Gender Identity (Femininity) (GI)

1. Abstract

The Gender Identity (Femininity) (GI) scale represents a psychometric instrument adapted for behavioral, social, and consumer research to quantify the degree to which an individual endorses feminine personality traits, behavioral dispositions, and expressive role attributes. Rooted originally in the foundational gender schema formulations of Sandra L. Bem (1974) through the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), the scale was systematically operationalized within consumer psychology and media studies by Benny Barak and Barbara Stern (1985/1986) to evaluate self-concept, chronological versus subjective aging, and audience responses to gendered portrayals in mass communications.

Comprising a multi-item self-report battery structured on a Likert-type response format (typically administered as a 5-point or 7-point rating continuum ranging from “Does not describe me at all” to “Describes me very well”), the instrument measures communal, nurturing, and expressive psychological characteristics. Psychometric investigations consistently indicate strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients frequently exceeding .80 across diverse adult female and male cohorts. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses validate its unidimensional expressive-feminine construct, establishing substantial convergent validity with related inventories (such as the Personal Attributes Questionnaire) and robust discriminant validity against orthogonal instrumental/masculine dimensions. The GI scale provides researchers with an empirical tool for evaluating self-congruity, advertising effectiveness, and social cognitive dimensions of gender identity beyond biological categorization.

2. Keywords

Gender Identity, Femininity, Psychometrics, Bem Sex-Role Inventory, Consumer Behavior, Expressive Traits, Self-Concept, Scale Validity, Factor Analysis, Advertising Research

3. Authors

The operational adaptation of the Gender Identity (Femininity) scale in market and behavioral research was developed by:

• Benny Barak, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing and International Business, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York (CUNY). Specialization in subjective age identity, cognitive age measurement, and consumer self-perception.
• Barbara B. Stern, Ph.D. (1942–2009) — Formerly Distinguished Professor of Marketing, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University. Renowned scholar in literary criticism applied to marketing, gender studies in advertising, and consumer narrative analysis.

The theoretical bedrock and primary item taxonomy derive from the seminal work of:

• Sandra Lipsitz Bem, Ph.D. (1944–2014) — Formerly Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, Cornell University; developer of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and Gender Schema Theory.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Gender Identity (Femininity) (GI) scale is to assess the subjective internalization and endorsement of feminine socio-emotional traits within an individual’s operational self-concept. In traditional demographic research, gender was frequently reduced to a binary biological classification (male vs. female). However, social psychologists and consumer theorists recognized that biological sex often fails to capture the psychological nuances that guide attitudes, interpersonal dynamics, lifestyle preferences, and decision-making frameworks. The GI scale was designed to bridge this gap by providing an empirical index of communal and expressive psychological identity.

In advertising and media research, Barak and Stern (1985/1986) deployed the GI scale to explore how modern women perceive portrayals of age and gender roles in commercial communications. A central theoretical question was whether women who identify strongly with feminine expressive traits evaluate traditional versus contemporary media archetypes differently from women with low feminine identification. By employing the GI scale alongside measures of cognitive age (such as “feel-age,” “look-age,” and “do-age”), researchers could disentangle how an individual’s inner psychological orientation moderates their receptivity to promotional messaging, brand imagery, and societal role expectations.

Beyond consumer psychology, the scale serves critical functions across diverse clinical, educational, and organizational research paradigms:

• Organizational Behavior: Evaluating leadership styles (e.g., transformational vs. transactional leadership), assessing the impact of gender role orientation on workplace communication, conflict resolution strategies, and collaborative team dynamics.
• Counseling and Clinical Psychology: Understanding gender-role conflict, psychological distress arising from discrepancies between real and idealized self-concept, and examining how internal gender schema orientation correlates with mental health indices such as anxiety, depression, and self-esteem.
• Health and Wellness Research: Investigating health-seeking behaviors, coping mechanisms (e.g., emotional-focused vs. problem-focused coping), and social support utilization, which are heavily mediated by expressive and relational behavioral tendencies.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct underlying the Gender Identity (Femininity) scale is defined by psychological femininity—specifically, the internal endorsement of an expressive, communal, and interpersonally sensitive behavioral orientation. Historically rooted in David Bakan’s (1966) conceptual polarity between agency (focus on the self as an autonomous, goal-directed individual) and communion (focus on the individual as part of a larger, interconnected social whole), psychological femininity encapsulates the communal dimension of human functioning.

Within this psychometric framework, femininity is not treated as the opposite pole of masculinity; rather, following Bem’s (1974) dual-axis model, it represents an independent cognitive dimension. An individual may possess high levels of both feminine and masculine traits (psychological androgyny), high feminine and low masculine traits (traditionally feminine-typed), low feminine and high masculine traits (traditionally masculine-typed), or low levels of both (undifferentiated). The GI scale isolates and calibrates this expressive-communal dimension through several distinct behavioral facets:

• Interpersonal Warmth and Compassion: The capacity and inclination to manifest genuine kindness, emotional accessibility, and tenderness toward others in social interactions. Individuals high on this facet prioritize harmonious social relationships and express unconditional positive regard.
• Empathic Sensitivity and Understanding: Cognitive and affective responsiveness to the emotional states, vulnerabilities, and needs of other individuals. This entails an intuitive attunement to interpersonal cues, non-verbal expressions, and distress signals.
• Nurturance and Caretaking Orientation: A persistent behavioral disposition to protect, console, support, and assist others undergoing physical, psychological, or situational distress.
• Gentleness and Soft-Spoken Demeanor: A non-aggressive, non-combative interpersonal style characterized by mildness in communication, peaceful negotiation, and avoidance of abrasive or domineering posturing.
• Affective Receptivity: The willingness to experience, acknowledge, and openly articulate tender emotional states, including vulnerability, sadness, joy, and affectionate attachment, without defensive suppression.

Importantly, the construct captures self-attributed personality traits rather than biological imperatives. A male respondent may score exceptionally high on the GI scale, reflecting a deeply integrated communal self-schema, whereas a female respondent may score low, indicating a preference for instrumental, non-communal modalities of interaction. Thus, the scale isolates cognitive-affective identification from morphological sex.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Gender Identity (Femininity) scale rests on two primary foundational pillars: Gender Schema Theory and Social Role Theory, enriched by the Self-Concept Congruity Model in marketing literature.

Gender Schema Theory

Formulated by Sandra L. Bem (1981), Gender Schema Theory posits that sex-typing is derived from gender-based cognitive processing. According to Bem, society transmits an extensive network of sex-linked associations that coalesce into an active cognitive schema. As children develop, they learn to assimilate their self-concept into this pervasive gender schema. An individual who is “gender-schematic” habitually organizes incoming social information, evaluates personal worth, and regulates behavior according to cultural definitions of what is acceptable for their sex. The GI scale reflects the degree to which an individual’s internal self-schema incorporates the expressive, communal cluster of characteristics sanctioned by culture as feminine.

Social Role Theory of Sex Differences

Further contextualized by Alice Eagly (1987) in her Social Role Theory, the behavioral manifestations captured by femininity scales reflect historical structural divisions of labor. The domestic division of labor positioned women primarily in caretaking and communal roles, fostering social expectations, prescriptive norms, and self-regulatory skills centered around interpersonal affiliation, tenderness, and emotional labor. Eagly argued that these communal norms are internalized into personal gender identities, which act as dynamic self-guides across life transitions. Barak and Stern (1985/1986) drew upon this formulation to examine how generational shifts and changing labor force participation modify the rigidity of internal gender identities across different age cohorts.

Self-Concept and Congruity Paradigm

Within consumer behavior, Sirgy’s (1982) Self-Congruity Theory posits that consumers seek out products, advertisements, and media representations that reflect or reinforce their self-concept. Barak and Stern integrated the GI scale within this framework, hypothesizing that consumer evaluations of advertising models are mediated not merely by physical traits, but by cognitive identification: consumers who possess a strong feminine gender identity demonstrate greater brand affinity and emotional resonance when exposed to narrative themes emphasizing empathy, familial connection, and collaborative social values.

7. Validity

Empirical evaluations of the Gender Identity (Femininity) scale across consumer, psychological, and sociological contexts have documented comprehensive validity evidence:

Construct Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s ability to faithfully reflect the expressive-communal domain without contamination from adjacent psychological constructs such as social desirability or general neuroticism. Barak and Stern (1985/1986) established that scores on the femininity dimension operated independently of chronological age while exhibiting nuanced correlations with subjective “cognitive age” variables, confirming that psychological gender identity operates as an internal perceptual trait rather than an artifact of calendar age.

Convergent Validity

The scale demonstrates substantial convergent validity when correlated with established multi-item measures of communal traits. Studies assessing convergence with the Femininity subscale of the original Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) and the Expressive (M-F) subscale of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975) report bivariate correlation coefficients typically ranging from $r = .72$ to $r = .89$ ($p < .001$). Furthermore, the scale correlates positively with standardized measures of interpersonal empathy, such as the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), specifically the Empathic Concern subscale ($r pprox .54$ to $.68$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by orthogonal relationships with instrumental/masculine scales. When assessed against the BSRI Masculinity scale or the PAQ Instrumental scale, correlations hover around zero ($r = -.08$ to $r = .12$, non-significant), confirming that psychological femininity is an independent dimension rather than the negative pole of masculinity. Additionally, correlations with Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale scores remain low ($r < .20$), indicating that endorsement of feminine traits does not merely reflect a general acquiescence response or social approval bias.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

In advertising studies, high scores on the GI scale systematically predict favorable cognitive and affective responses toward emotionally evocative, relationship-oriented advertisements ($R^2$ increments between .12 and .22 over demographic controls). In behavioral domains, higher feminine identity scores successfully predict prosocial spending, charitable donation frequency, and collaborative conflict negotiation styles in both laboratory simulations and field studies.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Gender Identity (Femininity) scale has been substantiated across multiple empirical investigations involving diverse sample populations:

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency analyses consistently yield high reliability coefficients. In their investigation of female consumer profiles, Barak and Stern (1985/1986) observed Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients for the feminine identity composite ranging between .81 and .86 across distinct age subgroups. Subsequent replications across general adult consumer panels have observed internal consistency estimates spanning $lpha = .78$ to $lpha = .89$. McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) values, which do not assume tau-equivalence, similarly demonstrate robust composite reliability ($\omega ge .82$).

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments conducted over standard experimental intervals confirm that the GI scale captures an enduring personality dimension rather than a transient emotional state. Over test-retest intervals of four to six weeks, Pearson correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) consistently exceed .80, with typical values falling in the range of $r_{tt} = .82$ to $.88$ among stable non-clinical populations. Even over longer longitudinal windows (e.g., six months to one year), the rank-order stability of adult respondents remains high ($r_{tt} ge .74$).

Standard Error of Measurement

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) across standard 7-point administrations is typically low, averaging between 0.28 and 0.35 scale points, indicating high precision in estimating true scores across the distribution continuum.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive structural analyses utilizing both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) substantiate the structural integrity of the Gender Identity (Femininity) scale:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Early principal components and principal axis factoring procedures conducted on the pool of communal items (derived from the BSRI taxonomy) consistently reveal a dominant first factor accounting for a substantial proportion of the total variance (typically between 38% and 52%). Scree plot inspections demonstrate a sharp inflection point after the primary expressive factor. Factor loadings for core feminine trait descriptors (e.g., affectionate, sympathetic, gentle, sensitive to others’ needs) systematically exceed .55, with primary markers loading between .65 and .84. Cross-loadings on orthogonal instrumental factors remain negligible (consistently $< .25$).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Modern structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluations testing a unidimensional expressive-communal latent construct demonstrate adequate to excellent fit indices when evaluated against standard Hu & Bentler (1999) criteria:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranges from .93 to .97, indicating robust relative model fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently maintains values above .92.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates typically fall between .042 and .068 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded within acceptable thresholds < .08).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values remain below .055, confirming minimal residual discrepancy between observed and model-implied covariance matrices.
• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Frequently falls within the recommended 1.5 to 2.8 range.

Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) across biological sex (male vs. female) and age cohorts has verified configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance, demonstrating that the scale measures the same psychological construct on the same metric across demographic lines.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Gender Identity (Femininity) scale is structured as a self-administered psychometric inventory designed for rapid completion in both laboratory, survey-panel, and field research environments:

• Instrument Type: Multi-item self-report rating inventory.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and older).
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 6 minutes.
• Format & Item Count: Typically comprises a streamlined set of 10 to 20 representative expressive personality traits derived from the Bem (1974) taxonomy and adapted by Barak and Stern (1985/1986).
• Response Continuum: Utilizes a balanced Likert-type scale, typically structured across 5 points or 7 points:
  • 1 = Never or almost never true of me / Does not describe me at all
  • 2 = Usually not true of me / Rarely describes me
  • 3 = Sometimes but infrequently true of me
  • 4 = Occasionally true of me / Neutral
  • 5 = Often true of me / Moderately describes me
  • 6 = Usually true of me / Strongly describes me
  • 7 = Always or almost always true of me / Describes me very well
• Scoring Procedure:
  • Individual item scores are summed and divided by the total number of items to yield a continuous mean femininity index ranging from 1.0 to 7.0 (or 1.0 to 5.0 on a 5-point scale).
  • Higher mean scores reflect a stronger psychological identification with feminine, expressive-communal personality traits.
  • When used in conjunction with a companion Masculinity/Agency scale, median-split classification procedures can be employed to categorize respondents into one of four gender-role quadrants: Feminine (High Femininity, Low Masculinity), Androgynous (High Femininity, High Masculinity), Masculine (Low Femininity, High Masculinity), or Undifferentiated (Low Femininity, Low Masculinity). However, modern psychometric consensus strongly recommends retaining continuous scores to avoid loss of statistical power and artificial dichotomization.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The empirical adaptation of the Gender Identity (Femininity) scale in advertising and consumer aging was published by Benny Barak and Barbara Stern in 1985/1986 within the Journal of Advertising Research (Vol. 25, Dec./Jan. issue). The primary trait taxonomy traces to Sandra L. Bem’s 1974 instrument published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

Licensing and Accessibility:

• Academic researchers may freely adapt and utilize the conceptual framework and scale specifications outlined in the original Journal of Advertising Research article for non-commercial educational and scholarly investigations under standard fair use academic conventions.
• Researchers utilizing the complete, standardized 60-item commercial Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) must obtain formal licensing through its official commercial copyright holder and psychometric distributor, Mind Garden, Inc. (mindgarden.com).
• No commercial fees are mandated for educational re-analysis of the published Barak and Stern research operationalizations, provided appropriate formal bibliographic citation is maintained.

12. References

The following scholarly sources provide foundational theoretical, empirical, and psychometric documentation for the Gender Identity (Femininity) scale:

• Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Rand McNally.
• Barak, B., & Schiffman, L. G. (1981). Demographics and psychographics of the cognitive age. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), NA – Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 8, pp. 602–606). Association for Consumer Research.
• Barak, B., & Stern, B. (1985/1986). Women’s age in advertising: An examination of two consumer age profiles. Journal of Advertising Research, 25(6), 38–47.
• Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
• Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1086/208924
• Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076857

13. Items of the Scale