive hyper-caloric ingestion or pharmacological mass building, these behavioral items fail to cluster into a cohesive “behavioral” construct in women. Consequently, structural equation modeling indicates that for female respondents, only a single, unified global Drive for Muscularity score should be calculated. Calculating separate attitude and behavioral subscale scores for women lacks empirical and structural validity.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Full Instrument Name: Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS)
• Originating Authors: Donald R. McCreary, Ph.D., and D. Kent Sasse, M.D., MPH
• Primary Publication Year: 2000 (comprehensive psychometric review in 2007)
• Instrument Format: 15-item self-report questionnaire (available in standard pencil-and-paper format or digital psychometric administration)
• Construct Assessed: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral drive to increase muscle mass, definition, and physical bulk
• Target Demographics: Adolescents (ages 12–18) and adult populations of both sexes; highly utilized across university students, recreational gym attendees, competitive athletes, and bodybuilders
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Response Format: 6-point Likert-type frequency rating scale:
• 1 = Never
• 2 = Rarely
• 3 = Sometimes
• 4 = Often
• 5 = Very Often
• 6 = Always
• Subscales (Applicable to Males Only):
• Muscularity-Oriented Attitudes (7 items): Items 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15
• Muscle-Enhancing Behaviors (8 items): Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
• All items are scored in a direct, forward direction (1 = Never to 6 = Always). Higher scores reflect greater drive for muscularity.
• Note on Historical Scoring: In some early papers, authors reverse-coded items such that 1 = Always and 6 = Never. Standard modern psychometric scoring uses direct scoring where higher values correspond directly to greater pathology or motivation.
• Mean Scoring: Recommended for cross-study comparisons. Calculate the average of all completed items (ranging from 1.0 to 6.0).
• Sum Scoring: Total scale scores range from 15 to 90 (or 14 to 84 if Item 10 is omitted).
• Subscale Scores (Males): Calculate the mean or sum of the respective items for the Attitude and Behavior subscales.
• Female Scoring: Only compute the global mean or total score. Do not interpret subscale breakdowns.
• 14-Item Alternative Version: Item 10 (“I think about taking anabolic steroids”) may be removed when surveying young adolescent samples or non-clinical groups where institutional review boards or base-rate considerations recommend against asking about illegal drug use. Psychometric reliability and factor structure remain essentially identical.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Drive for Muscularity Scale was first introduced to the scientific literature in 2000 by Donald R. McCreary and D. Kent Sasse in the Journal of American College Health, with its formal structural validation and psychometric properties published in 2004 in Psychology of Men & Masculinity, followed by Dr. McCreary’s definitive psychometric manual chapter in the 2007 American Psychological Association (APA) volume, The Muscular Ideal: Psychological, Social, and Medical Perspectives.

Licensing and Usage Permissions: The DMS is placed in the public academic domain for non-commercial educational, scientific, and clinical research purposes. No licensing fees or formal administrative payments are required to utilize the instrument in non-profit empirical research or clinical screenings. Dr. Donald R. McCreary’s explicit standing requirement for use of the scale is that researchers cite the foundational validation articles accurately and forward copies of any scientific manuscripts, journal publications, or conference presentations resulting from the use of the DMS directly to him for ongoing archival and psychometric meta-analytic tracking.

12. References

Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2004). Measuring male body image: A review of the current methodology. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.1.18

Choi, P. Y., Pitts, M. K., & Grixti, R. (2005). Anabolic-androgenic steroid use and the drive for muscularity: A comparison between users and non-users. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 8(4), 142.

Davis, C., Karvinen, K., & McCreary, D. R. (2005). Personality correlates of a drive for muscularity in young men. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.013

Duggan, S. J., & McCreary, D. R. (2004). Body image, eating disorders, and the drive for muscularity in gay and heterosexual men: The influence of social desirability. Journal of Homosexuality, 47(3–4), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v47n03_03

Holden, M. R., McCreary, D. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2002). The drive for muscularity: Factor structure and relations with gender role socialization and appearance orientation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., & 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

McCreary, D. R. (2007). The Drive for Muscularity Scale: Description, psychometrics, and research findings. In J. K. Thompson & G. Cafri (Eds.), The muscular ideal: Psychological, social, and medical perspectives (pp. 87–106). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11581-004

McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48(6), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480009596271

McCreary, D. R., Sasse, D. K., Sumnanth, P., & Currier, D. (2004). A factor analysis of the Drive for Muscularity Scale in men and women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.1.49

McCreary, D. R., Saucier, P. E., & Courtenay, W. H. (2005). The relationship between drive for muscularity and masculine gender role stress in men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.24

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Pope, H. G., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis complex: The secret crisis of male body obsession. Free Press.

Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10312-000

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)