See

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232476252

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the

Conformity to Masculine Norms
Inventory and Development of the
Conformity to Mas....

Article in Psychology of Men & Masculinity · July 2009

DOI: 10.1037/a0015481

CITATIONS READS

87 2,719

2 authors, including:

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

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mike C. Parent on 22 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 10, No. 3, 175–189 1524-9220/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0015481

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Conformity to Masculine

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

The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003) has
proven to be an important tool in advancing the study of masculinity. The authors of
the present study conducted the first factor analysis of the CMNI since its creation and
also developed a short form of the measure to facilitate its broader utility. Confirmatory
factor analysis of data from 229 men supported nine of the originally proposed CMNI
factors, but also suggested the removal of two factors (Dominance and Pursuit of
Status) that demonstrated relatively poor construct specificity, low factor loadings, and
weak reliability coefficients in this study and in prior research. The data also supported
elimination of low-loading items from other factors, resulting in an abbreviated version
of the CMNI with improved model fit, acceptable reliability coefficients, and high
correlations with corresponding original-form subscales. The CMNI-46 is discussed as
an efficient tool for assessing men’s conformity to masculine norms.

Keywords: masculine norms, masculine gender conformity, gender role attitudes,

reliability and structural validity, confirmatory factor analysis

The study of gender roles—the “patterns of
behavior that are culturally expected of ‘nor-
mal’ men and women” (Brehm, Miller, Per-
lman, & Campbell, 2002, p. 21)— has pro-
gressed from focusing on gender differences to
examining more complex relations of gender-
related ideologies with psychological well-
being and distress (Smiler, 2006). Within this
context, the study of masculinity has flourished,
and conceptual models and instruments have
been advanced to capture various aspects of
men’s masculine gender role conformity. In-
deed, masculine gender role-related constructs
have been linked to a host of psychological and
physical issues for men, including reluctance to
seek psychological help (Berger, Levant,
McMillan, Kelleher, & Sellers, 2005; Pender-
son & Vogel, 2007), expressions of hostility
(Jakupak, Tull, & Roemer, 2005), antigay atti-
Mike C. Parent and Bonnie Moradi, Department of Psy-
chology, Counseling Psychology Program, University of
Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Mike C. Parent, Department of Psychology, Box
112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
E-mail: michael.parent@ufl.edu
175
tudes (Wilkinson, 2004), poor dietary decisions
(Levi, Chan, & Pence, 2006), and, in children,
propensity to bully other children (Gini & Poz-
zoli, 2006). Such findings highlight the impor-
tance of assessing conformity to masculine
norms in psychological research and practice.
Some measures of masculine gender role
constructs focus on stress and conflict associ-
ated with adherence to traditional masculine
norms (e.g., Masculine Gender Role Stress
Scale [MGRS], Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Gen-
der Role Conflict Scale [GRCS], O’Neil,
Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986).
Measures that focus on the strains of masculin-
ity differ from measures that assess endorse-
ment of masculine ideology (for review, see
Smiler, 2004). Indeed, Mahalik et al. (2003)
observed that conformity to masculine norms
may not be negative in all contexts, and could
be adaptive in some situations. As such, a mea-
sure of conformity to a range of masculine
norms would be a useful compliment to existing
strain measures. Also, therapeutic approaches,
such as gender role analysis, call for helping
clients to examine adaptive and maladaptive
consequences of gender role conformity and
nonconformity (Brown, 1990; Philpot, Brook-
ers, Lusterman, & Nutt, 1997). Thus, a measure
176 PARENT AND MORADI

that assesses level of conformity to a broad
range of masculine norms would have clinical
and research utility.
To address the need for such a measure,
Mahalik et al. (2003) developed the Conformity
to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI). The
CMNI assesses level of conformity to mascu-
line norms and, as such, differs from measures
of the conflict or stress associated with such
norms (e.g., MGRS, GRCS). Furthermore, the
CMNI subsumes norms reflected in other mas-
culine norm conformity measures—mainly
those assessed by Thompson and Pleck’s (1986)
Male Role Norms Scale (i.e., status, toughness,
antifemininity) and Levant et al.’s (1992) Male
Role Norms Inventory (i.e., avoidance of fem-
ininity, restrictive emotionality, achievement/
status, aggression, self-reliance, homophobia,
nonrelational hypersexuality)—and, as dis-
cussed next, it assesses additional norms as well
(i.e., power over women, risk taking, primacy of
work).
Development and Use of the CMNI
The CMNI is grounded in Mahalik’s (de-
scribed in Mahalik et al., 2003) gender role
norms model, which posits that socially domi-
nant groups shape the gender role norms that are
communicated to individuals in a society. Indi-
viduals’ experiences of these gender role norms
and their level of conformity to such norms are
shaped by individual and group factors (e.g.,
personality, race/ethnicity), and there are costs
and benefits for conforming and not conforming
to gender role norms. The CMNI assesses con-
formity to 11 masculine norms (see Table 1);
these norms emerged from a series of rational
instrument construction methods and psycho-
metric evaluation. Specifically, Mahalik et al.
(2003) reviewed prior literature on traditional
masculinity to identify dominant cultural mas-
culinity norms, reasoning that “the expectations
of masculinity as constructed by Caucasian,
middle- and upper-class heterosexuals should
affect members of that groups and every other
male in U.S. society who is held up to those
standards” (p. 5). These norms were discussed
over an eight-month period in weekly focus
groups of counseling psychology graduate stu-
dents (three European American men, three Euro-
pean American women, one Haitian Canadian
woman, and one Asian American man). The
focus groups refined the norms, ultimately
agreed on 12 norms, and developed items to
assess those norms. Mahalik et al. (2003) pi-
loted these items with small samples to ensure
their interpretability.
These item development steps were followed
by psychometric evaluation with data from a

Table 1
Masculine Norms Assessed by the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI)
Subscale name Description Sample item
Emotional Control Emotional restriction and suppression “I tend to keep my feelings to myself”
Winning Drive to win “In general, I will do anything to win”
Playboy Desire for multiple or noncommitted sexual “If I could, I would frequently change sexual
relationships and emotional distance partners”
from sex partners
Violence Proclivity for physical confrontations “Sometimes violent action is necessary”
Self-reliance Aversion to asking for assistance “I hate asking for help”
Risk-taking Penchant for high-risk behaviors “I frequently put myself in risky situations”
Power Over Women Perceived control over women at both “In general, I control the women in my life”
personal and social levels
Dominance General desire to have personal control “In general, I must get my way”
over situations
Primacy of Work Viewing work as a major focus of life “My work is the most important part of my
life”
Pursuit of Status Being pleased with being thought of as “It feels good to be important”
important
Disdain for Aversion to the prospect of being gay, or “I would be furious if someone thought I
Homosexualsa being thought of as gay was gay”
a
Considerations regarding renaming the “Disdain for Homosexuals” subscale to “Heterosexual Self-presentation” are
described in the Discussion section.
 FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CMNI
predominantly White college student sample
(Mahalik et al., 2003). Specifically, an initial
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) resulted in
retention of 11 of the 12 masculine norms
(Physical Toughness was not supported, but as-
pects of Physical Toughness are reflected in
retained factors such as Risk-taking, Emotional
Control, and Violence). Subsequent EFAs of
the same data resulted in reduction of the item
pool from 144 to 94 items. Scores on the 11
masculine norm subscales yielded mostly low
to moderate intercorrelations, supporting the
multidimensionality of the CMNI. Also, CMNI
total scores were correlated moderately with
GRCS and MGRS total scores, supporting the
distinctiveness of the constructs assessed by
these measures. Cronbach’s alphas for CMNI
subscale items ranged from .72 to .91, and it
was .92 for all items. Two- to three-week test–
retest reliability coefficients for CMNI sub-
scales were variable, ranging from .51 to .96,
with a median value of .80. Thus, initial reli-
ability and validity evidence was promising in a
primarily White student sample.
Since its development, the CMNI has been
used to study adaptive and maladaptive corre-
lates of men’s adherence to masculine norms.
Across samples of predominantly White men,
CMNI dimensions have been linked with rape
myth acceptance, health-risk behaviors such as
smoking and problem drinking, relationship
dissatisfaction, negative attitudes toward help-
seeking, greater propensity to cope with depres-
sion through drinking, and lower propensity to
cope with depression through talking with a
wife, partner, or mental health professional
(Burn & Ward, 2005; Good et al., 2006, 2008;
Locke & Mahalik, 2005; Mahalik, Burns, &
Syzdek, 2007; Mahalik & Rochlen, 2006).
Links of CMNI scores with health risk behav-
iors, such as substance use, also have been
replicated with Asian American, Australian,
and Kenyan men (Liu & Iwamoto, 2007;
Mahalik, Lagan, & Morrison, 2006; Mahalik,
Levi-Minzi, & Walker, 2007). Beyond such
maladaptive correlates, in predominantly White
samples, CMNI dimensions have been linked
with college students’ vocational interests
(Mahalik, Perry, Coonerty-Femiano, Catraio, &
Land, 2006), interacted with type of cancer
treatment to predict self-reported physical well-
being of men with prostate cancer (Burns &
Mahalik, 2008), and were correlated with adap-
177
tive behaviors such as exercising to cope with
depression and greater independence in daily
living tasks following hospitalization for brain
or spinal injury (Good et al., 2006; Mahalik &
Rochlen, 2006). These findings highlight that
multidimensional assessment of masculine
norms can reveal both adaptive and maladaptive
correlates of such norms.
Need for Reexamination of the Structure
of CMNI Data
In light of its demonstrated promise, further
refinement of the CMNI to advance its psycho-
metric strengths and increase its practical utility
is important for future research and practice
with men. Specifically, the factor structure of
CMNI data has not been examined beyond the
EFA conducted during its initial development.
Further attention to the structural properties of
the CMNI is needed for three reasons. First,
following EFA, confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) is recommended for assessing cross-
sample structural stability of data produced by a
measure in order to guide further theoretical and
measurement refinement (Worthington & Whit-
taker, 2006). Second, the 94-item length of the
CMNI may represent a response burden that
prohibits its use in research and practice. In-
deed, study-specific strategies for shortening the
CMNI are emerging, with researchers using the
one or two highest-loading items of each CMNI
subscale to generate an abbreviated CMNI total
score (e.g., Mahalik, Burns, et al., 2007; Roch-
len, McKelley, Suizzo, & Scaringi, 2008). But
these strategies lose the CMNI’s multidimen-
sionality and have yielded lower-than-accept-
able reliability coefficients. These low reliabil-
ity coefficients are likely a result of collapsing
conceptually distinct dimensions of masculinity
that, as discussed previously, have low to mod-
erate intercorrelations. Thus, a short form of the
CMNI that retains the empirical strengths of the
original version would be a useful addition to
the literature.
Relatedly, CMNI subscales vary widely in
length, ranging from 4 to 12 items. The overall
length and variability in subscale length of the
CMNI resulted from retaining items in the ini-
tial EFA that met absolute cutoffs for factor
loadings (greater than .40) and cross-loadings
(less than .30; Mahalik et al., 2003). Most items
met these criteria, but retained items varied in
178 PARENT AND MORADI
the magnitude of their factor loadings (.40 to
.79). Thus, strong and distinct factor indicators
were retained along with relatively weaker and
structurally more ambiguous indicators. CFA of
the CMNI can guide retention of the strongest
and most clear factor indicators to yield sub-
scales that are more clear and parsimonious
reflections of the underlying constructs. Such
instrument length optimization can prevent pro-
liferation of study-specific abbreviations of the
CMNI and provide a standard short form that
retains the depth and breadth of the constructs
assessed.
Finally, CFA of the CMNI data can guide
refinements to address conceptual and psycho-
metric limitations evident in prior research.
Specifically, Mahalik et al. (2003) observed
problems with the Dominance and Pursuit of
Status subscales. First, Dominance and Pursuit
of Status scores were not correlated signifi-
cantly with social dominance orientation, which
was a convergent validity indicator. Second,
Pursuit of Status scores were generally uncor-
related with scores on another measure of mas-
culine norms; by contrast, other CMNI subscale
scores were correlated more consistently with
scores on this convergent validity indicator
(Mahalik et al., 2003). Third, across four age
cohorts (undergraduates to older adults), Pursuit
of Status was the only subscale that did not
differentiate between women and men for any
age group (Smiler, 2006). Thus, tests of the
validity of Dominance and Pursuit of Status
challenge their conceptualization as specific di-
mensions of masculine norms.
These conceptual and validity problems with
Dominance and Pursuit of Status were com-
pounded with structural and reliability prob-
lems. Specifically, in Mahalik et al.’s (2003)
measurement development study, 8 of the 12
items intended for the Dominance subscale
loaded primarily onto other factors, cross-
loaded to an unacceptable degree, or did not
meet the factor loading cutoff for any factor.
This pattern suggests that Dominance was dif-
fuse and subsumed into other CMNI factors. In
fact, only 4 of the original 12 Dominance items
were retained, and these retained items had fac-
tor loadings that were lower (.40 –.43) than
those of items for other factors. Low reliability
is also a concern across samples for Dominance
items, with Cronbach’s alphas generally in the
.50s and .60s (Liu & Iwamoto, 2007; Mahalik,
Levi-Minzi, et al., 2007; Mahalik et al., 2003;
Mahalik & Rochlen, 2006; Tager & Good,
2005), although Smiler (2006) reported an alpha
greater than .70 (but did not report the exact
value). Similar concerns are evident about Pur-
suit of Status as well. Specifically, in the instru-
ment development study, 4 of the 12 original
Pursuit of Status items loaded onto other factors
or did not load onto any factor. Also, across
samples, Pursuit of Status items have yielded
low reliabilities, with Cronbach’s alphas in the
low .60s and .70s in two studies (Mahalik et al.,
2003; Smiler, 2006), but an alpha of .80 in a
third study (Tager & Good, 2005). Thus, con-
sistent with the validity problems for Domi-
nance and Pursuit of Status, structure and reli-
ability problems challenge the interpretability
of these two subscales as cohesive and distinc-
tive masculine norms.
In contrast to the conceptual and psychomet-
ric concerns about Dominance and Pursuit of
Status, for the other nine CMNI subscales, items
loaded more cleanly onto their intended factors
in the instrument development sample, and
Cronbach’s alphas have typically been in the
.80s and .90s across samples (Liu & Iwamoto,
2007; Mahalik, Levi-Minzi, et al., 2007;
Mahalik et al., 2003; Mahalik & Rochlen, 2006;
Tager & Good, 2005). In terms of validity,
CMNI subscale scores, other than Pursuit of
Status, were correlated with total scores and
with scores on multiple conceptually relevant
subscales of the masculine norms convergent
validity indicator (Mahalik et al., 2003). Thus,
structural and convergent validity evidence
from the instrument development sample, as
well as reliability evidence across samples, sup-
ports most of the CMNI subscales. But, the
aforementioned psychometric and conceptual
considerations suggest the need to reevaluate
the Dominance and Pursuit of Status subscales
and reexamine the structure of the CMNI.
Summary and Purpose of the
Present Study
The CMNI is a promising tool for assessing
masculine norm conformity. Empirically
grounded measurement refinement that can re-
tain the depth and breadth of the constructs
assessed by the CMNI, and also optimize its
reliability and structural properties, can facili-
tate continued attention to masculine norms in
 FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CMNI
research and practice with men. The present
study addresses these aims through two specific
objectives. First, CFA is used to investigate the
replicability of Mahalik et al.’s (2003) factor
structure for the CMNI. Second, findings are
used to inform model and instrument refinement
and to examine the prospect of reducing the
overall length of the CMNI to make it more
versatile and suitable for use in research and
practice.
Method
Participants
Data from 229 undergraduate men from a
large Canadian university were analyzed in the
present study. Participants ranged in age
from 18 to 45 years (M ⫽ 19.95, SD ⫽ 3.23,
Mdn ⫽ 19.00). Participants identified as White
(59%), Asian or Asian American (23%), Afri-
can or African American (4%), Hispanic or
Hispanic American (1%), Biracial or Multira-
cial (4%), other race/ethnicity (7%), or did not
report their identification (3%).1 Sexual orien-
tation was assessed using a free-response ques-
tion, allowing for open-ended expression of
identification; 35 participants chose not to dis-
close a sexual orientation, and 17 provided re-
sponses that were not codeable either because of
apparent misunderstanding of the question (e.g.,
“only with my wife”) or idiosyncrasy of re-
sponse (e.g., “sexual”). Of the participants who
disclosed a codeable sexual orientation, 92%
identified as heterosexual or attracted to
women, 5% identified as attracted to both sexes
but primarily to women, 2% identified as bisex-
ual, less than 1% identified as attracted to both
sexes but primarily to men, and 1% identified as
gay or attracted to men.
Instruments
CMNI. Participants completed the CMNI
(Mahalik et al., 2003). The 94 CMNI items are
rated on a 4-point scale (0 ⫽ strongly disagree
to 3 ⫽ strongly agree). Appropriate items were
reverse-scored, and item ratings were added to
obtain subscale and total scale scores. Cron-
bach’s alphas with the present sample were
similar to those that Mahalik et al. (2003) ob-
tained (see Table 2). Bonferroni-corrected t
tests, with alpha adjusted to .004 (.05/12), indi-
179
cated that CMNI means in the present sample
were comparable to those in Mahalik et al.’s
(2003) sample of men. Specifically, of the 12
subscale and total scale scores, only two dif-
fered significantly across samples; Mahalik et
al.’s (2003) sample’s mean for Playboy
was 1.39 points (of 36 possible points) lower,
t(979) ⫽ ⫺3.09, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ .24, and its mean
for Power over Women was 1.97 points (of 27
possible points) higher, t(979) ⫽ 6.09, p ⬍
.001, d ⫽ .48, than that of the present sample.
Thus, means were comparable across the two
samples (see Table 2).
Procedure
A total of 249 men were recruited for this
study and received credit in their introduction to
psychology course in exchange for participa-
tion. Before beginning the survey, participants
received and signed consent forms indicating
that they would be completing a questionnaire
about masculinity. Administrations occurred
with 15 to 25 people at a time and in a room
large enough to place each person at a separate
table. To provide fair opportunity for earning
course credit, women were offered a different
questionnaire. After completing the survey, par-
ticipants received a debriefing form and the
researchers’ contact information for follow-up
questions. Based on preliminary data screening
(detailed next), 20 cases were removed, result-
ing in a sample size of 229 for the present
analyses.
Results
Suitability for Confirmatory
Factor Analysis
We first examined the data for missing val-
ues. Five participants missing more than 20% of
data on a subscale were dropped from analyses.
For the remaining participants, the individual
participant’s subscale mean was substituted for
missing data in the corresponding subscale.
This procedure is acceptable when the volume
1
For this Canadian sample “American” refers to North
American. We recognize that some Canadian individuals
might prefer the modifier “Canadian” to “American” but we
chose to use the identity labels reflected in the response
choices on the demographic questionnaire.
180 PARENT AND MORADI

of missing data is low and reliability is good

0.91
0.88
0.88
0.84
0.85
0.82
0.87
0.76
0.90
0.73
0.72
0.94
␣
Mahalik et al.
(Schafer & Graham, 2002); advantages of this

0.89 14.89 5.66

0.86 16.91 5.10
0.85 12.06 6.05
0.86 12.38 3.96
6.63 2.81
0.85 16.58 3.61
0.83 10.59 4.46
8.97 3.28
0.91 17.74 6.65
5.84 1.88
0.69 11.85 2.43
0.92 134.45 24.64
procedure over other methods are also demon-
(2003)
SD
strated (Dodeen, 2003). One data point was
replaced for 20 participants, two data points
M

were replaced for four participants, and three

data points were replaced for three participants.
0.85

0.76

0.63
␣

The data met guidelines for univariate nor-

Current study

mality as outlined by Weston and Gore (2006).

15.54 4.93
16.54 4.68
13.45 5.65
12.05 4.17
6.95 3.01
16.32 3.99
8.62 3.65
9.15 3.29
18.71 6.22
6.15 1.67
11.77 2.17
135.24 22.27
SD

In terms of multivariate normality, 15 cases had

Mahalanobis distances that were significant at
p ⬍ .001, suggesting that they were multivariate
M

outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996); these 15

0.38ⴱⴱ cases were removed from the data prior to
11

analyses.
The final sample size of 229 exceeded
0.44ⴱⴱ
0.50ⴱⴱ

Kline’s (2005) recommendation of at least

10
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the 94-Item Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI)

200 cases for CFA but did not meet Bentler

and Chou’s (1987) recommended minimum
0.13 0.27ⴱⴱ

0.14ⴱ 0.59ⴱⴱ
0.12 0.10

of five cases per parameter estimated. Never-

9

theless, other researchers have averred that

0.30ⴱⴱ ⫺0.11

sample sizes of 200 are adequate for CFA

8

(e.g., Quintana & Maxwell, 1999). Also,

models with greater degrees of freedom re-
0.31ⴱⴱ

0.61ⴱⴱ
0.10

0.08

quire smaller sample sizes to achieve higher

7

power than do models with fewer degrees of

0.18ⴱⴱ

0.21ⴱⴱ
0.18ⴱⴱ
0.26ⴱⴱ
0.48ⴱⴱ

freedom (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara,

⫺0.07
6

1996). Indeed, MacCallum et al. (1996) re-

ported that as degrees of freedom approach
0.31ⴱⴱ
0.14ⴱ

0.24ⴱⴱ ⫺0.16ⴱ

100, with a sample size of 200, power is

0.01
0.08
0.00

0.05
5

between .87 and .96. The degrees of freedom

for the least complex model tested in the
0.32ⴱⴱ
0.33ⴱⴱ

0.23ⴱⴱ
0.27ⴱⴱ

0.60ⴱⴱ
0.15ⴱ

present study (df ⫽ 953) was substantially

⫺0.10
4

higher than 100, thus the present sample size

was adequate for the analyses.
0.28ⴱⴱ

0.20ⴱⴱ
0.41ⴱⴱ

0.56ⴱⴱ
0.16ⴱ
0.16ⴱ
0.14ⴱ ⫺0.02

0.03
0.08
3

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

0.22ⴱⴱ
0.32ⴱⴱ

0.31ⴱⴱ
0.27ⴱⴱ

0.37ⴱⴱ
0.41ⴱⴱ
0.36ⴱⴱ
0.67ⴱⴱ
0.04
2

Maximum likelihood estimation was used to

conduct CFAs. To evaluate model fit, we fol-
0.23ⴱⴱ
0.23ⴱⴱ
0.25ⴱⴱ
0.36ⴱⴱ

0.22ⴱⴱ

0.21ⴱⴱ

0.54ⴱⴱ

lowed recommendations to report the ␹2 statis-

0.03

0.00

0.13
0.01
1

tic with degrees of freedom and significance

level, the root mean square error of approxima-
Disdain for Homosexuals

tion (RMSEA) with 90% confidence interval

Power Over Women

p ⬍ .01

(CI), the standardized root-mean-square resid-

Emotional Control

Primacy of Work

Pursuit of Status

ual (SRMR), and the comparative fit index

Subscale

Self-reliance

(CFI; e.g., Kline, 2005; Worthington & Whit-

CMNI total
Risk-taking

Dominance

ⴱⴱ
Violence

taker, 2006). For sample sizes of less than 500,

Winning
Playboy

p ⬍ .05.

RMSEA and SRMR values of less than .10 and

Table 2

CFI values greater than .90 suggest an accept-

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

able fit (Weston & Gore, 2006).

ⴱ
 FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CMNI
CFA of the Original Structure of
the CMNI
The first model tested included all CMNI
items, loading onto their intended latent con-
struct according to Mahalik et al.’s (2003) 11-
factor model, with latent factors allowed to cor-
relate. The chi-square statistic for this model
was ␹2(4222, N ⫽ 229) ⫽ 7089.30, p ⬍ .001.
Acceptable data-model fit was suggested by the
RMSEA (.055, 90% CI ⫽ .052, .057) and
SRMR (.0774), but unacceptable fit was sug-
gested by the CFI (.71). The relatively poorer
CFI is consistent with simulation study findings
that, in correctly specified models, CFI tends to
decline whereas absolute fit indices (e.g.,
RMSEA, SRMR) tend to improve with in-
creases in the number of variables in the model
(Kenny & McCoach, 2003). Still, the low CFI
value challenges the fit of the original 11-factor
CMNI model. Table 3 presents item factor load-
ings and uniquenesses, and Table 4 presents
latent variable intercorrelations. Items loaded
significantly onto their intended factors, but
Dominance and Pursuit of Status items gener-
ally had lower loadings than did items loading
onto other factors. These lower loadings of
Dominance and Pursuit of Status items were
consistent with the lower Cronbach’s alphas
(see Table 1) for items on these subscales (.63
and .69) relative to that for other subscale items
(mostly in the .80s).
Exploring a Short Form of the CMNI
Consistent with Worthington and Whittaker’s
(2006) suggestion to examine factor loadings as
a criterion for item retention in instrument
length optimization, we considered as candi-
dates for deletion those items that had the low-
est loadings on their intended factor. Specifi-
cally, we retained items with loadings of .60 or
greater on their intended factors. This criterion
was chosen because it resulted in retention of
the strongest indicators of the latent constructs
of interest while, for most subscales, also satis-
fied conventional guidelines for a sufficient
number of items (i.e., three or more; Worthing-
ton & Whittaker, 2006). Exceptions were that
this step resulted in the elimination of the Dom-
inance and Pursuit of Status subscales because
most of their items did not meet the .60 cutoff.
Overall, a total of 44 relatively lower-loading
181
items were eliminated. But, the number of items
was still variable across subscales in this
trimmed measure. Specifically, Emotional Con-
trol retained nine items and Disdain for Homo-
sexuals retained seven items, whereas the other
subscales retained between four and six items.
Because we were interested in optimal subscale
length and Emotional Control and Disdain for
Homosexuals each had more high-loading items
than did the other subscales, we eliminated
three additional lowest-loading Emotional Con-
trol items (items 19, 27, and 93, with loadings
of .63, .63, and .62, respectively) and one addi-
tional lowest-loading Disdain for Homosexuals
item (item 63, with a loading of .64). These item
eliminations resulted in more uniform subscale
lengths of four to six items and a total of 46
items for the CMNI-46.
Table 5 presents subscale correlations,
means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s al-
phas for the CMNI-46, as well as the correlation
between corresponding original and short form
subscales. This shortening of the measure resulted
in acceptable data-model fit on all fit indexes,
␹2(953, N ⫽ 229) ⫽ 1414.30, p ⬍ .001;
RMSEA ⫽ .046, 90% CI ⫽ .041, .051;
SRMR ⫽ .0591; CFI ⫽ .90. Factor loadings and
uniquenesses for items on the CMNI-46 are
presented in Table 6, and latent variable inter-
correlations are presented in Table 4.
Evaluating Item Elimination Decisions
Against Mahalik et al.’s (2003) Findings
To evaluate the stability of our factor load-
ings and resultant item elimination decisions,
we compared our factor loadings against the
loadings obtained by Mahalik et al. (2003) (de-
tails obtained from J. R. Mahalik, personal com-
munication, April 16, 2008). Some variability in
factor loadings is expected across our CFA of
the 94-item CMNI and Mahalik et al.’s (2003)
EFA, because the factor loadings that Mahalik
et al. (2003) reported were from an EFA of 132
items (that is, before low-loading items were
deleted). As such, factor loadings for the 94
retained CMNI items might have shifted
slightly after Mahalik et al. (2003) eliminated
poorer items. Nevertheless, consistency be-
tween Mahalik et al.’s (2003) findings and our
findings would provide additional support for
our item elimination decisions to form the
CMNI-46. There was substantial consistency in
182 PARENT AND MORADI

Table 3
Eleven-Factor Solution for the 94-Item Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI), Proposed by
Mahalik et al. (2003)
Mahalik Mahalik Mahalik
et al. Current study et al. Current study et al.
Current study
Item Item Item
number Loading Loading Uniqueness number Loading Loading Uniqueness number Loading Loading Uniqueness
Emotional Control items Violence items Dominance items
52 ⫺0.79 0.79 0.37 44 0.65 0.80 0.37 18 ⫺0.43 0.60 0.64
77 ⫺0.77 0.76 0.42 79 0.64 0.79 0.37 94 ⫺0.43 0.56 0.68
65 ⫺0.74 0.74 0.45 62 0.57 0.73 0.47 6 ⫺0.41 0.56 0.68
43 ⫺0.55 0.68 0.53 25 0.49 0.65 0.57 69 ⫺0.40 0.48 0.77
36 ⫺0.61 0.68 0.54 15 0.67 0.63 0.60 Primacy of Work items
88 ⫺0.63 0.66 0.57 68 0.64 0.62 0.62 30 0.64 0.72 0.49
19 ⫺0.63 0.63 0.61 34 0.55 0.55 0.70 64 0.56 0.69 0.53
27 ⫺0.73 0.63 0.61 4 0.53 0.50 0.75 76 0.57 0.68 0.54
93 ⫺0.61 0.62 0.62 Self-reliance items 49 0.66 0.66 0.56
1 ⫺0.50 0.56 0.69 85 0.62 0.80 0.36 84 0.50 0.45 0.79
14 ⫺0.54 0.40 0.84 10 0.62 0.76 0.42 56 0.41 0.39 0.84
Winning items 53 0.62 0.70 0.51 20 0.48 0.39 0.85
48 0.70 0.73 0.46 74 0.51 0.68 0.54 8 0.46 0.34 0.88
54 0.71 0.69 0.52 29 0.53 0.67 0.55 Pursuit of Status items
39 0.68 0.68 0.53 45 0.62 0.56 0.69 50 0.42 0.66 0.56
22 0.61 0.65 0.58 Risk-taking items 26 0.51 0.58 0.66
67 0.68 0.65 0.58 24 0.77 0.78 0.39 87 0.44 0.51 0.74
2 0.61 0.62 0.62 40 0.64 0.72 0.48 7 0.49 0.51 0.74
89 0.57 0.59 0.66 17 0.65 0.70 0.51 59 0.43 0.44 0.81
75 0.53 0.58 0.66 60 0.60 0.70 0.52 41 0.55 0.43 0.81
31 0.73 0.55 0.69 70 0.47 0.67 0.56 Disdain for Homosexuals items
12 0.56 0.54 0.71 82 0.42 0.55 0.70 51 ⫺0.77 0.89 0.20
Playboy items 55 0.44 0.53 0.72 37 ⫺0.70 0.87 0.24
47 0.67 0.80 0.36 32 0.52 0.52 0.73 42 ⫺0.66 0.85 0.27
3 0.77 0.79 0.38 11 0.41 0.49 0.76 73 ⫺0.70 0.73 0.47
72 0.65 0.79 0.38 92 0.55 0.49 0.76 16 ⫺0.67 0.71 0.49
33 0.64 0.62 0.62 Power Over Women items 91 ⫺0.63 0.68 0.54
28 0.60 0.59 0.65 81 0.48 0.73 0.46 63 ⫺0.60 0.64 0.59
58 0.57 0.58 0.66 86 0.53 0.73 0.47 5 ⫺0.75 0.58 0.66
38 0.50 0.58 0.67 46 0.47 0.62 0.62 80 ⫺0.49 0.49 0.76
83 0.45 0.55 0.70 61 0.58 0.62 0.62 23 ⫺0.60 0.48 0.77
90 0.57 0.44 0.81 35 0.57 0.58 0.67
78 0.45 0.35 0.88 57 0.58 0.57 0.68
66 0.45 0.34 0.88 71 0.49 0.54 0.71
13 0.55 0.27 0.93 21 0.49 0.53 0.72
9 0.50 0.47 0.78
Note. All factor loadings for the current data are significant at p ⬍ .01. Item numbers reflect numbering in 94-item CMNI.
Fit indexes: ␹2(4222, N ⫽ 229) ⫽ 7089.30, p ⬍ .001; root mean square error of approximation ⫽ .055, 90% confidence
interval ⫽ .052, .057; standardized root-mean-square residual ⫽ .0774; comparative fit index ⫽ .71.

Mahalik et al.’s (2003) factor loadings and the
loadings obtained with the present sample (see
Table 3). As in our data, Mahalik et al.’s (2003)
factor loadings for Dominance and Pursuit of
Status were in the magnitude of the lowest
loadings for the other factors. Also noteworthy
is the near perfect correspondence across the
two samples in the within-subscale rank order
of items based on loading magnitudes. This
correspondence suggests that items eliminated
based on the present CFA were largely those
that were also the lowest loaders in Mahalik et
al.’s (2003) EFA. There were three cases
where a relatively high loading item in Ma-
halik et al.’s findings was eliminated based on
a relatively low loading in our sample (i.e.,
items 27, 31, 5). Evaluation of these items
indicated that their content was captured by
 FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CMNI 183

Table 4
Latent Factor Intercorrelations for the 94-Item Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) and the
CMNI-46
Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱ ⴱ
1. Emotional Control 0.23 0.12 0.21 0.40 ⫺0.01 0.17 ⫺0.02 0.19
2. Winning 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.34ⴱⴱ 0.16ⴱ 0.24ⴱⴱ 0.33ⴱⴱ 0.04 0.38ⴱⴱ
3. Playboy 0.18ⴱ 0.25 ⴱⴱ
0.31ⴱⴱ 0.00 0.27ⴱⴱ 0.44ⴱⴱ 0.07 0.10
4. Violence 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.35ⴱⴱ 0.31ⴱⴱ 0.14 0.32ⴱⴱ 0.34ⴱⴱ ⫺0.18ⴱ 0.16ⴱ
5. Self-reliance 0.40ⴱⴱ 0.16ⴱ ⫺0.02 0.17ⴱ 0.04 0.05 ⫺0.04 0.14
6. Risk-taking 0.02 0.31ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.35ⴱⴱ 0.02 0.22ⴱⴱ ⫺0.06 0.16ⴱ
7. Power Over Women 0.23ⴱⴱ 0.33ⴱⴱ 0.46ⴱⴱ 0.37ⴱⴱ 0.08 0.20ⴱ 0.17ⴱ 0.38ⴱⴱ
8. Primacy of Work ⫺0.01 0.04 0.07 ⫺0.15 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.10 0.15 ⫺0.13
9. Disdain for Homosexuals 0.23ⴱⴱ 0.40ⴱⴱ 0.09 0.20ⴱⴱ 0.15 0.18ⴱ 0.36ⴱⴱ ⫺0.12
10. Dominance 0.15 0.54ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.33ⴱⴱ 0.09 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.43ⴱⴱ 0.23ⴱ 0.32ⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱ ⴱ
11. Pursuit of status 0.00 0.48 0.22 0.30 ⫺0.20ⴱ
ⴱⴱ
0.31ⴱⴱ 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.64ⴱⴱ
Note. Values below the diagonal are for the 94-item CMNI, values above the diagonal are for the CMNI-46.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

retained items. Specifically, the content of Comparability of the CMNI-Original and

item 27, “I love to explore my feelings with
others,” was reflected in other Emotional Con-
trol items such as item 52, “I like to talk about
my feelings”; the content of item 31, “Winning
isn’t everything, it’s the only thing,” was re-
flected in other Winning items such as item 48,
“It is important for me to win”; and the content
of item 5, “It is important to me that people
think I am heterosexual,” was reflected in other
Disdain for Homosexuals items such as item 91,
“I try to avoid being perceived as gay.” Thus, in
each of these cases, the item content was re-
tained in the shortened CMNI-46 subscale.
CMNI-46
We evaluated the comparability of the
CMNI-46 with the original form by examining
consistency of Cronbach’s alphas, conceptual
content of subscales, and magnitudes of corre-
lations between corresponding subscales of the
two forms. As indicated in Tables 2 and 5,
Cronbach’s alphas remained stable after item
reduction, with differences between the original
and short form alphas ranging from ⫺.05 to
⫹.01. According to Ponterotto and Ruckde-
schel’s (2007) matrix for estimating adequacy

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI)-46
Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M SD ␣ ra
1.
Emotional Control 8.65 3.06 .86 .96
2.
Winning 0.20ⴱⴱ 9.99 2.98 .83 .95
3.
Playboy 0.12 0.22ⴱⴱ 5.06 2.86 .84 .89
4.
Violence 0.18ⴱⴱ 0.30ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 10.14 3.41 .86 .97
5.
Self-reliance 0.36ⴱⴱ 0.13 ⫺0.01 0.10 6.19 2.65 .84 .98
6.
Risk-taking ⫺0.02 0.22ⴱⴱ 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.02 7.44 2.36 .84 .95
7.
Power Over
Women 0.16ⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.37ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.03 0.21ⴱⴱ 3.77 1.95 .78 .90
8. Primacy of Work ⫺0.02 0.02 0.02 ⫺0.16ⴱ ⫺0.04 ⫺0.05 0.13 4.26 2.04 .77 .93
9. Disdain for
Homosexuals 0.18ⴱⴱ 0.34ⴱⴱ 0.08 0.16ⴱ 0.12 0.16ⴱ 0.33ⴱⴱ ⫺0.10 11.05 4.28 .91 .96
10. CMNI 46 S total 0.51ⴱⴱ 0.63ⴱⴱ 0.51ⴱⴱ 0.58ⴱⴱ 0.39ⴱⴱ 0.44ⴱⴱ 0.59ⴱⴱ 0.09 0.60ⴱⴱ 66.55 12.81 .88 .96
a
Values reflect correlations between corresponding original and short form subscales.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
184 PARENT AND MORADI

Table 6
Nine Factor Solution for the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI)-46
Item Item Item
number Loading Uniqueness number Loading Uniqueness number Loading Uniqueness
Emotional Control items Violence items Power Over Women items
52 0.79 0.38 44 0.82 0.33 86 0.79 0.38
77 0.76 0.42 79 0.78 0.40 81 0.72 0.48
65 0.75 0.43 62 0.71 0.49 61 0.62 0.61
36 0.69 0.53 15 0.65 0.57 46 0.62 0.62
43 0.68 0.54 25 0.65 0.58 Primacy of Work items
88 0.66 0.57 68 0.63 0.60 64 0.72 0.49
Winning items Self-reliance items 30 0.71 0.50
54 0.76 0.43 85 0.81 0.35 76 0.67 0.55
48 0.75 0.44 10 0.77 0.41 49 0.62 0.62
39 0.73 0.47 53 0.69 0.52 Disdain for Homosexuals items
67 0.61 0.62 29 0.68 0.54 51 0.91 0.17
22 0.61 0.63 74 0.66 0.56 37 0.88 0.23
2 0.58 0.67 Risk-taking items 42 0.85 0.28
Playboy items 24 0.80 0.36 73 0.72 0.49
47 0.84 0.29 40 0.71 0.49 16 0.71 0.50
72 0.81 0.34 60 0.70 0.51 91 0.67 0.55
3 0.80 0.37 17 0.69 0.52
33 0.61 0.63 70 0.67 0.55
Note. All factor loadings are significant at p ⬍ .01. Item numbers reflect numbering in 94-item CMNI.
Fit indexes: ␹2(953, N ⫽ 229) ⫽ 1414.30, p ⬍ .001; root mean square error of approximation ⫽ .046, 90% confidence
interval ⫽ .041, .051; standardized root-mean-square residual ⫽ .0591; comparative fit index ⫽ .90.

of Cronbach’s alpha, alphas for the CMNI-46
subscale items were all good or excellent. We
also reviewed the content of eliminated items
against that of items retained in the CMNI-46 to
see whether item eliminations resulted in loss of
unique item content. This review confirmed that
the conceptual content of all eliminated items
was subsumed in the retained items. Thus, the
original conceptual meaning of the nine re-
tained subscales was preserved in the CMNI-46.
This conceptual consistency between the origi-
nal CMNI and the CMNI-46 was also supported
by the magnitudes of observed correlations be-
tween the original form and corresponding
CMNI-46 subscale scores (r ⫽ .89 to .98; see
Table 5). The conceptual consistency and very
high correlations between the two forms sug-
gest that previously obtained validity data for
the original CMNI subscales are applicable to
the CMNI-46 subscales.
Discussion
The CMNI is a promising tool for research
and practice aiming to understand the role of
multiple dimensions of masculine norms in
men’s lives. The present study contributes to the
literature on masculinity by providing the first
CFA of the CMNI to evaluate the replicability
of its structure. Overall, the CFA provided ten-
tative support for the multidimensional struc-
ture of the CMNI proposed by Mahalik et al.
(2003). The data also pointed to areas for im-
provement that addressed weaknesses observed
in previous studies, and these improvements led
to creating a more parsimonious short form of
the CMNI that can facilitate its future use.
The present CFA results supported the via-
bility of nine of the 11 original CMNI factors.
But, relatively lower factor loadings and lower
Cronbach’s alphas in the present study raised
questions about retaining the Dominance and
Pursuit of Status factors. These concerns are
consistent with loading and cross-loading prob-
lems for Dominance and Pursuit of Status items
in the instrument development study (Mahalik
et al., 2003) and with low Cronbach’s alphas
found for these subscale items in subsequent
samples (e.g., Liu & Iwamoto, 2007; Mahalik,
Levi-Minzi, et al., 2007; Mahalik et al., 2003;
Mahalik & Rochlen, 2006; Tager & Good,
2005).
Low alphas, low factor loadings, misload-
ings, and cross-loadings for Dominance and
 FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CMNI
Pursuit of Status items across samples are con-
sistent with a number of validity and conceptual
concerns about these two subscales as well. In
particular, Dominance and Pursuit of Status
may be too broad to constitute unique masculine
norms, and other CMNI subscales may capture
their masculine norm-specific manifestations.
For example, Power over Women involves ex-
erting dominance over women, Violence in-
volves physical dominance, and Winning in-
volves competitive dominance and pursuit of
status. Consistent with such conceptual overlap,
the highest latent factor intercorrelations in the
full CMNI model (see Table 4) reflected overlap
between Dominance and Pursuit of Status (r ⫽
.64), and overlap of Winning with Pursuit of
Status (r ⫽ .48) and Dominance (r ⫽ .54). As
such, dominance and pursuit of status may re-
flect broad substrates of specific masculine
norms that are reflected in other CMNI sub-
scales. This interpretation is further supported
by the fact that Dominance and Pursuit of Status
did not emerge as clear constructs and most of
their items were subsumed into other factors in
instrument development. Thus, domain specific
manifestations of dominance and pursuit of sta-
tus may be reflected in other CMNI subscales.
Additional validity concerns about Domi-
nance and Pursuit of Status also are important to
consider. Specifically, contrary to expectation,
neither Dominance nor Pursuit of Status scores
were correlated significantly with social domi-
nance orientation, a convergent validity indica-
tor (Mahalik et al., 2003). Also, Pursuit of Sta-
tus was generally uncorrelated with subscale
scores on the measure of masculinity norms
selected to assess convergent validity (Mahalik
et al., 2003). Finally, across age cohorts ranging
from undergraduate to older adult, Pursuit of
Status did not differentiate between women and
men, raising questions about its validity as a
masculine norm (Smiler, 2006). Taken together,
these validity concerns across samples, along
with present and prior data highlighting struc-
ture and reliability problems with Dominance
and Pursuit of Status, suggest that these two
factors should be removed, or at a minimum,
interpreted with caution. Eliminating these two
factors seems reasonable given that the under-
lying constructs tapped by these two subscales
overlap substantially with retained subscales
(e.g., Winning).
185
In addition to informing refinement of
the conceptual and empirical framework for the
CMNI, the present study also yielded the
CMNI-46. We were able to reduce the length of
the CMNI while retaining the depth and breadth
of multiple subscales. Specifically, the short
form retained 9 of the 11 original CMNI sub-
scales (all but Dominance and Pursuit of Status)
and reduced overall length of the measure by
nearly 60%. The CMNI-46 subscale items also
retained acceptable reliability in the present
sample; this is particularly noteworthy given
that Cronbach’s alpha is associated positively
with number of items. Furthermore, in the
present sample, the CMNI-46 yielded superior
model-data fit than did the original form of the
CMNI. Importantly, the CMNI-46 retains the
intended conceptual and empirical multidimen-
sionality of the original CMNI, a feature that is
lost in short forms that aggregate selected
CMNI items to compute total scores (e.g.,
Mahalik, Burns, et al., 2007; Rochlen et al.,
2008). Thus, at less than half the length of the
original form, with the present sample, the
CMNI-46 yielded acceptable structural validity
and reliability, and also retained the multidi-
mensionality of the original CMNI.
The present findings also indicated very high
correlations (in the .90s) between corresponding
CMNI- 46 and original form scores. These high
correlations imply consistency in the constructs
assessed across the two forms and in the relative
rank order of participants along CMNI and
CMNI-46 scores. Such high correlations are
consistent with our conceptual review of
dropped items which indicated that their content
was reflected in retained items. Also, at the
subscale level, the items deleted from the short
form corresponded well with low-loading items
in the original CMNI development study. These
correspondences between the two forms suggest
that validity evidence accumulated for the orig-
inal CMNI is applicable to the CMNI-46.
Still, the present study did not examine con-
vergent validity beyond the high correlations
between CMNI-46 and original form scores,
and further research is needed to evaluate the
validity of CMNI-46 scores across diverse sam-
ples. For instance, tests of CMNI-46 scores’
independence from impression management
and convergence with other measures of mas-
culine ideology (for examples, see Smiler,
2004) can evaluate discriminant and convergent
186 PARENT AND MORADI
validity. Also, qualitative exploration of mascu-
line norms across cultural groups and examina-
tion of links of acculturation and enculturation
with CMNI-46 scores could test the cultural
specificity or transferability of the norms cap-
tured by this measure. Similarly, longitudinal
data on the links of CMNI-46 scores with ac-
culturation and enculturation, particularly in im-
migrant populations, could reveal developmen-
tal processes in acquisition of U.S. masculinity
norms. Such research to test the validity of the
CMNI-46 and its underlying conceptual frame-
work across diverse populations is important for
elucidating how masculine norms are experi-
enced by men of diverse backgrounds (e.g.,
race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeco-
nomic status, age), and for identifying culture-
specific masculine norms that could be incorpo-
rated to broaden the utility of the CMNI-46
across groups. As Mahalik et al. (2003) noted,
the masculine norms measured by the CMNI,
and consequently those assessed with the
CMNI-46, may not be an exhaustive list of such
norms. Researchers may do well to identify,
validate, and incorporate other categories of
masculine norms into the CMNI-46.
Overall, the present findings establish prelim-
inary support for the CMNI-46 as an efficient
tool for assessing and understanding the role of
conformity to masculine norms in men’s lives.
Specifically, use of the CMNI-46 can help min-
imize length of questionnaire packages and re-
sponse burden in order to prevent acquiescence,
boredom, or loss of motivation for clients or
research participants. Given the importance of
efficiency in clinical assessment, the CMNI-46
may prove particularly useful in practice. As
prior studies have shown, masculine gender
conformity is linked to such counseling issues
as treatment outcomes (Good et al., 2006), strat-
egies for coping with depression (Mahalik &
Rochlen, 2006), attitudes toward help-seeking
(Berger et al., 2005), and vocational interests
(Mahalik et al., 2006). Thus, knowledge about a
client’s adherence to masculine norms can aid
case conceptualization and treatment planning.
To this end, Mahalik, Talmadge, Locke, and
Scott (2005) discussed how the CMNI can be
used with clients to explore level of conformity
to various masculine norms, as well as the costs
and benefits of such conformity in different life
contexts. Also, gender role analysis has been
highlighted as important to helping clients ex-
plore how gender norms impact their function-
ing and presenting problems (Brown, 1990;
Philpot et al., 1997). Given its brevity, the
CMNI-46 might be particularly advantageous to
use in such interventions. The CMNI-46 also
can be used to evaluate the extent to which
gender role analysis interventions are effective
in modifying conformity to masculine norms,
and the extent to which modifications in con-
formity to masculine norms are related to inter-
vention outcomes (e.g., reduced distress).
Limitations and Future Directions
The present findings can inform research and
practice in a number of ways, but these findings
should be interpreted in light of some limita-
tions. First, the present data were collected from
mostly White Canadian college students and are
not immediately generalizable outside of this
population. Previous findings suggest similari-
ties in mean CMNI scores across predominantly
White men of varying ages (Smiler, 2006).
Building on such findings, multiple cohort and
longitudinal studies can explore the structural
stability of the CMNI-46 across cohorts and
time. In addition, the present Canadian sample’s
means were generally similar to means from
Mahalik et al.’s (2003) U.S. sample. In another
study, a Kenyan sample’s mean CMNI scores
also were similar to that of Mahalik et al.’s
(2003) sample (Mahalik et al., 2006); but, cross-
cultural differences in CMNI means emerged
between a U.S. and Italian sample (Tager &
Good, 2005). Further cross-cultural research is
needed to explore the structural stability of the
CMNI-46 with different racial/ethnic, sexual
orientation, and other cultural groups. Given
that most prior research with the CMNI has
involved samples of predominantly White, pre-
sumably heterosexual, and middle to upper-
middle class men, establishing structural stabil-
ity across groups is important for informing use
of the CMNI with diverse client and research
populations.
Another limitation is that the present sample
size met minimal standards for the analyses, but
further research is needed to evaluate support
for the present factor structure across larger
samples. Larger samples might also facilitate
examination of structural stability across racial/
ethnic, sexual orientation, age, and other sub-
groups to the extent that sufficient diversity on
 FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CMNI
these dimensions is represented within the sam-
ple. Also, despite the fact that all fit index
values in the present study met recommended
cut-offs (Weston & Gore, 2006), CFI was at the
cutoff. Thus, evidence of acceptable model-data
fit across samples would be useful.
We offer two additional issues to consider in
future work with the CMNI and CMNI-46.
First, CMNI total scores were computed and
examined in relation to other variables in the
original measurement development study and in
subsequent work (e.g., Burn & Ward, 2005;
Good et al., 2006; Liu & Iwamoto, 2007;
Mahalik et al., 2003, Mahalik, Levi-Minzi, et
al., 2007; Smiler, 2006). As such, we reported
Cronbach’s alphas for overall CMNI and
CMNI-46 items in the present study. But, the
CMNI and its underlying masculine norms are
conceptualized as multidimensional, and find-
ings of the measurement development study and
the present study support such multidimension-
ality. Indeed, many intercorrelations of CMNI
subscales as well as those for the CMNI-46
subscales and latent factors are nonsignificant or
small (see Tables 2, 4, and 5). The multidimen-
sionality of masculine norms suggests that re-
searchers and practitioners should consider the
dimensions of masculine norms that they are
interested in, and use corresponding CMNI or
CMNI-46 subscales to assess those specific con-
structs (rather than use total scores). When the
full set of masculinity dimensions are of inter-
est, the CMNI-46 may be appealing given its
brevity.
A second consideration is the subscale label
“Disdain for Homosexuals.” We used this label
to be consistent with prior research. But, we
recommend renaming this subscale. First, the
American Psychological Association recom-
mends against using “homosexuals” as a noun
to describe groups of people (Committee on
Lesbian & Gay Concerns, 1991). Second, the
original and abbreviated CMNI Disdain for Ho-
mosexuals items assess the importance of pre-
senting oneself as heterosexual or not as gay
(e.g., “I make sure people think I am heterosex-
ual,” “It would be awful if someone thought I
was gay”). In fact, none of the original items on
this subscale directly assess affect toward les-
bians or gay men, as “Disdain for Homosexu-
als” implies. Thus, to more closely represent the
content of this subscale, we suggest renaming
this subscale “Heterosexual Self-presentation.”
187
In sum, we hope that the CMNI-46 can facil-
itate continuing attention to masculine norms
and their operationalization through streamlin-
ing the existing subscales and facilitating inte-
gration of new subscales as needed. This mod-
ularity would serve to save researchers from
developing redundant measures and also facili-
tate comparisons across studies. Masculine
norms evolve across cultures and times, and the
CMNI-46 can provide a useful template for
continued revision and refinement of the opera-
tionalization of such norms.
References
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues
in structural equation modeling. Sociological
Methods and Research, 16, 78 –117.
Berger, J. M., Levant, R., McMillan, K. K., Kelleher,
W., & Sellers, A. (2005). Impact of gender role
conflict, traditional masculine ideology, alexithy-
mia, and age on men’s attitudes toward psycholog-
ical help seeking. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
ity, 6, 73–78.
Brehm, S. S., Miller, R. S., Perlman, D., & Campbell,
S. M. (2002). Intimate relationships (3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, L. S. (1990). Taking account of gender roles
in the clinical assessment interview. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 12–17.
Burn, S. M., & Ward, A. Z. (2005). Men’s confor-
mity to traditional masculinity and relationship
satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4,
254 –263.
Burns, S. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2008). Treatment
type and emotional control as predictors of men’s
self-assessed well-being following treatment for
prostate cancer. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
ity, 9, 55– 66.
Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns, American
Psychological Association. (1991). Avoiding het-
erosexual bias in language. American Psycholo-
gist, 46, 973–974.
Dodeen, H. M. (2003). Effectiveness of valid mean
substitution in treating missing data in attitude
assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 28, 505–513.
Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine
gender role stress. Behavior Modification, 11,
123–136.
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2006). The role of mascu-
linity in children’s bullying. Sex Roles, 54, 585–
588.
Good, G. E., Schopp, L. H., Thomson, D., Hathaway,
S., Mazurek, M. O., & Sanford-Martens, T. C.
(2008). Men with serious injuries: Relations
188 PARENT AND MORADI
among masculinity, age, and alcohol use. Rehabil-
itation Psychology, 53, 39 – 45.
Good, G. E., Schopp, L. H., Thomson, D., Hathaway,
S., Sanford-Martens, T., Mazurek, M. O., et al.
(2006). Masculine roles and rehabilitation out-
comes among men recovering from serious inju-
ries. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 165–
176.
Jakupak, M., Tull, M. T., & Roemer, L. (2005).
Masculinity, shame, and fear of emotions as pre-
dictors of men’s expressions of anger and hostility.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 275–284.
Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of
the number of variables on measures of fit in
structural equation modeling. Structural Equation
Modeling, 10, 333–351.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of struc-
tural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Levant, R. F., Hirsh, L., Celantano, E., Cozza, T.,
Hill, S., MacEcheron, M., et al. (1992). The male
role: An investigation of contemporary norms.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325–
337.
Levi, A., Chan, K. K., & Pence, D. (2006). Real men
do not read labels: The effects of masculinity and
involvement on college students’ food decisions.
Journal of American College Health, 55, 91–98.
Liu, W. M., & Iwamoto, D. K. (2007). Conformity to
masculine norms, Asian values, coping strategies,
peer group influences, and substance use among
Asian American men. Psychology of Men & Mas-
culinity, 8, 25–39.
Locke, B. D., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Examining
masculine norms, problem drinking, and athletic
involvement as predictors of sexual aggression in
college men. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 52, 279 –283.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara,
H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure models. Psy-
chological Methods, 1, 130 –149.
Mahalik, J. R., Burns, S. M., & Syzdek, M. (2007).
Masculinity and perceived normative health be-
haviors as predictors of men’s health behaviors.
Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2201–2209.
Mahalik, J. R., Lagen, H. D., & Morrison, J. A.
(2006). Health behaviors and masculinity in Ken-
yan and U.S. male college students. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 7, 191–202.
Mahalik, J. R., Levi-Minzi, M., & Walker, G. (2007).
Masculinity and health behaviors in Australian
men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 240 –
249.
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer,
M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003).
Development of the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
ity, 4, 3–25.
Mahalik, J. R., Perry, J. C., Coonerty-Femiano, A.,
Catraio, C., & Land, L. N. (2006). Examining
Conformity to Masculinity Norms as a function of
RAISEC vocational interests. Journal of Career
Assessment, 14, 203–213.
Mahalik, J. R., & Rochlen, A. B. (2006). Men’s
likely responses to clinical depression: What are
they and do masculinity norms predict them? Sex
Roles, 55, 659 – 667.
Mahalik, J. R., Talmadge, W. T., Locke, B. D., &
Scott, R. P. (2005). Using the Conformity to Mas-
culine Norms Inventory to work with men in a
clinical setting. Journal of Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 61, 661– 674.
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.
Penderson, E. L., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). Male gen-
der role conflict and willingness to seek counsel-
ing: Testing a mediation model on college-aged
men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 373–
384.
Philpot, C. L., Brookers, G. R., Lusterman, D. D., &
Nutt, R. L. (1997). Bridging separate gender
worlds: Why men and women clash and how ther-
apists can bring them together. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An
overview of coefficient alpha and a reliability ma-
trix for estimating adequacy of internal consis-
tency coefficients with psychological research
measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 997–
1014.
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implica-
tions of recent developments in structural equation
modeling for counseling psychology research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485–527.
Rochlen, A. B., McKelley, R. A., Suizzo, M., &
Scaringi, V. (2008). Predictors of relationship sat-
isfaction, psychological well-being, and life satis-
faction among stay-at-home fathers. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 9, 17–28.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data:
Our view of the state of the art. Psychological
Methods, 7, 147–177.
Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery
of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of
masculinity. Sex Roles, 50, 15–26.
Smiler, A. P. (2006). Conforming to masculine
norms: Evidence for validity among adult men and
women. Sex Roles, 54, 767–775.
Tabachnick, B. G., & L. S. Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using
multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
Tager, D., & Good, G. E. (2005). Italian and Amer-
ican masculinities: A comparison of masculine
 FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CMNI 189

gender role norms. Psychology of Men & Mascu-
linity, 6, 264 –274.
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The struc-
ture of male role norms. American Behavioral
Scientist, 29, 531–543.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide
to structural equation modeling. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 719 –751.
Wilkinson, W. W. (2004). Authoritarian hegemony,
dimensions of masculinity, and male antigay atti-
tudes. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 121–
131.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale
development research: A content analysis and rec-
ommendations for Best Practices. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 806 – 838.
Received September 17, 2008
Revision received January 24, 2009
Accepted January 25, 2009 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!

View publication stats