Twenty-Five Years After the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A Reassessment and New Issues Regarding Classification Variability

Abstract

Respondents' Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; S. L. Bem, 1974) classifications may differ considerably on the basis of the form and scoring method used. The BSRI was reexamined with respect to past and present relevance. Article: The 1970s heralded a new concept in masculinity and femininity research: the idea that healthy women and men could possess similar characteristics. Androgyny emerged as a framework for interpreting similarities and differences among individuals according to the degree to which they described themselves in terms of characteristics traditionally associated with men (masculine) and those associated with women (feminine; Cook, 1987). Although the term androgyny was not new, having its roots in classical mythology and literature (andro = male, gyne = female), the 1970s marked a resurgence of the word's popularity as a means to represent a combination of stereotypically "feminine" and stereotypically "masculine" personality traits. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) was designed to facilitate empirical research on psychological androgyny. For the past quarter of a century, the BSRI has endured as the instrument of choice among researchers investigating gender role orientation (Beere, 1990). Since its development in 1974, the BSRI has been widely used but also widely criticized. Ironically, early criticisms of the BSRI have contributed to its becoming even more well known as a masculinity-femininity measure and, consequently, used even more by researchers. In fact, it seems that the BSRI has been repeatedly used without sufficient attention to its theoretical framework (Frable, 1989); without clear and deliberate thought to the research questions being studied (Gilbert, 1985); and, as we argue, perhaps also without as thorough an understanding of the instrument as would be advisable. It is interesting and salient that, after 25 years, Bem (1998) disclosed in her autobiography that she was not adequately prepared to develop this instrument and has been shocked by how popular it became and remains today. This honest admission clearly helps to explain some of the issues regarding this widely used instrument. The purpose of this article is threefold. The primary purpose is to explore the extent of variability among respondents' BSRI classifications (i.e., feminine, masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated) depending on which form of the instrument (Original or Short) and which of the two scoring methods are used (i.e., mediansplit or hybrid [this latter scoring method uses both the median-split and the individual's Femininity-minus-Masculinity scores]). Both scoring methods are described in the test manual (Bem, 1981a) and are equally recommended by Bem. Classification variability has not been examined in previous research, a surprising observation given both the degree of attention that the BSRI has received since its inception and the emphasis researchers place on these classification categories in interpreting results of studies using this instrument. The second purpose is to reexamin...

Gender Schematicity, Gender Identity Salience, and Gender-Linked Language Use

“…Twenty of the items measure femininity; 20 measure masculinity; and the remaining items measure socially desirable characteristics, unassociated with masculinity or femininity. The medians for the masculinity and femininity scales were 5.05 (similar to other research; e.g., Bem, 1981a;Hoffman & Borders, 2001). The medians for the masculinity and femininity scales were 5.05 (similar to other research; e.g., Bem, 1981a;Hoffman & Borders, 2001).…”

Nonmedical use of prescription drugs in emerging adulthood: differentiating sex from gender

“…Also, incorporating depression into our models adds an often neglected yet important mental health control. Finally, we find further support for the use of the BSRI (Choi & Fuqua 2003; Hoffman & Border 2001; Holt & Ellis 1998; Wiley, 2014). While not all researchers agree that the BSRI is the best measure of gender role orientation, but it may remain a useful tool in measuring aspects of gender.…”

“…While gender-socialization is a lifelong process, taking a “snap shot” of gender-orientation can only serve as a very rough measure of gender-socialization in that we only have data based on a single point in time: data on the process of gender socialization would be a more ideal measure. The BSRI has been subjected to many critiques (Auster & Ohm 2000; Choi & Fuqua 2003; Hoffman & Borders 2001; Holt & Ellis 1998). Attempts to replicate the BSRI and inconsistent findings using the BSRI have made the BSRI a contested measurement of gender and gender role orientation (Holt and Ellis, 1998).…”

“…Attempts to replicate the BSRI and inconsistent findings using the BSRI have made the BSRI a contested measurement of gender and gender role orientation (Holt and Ellis, 1998). Moreover, the BSRI has been criticized due to its focus on personality characteristics stereotypically associated with gender roles and because the BSRI may not function the same for minority groups (see Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001)). Finally, we do not report on androgynous or (gender) undifferentiated individuals– omitting responses from these individuals’ limits our understanding of gender characteristics.…”

The Role of Gender Identification in Social Dominance Orientation: Mediating or Moderating the Effect of Sex?1

“…The BSRI was initially (Bem, 1974) composed of 60 items describing different personality characteristics related to femininity and masculinity, respectively, and was constructed in the early 1970s. Since then, societal changes have caused many of the original items to become sex‐neutral (Hoffman & Borders, 2001). Thus, instead of using Bem's original scale, we used a shortened and translated version that was adapted to a contemporary Swedish context by Marongiu and Ekehammar (1999), containing 12 items on the femininity scale and 12 items on the masculinity scale (for information on reliability and validity, see Marongiu & Ekehammar, 1999; Ivarsson & Ekehammar, 2001).…”