SERS-D-15-00139_Final

Running head: CONTEXTUAL SPECIFICITY OF GENDER 1
The Contextual Specificity of Gender: Femininity and Masculinity in College Students’ Same-
and Other-Gender Peer Contexts
Clare M. Mehta and Yulia Dementieva
Emmanuel College
Author Note
Clare M. Mehta, Department of Psychology, Emmanuel College and Division of
Adolescent Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital; Yulia Dementieva, Department of
Psychology, Emmanuel College

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Clare M. Mehta, Emmanuel
College, 400 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, Email: mehtac@emmanuel.edu, Phone: 617 963-
4965, Fax: 617-735-9877

CONTEXTUAL SPECIFICITY OF GENDER 3
Abstract
Social constructivist models of gender suggest that gendered attitudes and behaviors, such as
femininity and masculinity, are context-dependent (Deaux & Major, 1987). If this is the case,
femininity and masculinity may be better conceptualized as variable states rather than as stable
traits. In the present study, we used Ecological Momentary Assessment to investigate variations
in femininity and masculinity according to the gender of peers in female and male college
students’ real-life social contexts. Cisgender participants were recruited from a small liberal arts
college in the northeastern region of the United States. Sixteen female and 11 male college
students (Mage = 20) contributed 448 reports documenting their social context and femininity and
masculinity over a 2-week period. We found that men reported greater femininity on a
momentary version of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) when they were with women in
comparison to when they were with men. We also found that both women and men reported
greater masculinity on a momentary version of the BSRI when they were with men in
comparison to when they were with women. Our findings lend empirical support to social
constructivist models of gender and highlight the importance of investigating how interpersonal
contexts contribute to gender-typed attitudes and behaviors.
Keywords: Gender identity, femininity, masculinity, context, same-sex peers, cross-sex
peers, sex segregation

The Contextual Specificity of Gender: Femininity and Masculinity in Same- and Cross-
gender Peer Contexts
Much of the research investigating femininity and masculinity uses measures developed
by or based on work by Sandra Bem. These measures ask people to indicate the extent to which
they identify in general with stereotypically masculine (e.g. aggressive, competitive) or
stereotypically feminine (e.g. caring, passive; Bem, 1974) traits at a single time point (Wood &
Eagly, 2015). In assessing femininity and masculinity this way, there is an inherent assumption
that femininity and masculinity are stable over time and across contexts (Smith, Noll, & Bryant,
1999). Social constructivists, however, propose that femininity and masculinity are not stable,
but rather are dynamic and contextually dependent (Deaux & Major, 1987, 1998). Our study
contributes to the literature by taking a social constructivist approach to Bem’s work on
femininity and masculinity, examining variation in femininity and masculinity across same and
cross-gender peer contexts in a sample of college students. Specifically, we used Ecological
Momentary Assessment to measure female and male college students’ endorsement of femininity
and masculinity in same- and cross-gender peer contexts over a 2-week period.
Femininity and Masculinity
Current conceptualizations of femininity and masculinity have their roots in the
groundbreaking work of Sandra Bem to whom this special issue of Sex Roles is dedicated. Early
models of gender (e.g., Terman and Miles’ [1936] Attitude-Interest Analysis Test)
conceptualized femininity and masculinity as opposing ends of a bipolar scale (Martin & Finn,
2010). Using bipolar measurements of gender meant that a person could be feminine or
masculine, but not both (Constantinople, 1973). Although Constantinople (1973) was the first to
question the usefulness of bipolar gender models, it was Bem (1974) who proposed that people

could be psychologically androgynous, identifying with both feminine and masculine traits. To
this end, Bem (1974) developed the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to measure femininity and
masculinity as separate dimensions.
Femininity and masculinity can be defined as gender-typed personality traits that are
consistent with socially endorsed desirable traits stereotypical for women (feminine traits) and
men (masculine traits; Bem, 1974; Mehta & Strough, 2010). Feminine items on the BSRI include
expressiveness, understanding, and sympathy; masculine items on the BSRI include
competitiveness, assertiveness, and dominance (Bem, 1974; Ruble & Martin, 1998). In general,
femininity has been associated with expressivity and communality, characterized by caring for
others well-being (Bem, 1974, 1987; Spence, 1991, 1993; Spence & Helmreich, 1980).
Masculinity has been associated with instrumentality and agency (Bem, 1987; Spence, 1993;
Spence & Helmreich, 1980) which Bem (1974, p. 155) described as “a cognitive focus on
‘getting the job done.” Although most research suggests that women are more feminine than men
and that men are more masculine than women, feminine and masculine traits are exhibited to
different extents by both women and men regardless of biological sex (Leszczynski & Strough,
2008; Pickard & Strough, 2003). Whereas it has been argued that femininity and masculinity are
better characterized by the traits they encompass (e.g. expressivity and instrumentality; Spence
1993), in the present paper we will refer to these gender-typed traits as femininity and
masculinity to remain consistent with terminology used in the papers we cite. All the research we
cite in the present paper, including research cited above, was conducted in the United States
using U.S. samples unless otherwise noted.
In her early work, Bem (1974) described femininity and masculinity as measured by the
BSRI as internalized personality characteristics or traits (Bem, Martyna, & Watson, 1976). Bem

notes, however, that while identifying with gender-typed traits restricts people to gender-typed
expression, identifying with both feminine and masculine traits enables a person to adapt to the
demands of their environment, regardless of their gender (Bem & Lewis, 1975). According to
Bem women and men have gender role flexibility that allows them to express feminine traits if
someone needs comfort, or masculine traits if an abstract task needs to be completed (Bem,
1975; Bem et al., 1976). Consequently, although Bem conceptualized femininity and masculinity
as traits, her conceptualization of androgyny suggests that these traits may have some state-like
features and that femininity and masculinity may vary according to the context. In the present
study, we extend and expand on Bem’s work by investigating variations in femininity and
masculinity according to the gender of peers in female and male college students’ real-life social
contexts.
Social Constructivist Approaches
As noted previously, femininity and masculinity are often conceptualized by gender
researchers as unified components of personality that remain stable across time and contexts
(Shields, 1993; Shields & DiCicco, 2011; Smith et al., 1999). Researchers who endorse a social
constructivist approach to gender, however, contend that rather than reflecting an individual’s
personality traits, femininity and masculinity reflect an individual’s interaction with their
immediate context (Deaux & Major, 1987; Leaper, 2000; Maccoby, 1990). Specifically, social
constructivist models posit that gendered attitudes and behaviors, such as femininity and
masculinity, are dynamic, emergent, and continuously enacted, changing across time,
relationships, and social context (Anselmi & Law, 1998; Berenbaum & Beltz, 2011; Deaux &
Major, 1987, 1998; Leszczynski & Strough, 2008; Shields, 1993, 1998; West & Zimmerman,
1987). Consequently, femininity and masculinity can be conceptualized as states that vary

according to the demands of the immediate context (Lesczcynski & Strough, 2008; Pickard &
Strough, 2003; Smith et al., 1999). Although theoretical work has improved our understanding of
gender as contextually dependent, little empirical research has considered contextual variation in
femininity and masculinity (Smith et al., 1999). Theoretical propositions that contextual variation
exists in femininity and masculinity—aspects of personality that have historically been
considered to be stable traits—have inspired little debate among gender researchers (Mehta,
2015). Instead, contextual theories have become part of the body of work on gender development
and expression without promoting a wider discussion of when context is important to measure or
when gender may be more trait-like or state-like (Mehta, 2015). This neglect is not the case in
other fields. Personality psychologists, for example, have long debated the stability of
personality traits (Fleeson, 2004). This is because the stability or instability of personality traits
has substantial implications for their field—if personality traits vary according to context, it may
be less useful to describe people in terms of general traits (Fleeson, 2004; Funder, 2006).
Similarly, clinical psychologists have considered state-like and trait-like aspects of depression
(Vittengl, Clark, Thase, & Jarrett, 2014) and anxiety (Kania & Krackow, 2014).
When considering whether attributes are trait- or state-like, it is important to consider that
traits and states may not be mutually exclusive. Both clinical and personality psychologists have
suggested that attributes can be both stable and variable and that people’s characteristic ways of
behaving (i.e., traits) are modified according to the demands of the context (i.e., states; Best,
2009). Specifically, it has been suggested that attributes are likely to have trait and state
components such that an introvert remains more introverted than an extrovert, even in situations
where they exhibit extraversion (Funder, 2006). As such, it has been proposed that whereas

attributes may be flexible when examined across situations and contexts, they remain relatively
stable when observed over time (Fleeson, 2001).
Although there is a wealth of theoretical work proposing that femininity and masculinity
are influenced by contextual factors, only a few lab-based empirical studies have been conducted
to investigate these claims (Smith et al., 1999). These studies suggest that the gender of peers in
people’s social contexts may, as theorized, influence people’s endorsement of femininity and
masculinity (Pickard & Strough, 2003), offering support to theoretical suppositions that
femininity and masculinity have a state component. Our study extends this work, as well as
Bem’s (1974) earlier work, by investigating how femininity and masculinity vary outside the lab
in the real-life social contexts of students attending a residential, co-educational college.
Contextual Variations in Femininity and Masculinity
The limited empirical research that exists on contextual variations in femininity and
masculinity has found that during childhood, gender-typed behaviors differ based on the gender
composition of the social context. Specifically, Maccoby (1990) found that when girls were
paired with other girls there was very little passivity in their play; in fact, girls in same-gender
pairs were less passive than were boys. When girls were paired with boys, however, they stood
by and watched as boys dominated the toys. Maccoby also found that children were more
socially engaged when playing with a same-gender peer in comparison to when they were
playing with a cross-gender peer.
Similarly, research with adolescents and college students has shown that the endorsement
of femininity and masculinity varies by the gender of peers in the social context. For example,
Leszczynski and Strough (2008) investigated variations in femininity and masculinity in a
sample of early adolescents. They found that adolescent girls and boys were more likely to

endorse feminine traits after playing a game of Jenga® (a block-stacking game) with an
adolescent girl in comparison to after playing a game of Jenga® with an adolescent boy. They
found that masculinity did not vary by context for adolescent boys and girls. Pickard and Strough
(2003) reported similar findings in a sample of college students. Specifically, both male and
female college students reported greater femininity after playing Jenga® with a female
confederate in comparison to a male confederate (Pickard & Strough, 2003). Again, masculinity
remained constant across men and women’s same- and cross-gender interactions (Pickard &
Strough, 2003).
Although masculinity remained constant in same-gender and cross-gender contexts in the
experimental lab studies we reviewed, we expect that masculinity will fluctuate when measured
in real-life context. This is because qualitative research conducted in the field, which may access
people’s real-life experiences to a greater extent than research conducted in a laboratory, has
suggested that for men, masculinity is enacted, or performed, and reinforced in same-gender
contexts (Migliaccio, 2009; Phoenix, Pattman, Croghan, & Griffin, 2013; Sallee & Harris, 2011;
Werking, 1997). Similarly, qualitative research has suggested that in their friendships with men,
women display more masculine qualities than they do in their friendships with women (Werking,
1997). Taken together, this research suggests that masculinity may increase in the presence of
men, and more importantly, that gender is likely to be something we do, rather than something
we have (Butler, 1999, 2004; Phoenix et al., 2013; Shields & DiCicco, 2011; West &
Zimmerman, 1987; Yancey Martin, 2003). Because gender may be performative, we expect that
women and men will report greater femininity when interacting with women in comparison to
when interacting with men and that women and men will report greater masculinity when
interacting with men in comparison to when interacting with women.

Femininity, Masculinity, and Peer Contexts
College students spend a large amount of their time in the company of their peers (Wise
& King, 2008) and as such, peers become an important developmental context (Galliher &
Kerpelman, 2012). During the college years, peers are believed to influence aspects of identity
development (Galliher & Kerpelman, 2012; Pugh & Hart, 1999). Cross-sectional research has
suggested that adolescents and college students report more same- than cross-gender friends
(DiDonato & Strough, 2013; Jones, Bloys, & Wood, 1990; Reeder, 2003) and that their same-
gender friendships are closer (Reeder, 2003) and longer lasting (DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity, Taub,
& Baldo, 2001) than their cross-gender friendships. In addition, same-gender friends interact via
telephone (Ledbetter, Broeckelman-Post, & Krawsczyn, 2011) and Facebook (online social
networking; Mazur & Richards, 2011) to a greater extent than cross-gender friends.
Research investigating ethnic identity development has suggested that spending time with
peers of the same ethnicity increases college students’ identity with their ethnicity (Tatum,
2004). Moreover, ethnic identity has also been referred to as “a shared experience among
friends” (Syed & Juan, 2012, p. 1511). If gender identity is conceptually similar to ethnic
identity, it could be that gender, like ethnic identity, is also an experience shared among friends.
In the case of gender, the gender of peers in a person’s social context may cue gender-
typed behaviors. It has been proposed that we “do gender” in the presence of others (Phoenix,
Pattman, Croghan, & Griffin, 2013; West & Zimmerman, 1987; Yancey Martin, 2003) and that
gender is embedded in social interactions (Deutsch, 2007; Sallee & Harris, 2011; West &
Zimmerman, 1987; Yancey Martin, 2003). Consequently, it could be that femininity is cued for
women and men when the social context is predominantly female and that masculinity is cued
for both women and men when the social context is predominantly male. Given that peers are

such an important part of identity development (Galliher & Kerpelman, 2012; Pugh & Hart,
1999), it is important to understand how same- and cross-gender peer contexts may impact
femininity and masculinity during this stage of development. As such, in the current study, we
investigated the gender composition of college students’ social contexts and how femininity and
masculinity varied according to the gender composition of the social context in real-time.
Measuring Femininity and Masculinity in Context
The studies on the contextual specificity of femininity and masculinity we reviewed have
made invaluable contributions to our understanding of the state component of femininity and
masculinity. This research, however, has some limitations that we seek to address in the present
study. Specifically, previous research has largely been conducted in the laboratory and has
created same- and cross-gender contexts in which participants completed assigned tasks rather
than engaging in common day-to-day activities. As such, we do not know how femininity and
masculinity vary in people’s real-life contexts. Additionally, previous research measured
femininity and masculinity over a limited period of time. Measuring femininity and masculinity
over a longer period of time could provide a greater understanding of the contextual nature of
these variables. If we wish to develop a complete understanding of how gender operates in
women and men’s social contexts, it is important to examine how femininity and masculinity
vary across time in real-life social interactions.
Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) is a research methodology in which
phenomena are repeatedly measured across time and contexts (Best, 2009; Larson & Richards,
1994; Shrier, Shih, Hacker, & de Moor, 2007). As such, we believe that EMA is ideally suited to
examine people’s femininity and masculinity in their daily lives. Participants in electronic EMA
studies carry a device (e.g., smart phone) that signals them to complete survey reports at random

times throughout the day. The main benefit of using a methodology like EMA to study the
influence of social context on masculinity and femininity is that EMA reduces recall bias and
increases ecological validity (Larson & Richards, 1994).
We believe that our study contributes to the literature in two main ways. First, our study
extends Bem’s (1974) work on femininity and masculinity by considering contextual variation in
femininity and masculinity in a sample of college students. Second, our study contributes to the
literature on peer influence and aspects of personality related to identity by measuring the gender
composition of college students’ social contexts as well as variations in their femininity and
masculinity based on the gender composition of their social contexts.
The Present Study
In the present study, we used EMA to measure college students’ endorsement of traits
associated with femininity and masculinity in same- and other-gender peer contexts over a 2-
week period. Because Bem (1993) highlighted the importance of context later in her career, we
see a contextual approach to the study of femininity and masculinity as complementing and
extending Bem’s work rather than as challenging it.
Based on Leszczynski and Strough’s (2008) experimental findings that both female and
male college students reported greater femininity when they were with women in comparison to
when they were with men, we hypothesized that female (Hypothesis 1) and male (Hypothesis 2)
college students would report greater femininity when they were with women in comparison to
when they were with men. Based on qualitative research (Migliaccio, 2009; Phoenix et al., 2013;
Sallee & Harris, 2011; Werking, 1997) that suggests that men enact masculinity when they are
with other men and that women display more masculine qualities in their friendships with men
than they do with women (Werking, 1997), we hypothesized that male (Hypothesis 3) and

female (Hypothesis 4) college students would report greater masculinity when they were with
men in comparison to when they were with women. To test these hypotheses, models were run
separately for each gender.
Method
Participants
College students were recruited from a small liberal arts college using flyers. Twenty-
seven (16 women, 11 men) cisgender students enrolled in the study and contributed a total of 448
reports over a 2-week period. Men provided fewer reports than did women (only 13% of 448
reports). All students who enrolled were heterosexual. The affiliated college’s institutional
review board approved the study. Demographic information can be found in Table 1.
Procedure
After providing consent, college student participants used the Audio Computer-Assisted
Self-Interview (ACASI) program to complete baseline measures on a touch screen computer.
Baseline measures assessed gender segregation (i.e. number of same-gender friends), femininity
and masculinity, gender reference-group identity, and substance use. Participants then
downloaded I-Form Builder, a smartphone application that is used to develop and host surveys,
onto their smart phone. After downloading the application, participants were shown how to
access the survey from the phone. With the help of a research assistant, participants programmed
their phones to emit a signal to prompt them to complete a report five times per day for 14 days.
When prompted by their phones, participants were asked to open IForm Builder and make a
report. Using Iform Builder, participants reported on their social context, the gender of their
companions, their current gender state, and their location. Reports took between 1–3 minutes and

were automatically date- and time-stamped. Participants received between $5–$30 in cash,
depending on their signal response rate and completion of study visits.
Measures
Gender of current companions. When signaled, participants indicated who they were
with from the following six options: Alone, boy/girlfriend, friends, parents, other family, or
other. Because the present study investigates the influence of peers on femininity and
masculinity, our analyses focused on friends responses. If participants responded friends, they
were then asked to report the gender of their companions. Participants indicated whether they
were with one woman, one man, a same-gender group, or a cross-gender group in which they
were the only member of their gender. Women reported being with people of the same gender
for 29% of their 389reports. Men reported being with people of the same gender for 74% of
their 59 reports.
State femininity and state masculinity. State femininity and state masculinity were
assessed using a modified, momentary version of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) shortened
to three femininity items and three masculinity items. Past research has not used the BSRI in this
way. However, we followed the example of other researchers who have created shortened
versions of established measures, such as the PANAS, for EMA studies (see Mehta, Walls,
Blood, & Shrier, 2014 for an example of this procedure). We selected specific items that
reflected attributes assessed in multiple measures of femininity (e.g., assertiveness is assessed in
both the BSRI and the PAQ; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974).
Participants were presented with the statement “Indicate how true each of the following
six statements are about you right now.” After clicking a button that read “OK” participants were
presented with our momentary version of the BSRI. Feminine items were: “I am currently

feeling affectionate,” “I am currently feeling compassionate,” and “I am currently feeling
sensitive to the needs of others.” Masculine items were: “I am currently feeling assertive,” “I am
currently feeling dominant,” and “I am currently feeling aggressive.” Participants provided their
responses on a sliding scale from 1 (not at all like me) to 7 (very much like me). Responses were
averaged and higher scores represented higher femininity or masculinity. All participants
provided data for momentary masculinity. Four female participants did not have any values for
momentary femininity and were excluded from analyses. One participant had 14 of 18 missing
values. All other participants gave all values for momentary femininity. Chronbach’s alpha for
momentary femininity was .85. Chronbach’s alpha for momentary masculinity was .60.
Results
Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software release 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC, USA). All means presented are adjusted to account for multiple observations per
person.
Over a 2-week period participants contributed a total of 432 reports. Chi-square tests
were used to investigate gender differences on all variables. Overall, women made more reports
(389, 90%) than did men (59, 10%), χ2 (1) = 277, p < .001. Men reported being in same-gender
groups (i.e. with other men) more often than did women, and women reported being in other-
gender (i.e. with men) groups more often than did men (see Table 2 and Figure 1). There were no
significant differences between women and men in terms of femininity, 𝐹(1,244) = 0.07, 𝑝 =
.79, or masculinity, 𝐹(1,405) = 0.05, 𝑝 = .82. Figure 2 provides a graphic representation of
variability in femininity across all peer contexts for the female participant with the most reports.
Figure 3 provides a graphic representation of variability in masculinity across all peer contexts
for the male participant with the most reports.

Gender Context and Femininity
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested using general linear mixed effects models. Hypothesis 1,
that female college students would report greater femininity as measured by the momentary
BSRI when interacting with women, was not supported, F (1, 211) = .02, p =. 89, Cohen’s d =
.02, ηp2 = 0.00009, 𝑥̅ 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑒 = 0.62, 𝑥̅ 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 0.61. However, Hypothesis 2, that male college
students would report greater femininity as measured by the momentary BSRI when interacting
with women, was supported, F (1, 31) = 9.01, p =.005, Cohen’s d = 1.24, ηp2 = 0.19, 𝑥̅ 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑒 =
0.44, 𝑥̅ 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 0.84.
Gender Context and Masculinity
Hypotheses 3 and 4 were tested using general linear mixed effects models. Hypothesis 3,
that that female college students would report greater masculinity as measured by the momentary
BSRI when they were with men in comparison to when they were with women, was supported,
F(1, 372) = 9.15, p =.003, Cohen’s d = -0.35, ηp2 = 0.02, 𝑥̅ 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑒 = 0.52, 𝑥̅ 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 0.37.
Hypothesis 4, that male college students would report greater masculinity as measured by the
momentary BSRI when they were with men in comparison to when they were with women, was
also supported, F (1, 31) = 4.24, p =.048, Cohen’s d = 0.85, ηp2 = 0.08, 𝑥̅ 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑒 = 0.34, 𝑥̅ 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 =
0.65.
Discussion
While Bem conceptualized femininity and masculinity as traits, her conceptualization of
androgyny suggested that femininity and masculinity might also have state-like features.
Specifically, she proposed that androgynous people are able to express feminine traits or
masculine traits according to situational demands (Bem & Lewis,1975; Bem et al., 1976). The
present study supports this conceptualization, as well as previous experimental and theoretical

work that has suggested that the gender composition of the social context influences people’s
endorsement of femininity and masculinity (Maccoby, 1990; Smith et al., 1999). Specifically,
similar to laboratory research, we found that men reported greater femininity when they were
with women as opposed to with men, and lesser femininity when they were with men as opposed
to with women. We also found that both women and men reported greater masculinity when they
were with men as opposed to with women. In the following, we explore our findings within the
framework of existing theory and literature.
Gender Context and Femininity
Previous research has suggested that women report high scores on femininity measures
when they are with other women (Leszczynski & Strough, 2008). However, Hypothesis 1, that
femininity would be greater when female college students were with same-gender peers in
comparison to when they were with cross-gender peers, was not supported. That femininity
remained constant across same- and cross-gender contexts for women could reflect women’s
theorized greater relational orientation (Feldman, Gowan, & Fisher, 1998). Peer groups during
childhood and adolescence are largely segregated by gender (Mehta & Strough, 2009, 2010). In
their gender-segregated peer groups, women develop a communal orientation, which has been
theorized to be expressed in both same- and cross-gender contexts (Eun Jung Suh, Moskowitz,
Fournier, & Zuroff, 2004). As such, women may have been communal and relationally
orientated in all contexts. It could also be that for women, social contexts in general activate a
communal/relational and cooperative orientation that was picked up by our state femininity
measure. Research has found that women are likely to endorse femininity in cooperative contexts
(Leszczynski & Strough, 2008), and women often exhibit cooperation and collaboration in their
social interactions (Leaper & Ayres, 2007; Maccoby, 1998).

Hypothesis 2, that state femininity would be greater when male college students were
with cross-gender peers in comparison to same-gender peers, was supported. This finding builds
and extends upon experimental research that has found that men report greater femininity when
interacting with women in comparison to when interacting with other men (Leszczynski, 2009;
Leszczynski & Strough, 2008; Pickard & Strough, 2003; Smith et al., 1999). Masculinity norms
and ideologies dictate that men should reject activities and behaviors perceived to be
stereotypically feminine (Bosson & Michniewicz, 2013; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Failure to do
so may result in peer disapproval, reduced social standing, negative judgments, and
psychological consequences (Bosson & Michnieciez, 2013; Pleck, 1995). As such, it may be
difficult for men to exhibit attributes associated with femininity in same-gender groups. Research
on cross-gender friendships has suggested that men enjoy cross-gender friendships because they
are able to be emotionally open with their female friends (Werking, 1997). Consequently, men
may feel less pressure to conform to male gender role norms when they are with their female
friends in comparison to when they are with their male friends. That men’s self-reported
femininity increased when they interacted with women as measured in real time in everyday
contexts emphasizes the robustness of this finding and lends support to the social-constructivist
model of gender (e.g., Deaux & Major, 1987).
Given that those studying men and masculinities have recently called for more research
considering the context of gendered behaviors (Jones & Heesacker, 2012), our findings are
especially timely. Although masculinity scholars have acknowledged that some contexts elicit
feminine characteristics and others elicit masculine characteristics (Jones & Heesacker, 2012;
Smiler & Kubotera, 2010), much of the current research in the field of masculinities depends on
measures that investigate masculine traits and social norms (Thompson & Bennett, 2015). By

broadening the study of masculinities to include state femininity and masculinity in real-life
contexts, researchers will be able to better understand how femininity and masculinity operate in
people’s lives across time and place. This will, of course, require a new conceptualization of
femininity and masculinity not as something one has, but as something one does (Butler, 1999,
2004; Shields & DiCicco, 2013; West & Zimmerman, 1987).
Gender Context and Masculinity
Hypothesis 3, that female college students would report greater masculinity when they
were with cross-gender peers in comparison to when they were with same-gender peers, was
supported. This finding, while not supported in previous empirical investigations of state
femininity and masculinity (e.g., Leszczynski & Strough, 2008; Pickard & Strough, 2003) is
consistent with qualitative research on cross-gender friendships (Werking, 1997) and is
consistent with what would be expected based on social-constructivist theoretical models that
posit that gender is fluid and contextually influenced (Deaux & Major, 1987, 1998; Shields,
1998). The inconsistency of our findings with previous empirical studies investigating gender
and context could reflect differences in the methodologies employed to study state femininity
and masculinity.
Previous empirical studies may not have found an association between the gender of
peers in the immediate context and masculinity for two reasons. First, in previous studies peer
contexts were created in a lab. Second, previous studies only measured masculinity twice, once
before and again after an assigned task. In our study, masculinity was measured in real-life
contexts over a 2-week period, allowing for the sampling of femininity and masculinity in a
range of contexts over a longer period of time.

Another explanation for these findings relates to the value ascribed to masculine traits.
Gender has been described as a status characteristic—a characteristic, similar to race, ethnicity,
or religion, that has value based on consensual societal beliefs (Ridgeway, 1991). In the United
States, femininity is afforded lesser status than masculinity and, as such, activities and qualities
associated with girls and women, including feminine traits such as expressivity and
communality, are de-valued and awarded lower status than activities associated with boys and
men (Gerber, 2009; Twenge, 2009). Because of the higher status associated with masculinity,
women, as well as men, tend to endorse masculine traits, a trend that has increased in the last few
decades (Twenge, 2009). It has been proposed that the continued valuation of stereotypically
masculine traits maintains dominant masculinity ideology, which in turn maintains men’s
privileged status in society (Levant, 2011). Because women inhabit a lower-status position in
society and femininity is not privileged, adopting stereotypically masculine traits does not
threaten women’s status and may even increase their social standing. Consequently, women,
unlike men, are less likely to reject activities and behaviors perceived to be stereotypically
masculine (Bosson & Michniewicz, 2013). As such, female college students may endorse
masculine characteristics when they are with men to align themselves with a higher status group.
Hypothesis 4, that masculinity would be greater when men were with same-gender peers
in comparison to when they were with cross-gender peers, was also supported. Previous research
has suggested that masculinity is performed in friendships and interactions with other men
(Migliaccio, 2009). In this performance, men are believed to emphasize instrumentality, a
component of masculinity, and deemphasize expressivity, a component of femininity
(Migliaccio, 2009). Thus, we would expect masculinity to be greater in contexts that cue
masculinity (Jones & Heesacker, 2012 Smiler & Kubotera, 2010; Thompson & Bennett, 2015),

such as same-gender contexts, than in contexts that do not cue masculinity, such as cross-gender
contexts.
Taken together, our findings lend further empirical support to conceptual models of the
contextual specificity of femininity and masculinity. Our study, along with earlier laboratory
studies, suggests that femininity and masculinity have a state component and calls for the
broadening of our current understanding of femininity and masculinity. Our study also lends
support to a broader social-constructivist model of gender, and it suggests that gender theorists
and researchers should consider the role of the context in both the socialization and enactment of
gender.
When contemplating moving toward a contextual model of gender, it should be noted that
such models focuses on proximal (i.e., the context) rather than distal influences (hormones,
socialization processes) on gender (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). As such, contextual
theories do not provide an explanation of how gender-typed behaviors are acquired, but simply
of how contextual factors influence the display of gender-typed characteristics. In this way, a
contextual model of gender complements, rather than replaces, other theoretical models of
gender, including biological and socialization models (Deaux & Major, 1987).
In developing a contextual model of gender it is also important to consider the amount of
variation that is required for an attribute to be considered a state rather than a trait. Because we
found variations according to peer context in the present study, we are fairly confident that we
were measuring state and not trait femininity and masculinity. However, in interpreting the
findings of the present study, it is important to recognize that traits and states are unlikely to be
mutually exclusive. Some research suggests that attributes can be both stable and variable, such

that stable attributes (i.e., traits) vary based on contextual demands (i.e., states; Best, 2009;
Fleeson, 2001; Funder, 2006).
It is also important to note that in our sample, there were no gender differences in
masculinity and femininity. This could be because women and men are becoming more
androgynous and are thus more similar than dissimilar in terms of their endorsement of
femininity and masculinity (Strough, Leszczynski, Neely, Flinn & Margrett, 2007). It could also
be that this finding is specific to our sample, which was small and composed of students studying
at a liberal arts college in the Northeastern United States.
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study has a number of limitations. First, we are, at present, unable to assess
whether our revised version of the BSRI is a reliable and valid method to test variation in
femininity and masculinity. Specifically, variation captured by our measure could reflect
measurement error rather than real behavioral variability. Future research should explore the
validity and reliability of items from the BSRI for momentary use. Second, although we had a
considerable number of observations for analysis (448), our results are limited by our small
sample size. This is especially the case for male college students in the sample, who contributed
a low number of reports (59). Additionally, women reported spending more time in cross-gender
peer groups in comparison to same-gender peer groups. This may explain why female college
students did not show variations in femininity across contexts. Although the low number of
reports limited our power to find significant associations, our hypotheses were still largely
supported, highlighting the strength of the association between femininity, masculinity, and the
social context. Third, our sample was composed of undergraduate college students from the

United States and as such has limited generalizability. Future research should expand and extend
on the current study by including other age groups and non-college samples.
Fourth, all college student participants in the current study were heterosexual. Research
has suggested that social contexts and the endorsement of femininity and masculinity differ
between gay and lesbian and heterosexual women and men (Galupo, 2007). As such, future
research should include college student participants of varying sexual orientations. Fifth, our
study considered the contextual specificity of femininity and masculinity at the individual level.
Although we used an appropriate research design that focused on the individual in order to
capture heterogeneity on individual difference variables in social situations, each person may
have different expectations relating to gender. These expectations, along with the specific
context, may influence whether gender-typed behaviors, including femininity and masculinity,
are observed (Shields & DiCicco, 2011). As such, future research should measure femininity and
masculinity and gendered expectations in dyads and groups. In spite of these limitations, we
believe our study is of value because not only is it, to the best of our knowledge, the first study to
investigate the associations among femininity, masculinity, and the social context in women and
men’s real-life contexts, but it also extends and expands Bem’s (1974) research on femininity
and masculinity by investigating contextual variation in these constructs in the peer groups of
college students.
Conclusion
Historically, researchers have struggled to find reliable and replicable gender differences
in a number of variables (Deaux & Major, 1987). Social constructivist theorists suggest that this
is because gender-linked behaviors are contextual, and as such, vary across time and place. Our
finding that femininity and masculinity vary across people’s real-life social contexts suggests

that our understanding of gender may be incomplete if we fail to investigate and elucidate how
the context may contribute to gender-typed behaviors.

References
Anselmi, D. L., & Law, A. L. (1998). Questions of gender, perspectives and paradoxes.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview [Computer software] Bethesda, MD: Nova Research
Company.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162.
Bem, S. L. (1987). Gender schema theory and the romantic tradition. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick
(Eds.), Sex and gender: A review of personality and social psychology (pp. 251-271). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Bem, S. L. (1993). Is there a place in psychology for a feminist analysis of the social context?
Feminism & Psychology, 3, 230-234. doi:10.1177/0959353593032009
Bem, S. L., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny.
Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 31, 634-643. doi:10.1037/h0077098
Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations
of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1016-1023.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.1016
Berenbaum, S. A., & Beltz, A. M. (2011). Sexual differentiation of human behavior: Effects of prenatal
and pubertal organizational hormones. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 183-200.
doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.03.001
Best, D. (2009). Another view of the gender-status relation. Sex Roles, 61,
341-351. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9629-1
Bosson, J. K., & Michniewicz, K. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup

identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 105, 425-442. doi:10.1037/a0033126
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge.
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological
Bulletin, 80, 389-407. doi:10.1037/h0035334
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related
behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1998). Gender behavior in a social context a social-
psychological model of gender. In D. L. Anselmi & A.L. Law (Eds.), Questions of
gender, perspectives and paradoxes (pp. 367-376). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
DeLucia-Waack, J. L., Gerrity, D. A., Taub, D. J., & Baldo, T. D. (2001). Gender, gender role
identity and type of relationship as predictors of relationship behavior and beliefs in
college students. Journal of College Counseling, 4, 32-48. doi:10.1002/j.2161-
1882.2001.tb00181.x
Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21, 106-127.
doi:10.1177/0891243206293577
DiDonato, L., & Strough, J. (2013). Contextual influences on gender segregation in emerging
adulthood. Sex Roles, 69, 632-643. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0312-1
Eun Jung Suh, A., Moskowitz, D., Fournier, M. A., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Gender and relationships:
Influences on agentic and communal behaviors. Personal Relationships, 11, 41-60.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00070.x
Feldman, S., Gowen, L., & Fisher, L. (1998). Family relationships and gender as predictors of romantic

intimacy in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal Of Research On Adolescence, 8, 263-
286. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0802_5
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density
distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011-1027.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The
challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 13, 83-87. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00280.x
Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21–34. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.003.
Galliher, R. V., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2012). The intersection of identity development and peer
relationship processes in adolescence and young adulthood: Contributions of the special issue.
Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1409-1415. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.09.007
Galupo, M. P. (2007). Sexism, heterosexism, and biphobia: The framing of bisexual women's
friendships. Journal of Bisexuality, 6, 35-45. doi:10.1300/J159v06n03_03
Gerber, G. (2009). Status and the gender stereotyped personality traits:
Toward an integration. Sex Roles 61, 297-316. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9529-9
I-Form Builder [Computer software] Herndon, VA: Zerion Software.
Jones, D. C., Bloys, N., & Wood, M. (1990). Sex roles and friendship patterns. Sex Roles, 23,
133-145. doi:10.1007/BF00289861
Jones, K. D., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Addressing the situation: Some evidence for the significance of
microcontexts with the gender role conflict construct. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13,
294-307. doi:10.1037/a0025797

Kania, K., & Krackow, E. (2014). The impact of state and trait anxiety on performance in an eyewitness
source monitoring task. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 33, 311-327.
doi:10.2190/IC.33.3.g
Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and
adolescents. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Leaper, C. (2000). Gender, affiliation, assertion, and the interactive context of parent–child play.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 381-393. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.381
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults' language use:
Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 11, 328-363. doi:10.1177/1088868307302221
Ledbetter, A. M., Broeckelman-Post, M. A., & Krawsczyn, A. M. (2011). Modeling everyday
talk: Differences across communication media and sex composition of friendship dyads.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 223-241.
doi:10.1177/0265407510377904
Leszczynski, J. P. (2009). A state conceptualization: Are individuals' masculine and feminine
personality traits situationally influenced? Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 157-
162. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.014
Leszczynski, J. P., & Strough, J. (2008). The contextual specificity of masculinity and
femininity in early adolescence. Social Development, 17, 719-736. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2007.00443.x
Levant, R. F. (2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role strain
paradigm as a framework. American Psychologist, 66, 765-776. doi:10.1037/a0025034
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist,

45(4), 513-520.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press/Harvard University Press.
Martin, H., & Finn, S. E. (2010). Masculinity and femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Mazur, E., & Richards, L. (2011). Adolescents' and emerging adults' social networking online:
Homophily or diversity? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 180-188.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.03.001
Mehta, C. M. (2015). Gender in context: Considering variability in Wood and Eagly’s traditions of
gender identity. Sex Roles, 73, 490-496. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0535-4
Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the
life span. Developmental Review, 29, 201-220. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001
Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2010). Gender segregation and gender-typing in adolescence. Sex Roles,
63(3-4), 251-263. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9780-8
Mehta, C. M., Walls, C., Blood, E., & Shrier, L. A. (2014). Associations between affect, context,
and sexual desire in depressed young women. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 577-585.
doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.753026
Migliaccio, T. (2009). Men's friendships: Performances of masculinity. Journal of
Men's Studies, 17, 226-241. doi:10.3149/jms.1703.226
Phoenix, A., Pattman, R., Croghan, R., & Griffin, C. (2013). Mediating gendered performances:
Young people negotiating embodiment in research discussions. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 414-433. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.765612
Pickard, J., & Strough, J. (2003). The effects of same-sex and other-sex contexts on

masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles, 48, 421-432. doi:10.1037/t00748-000
Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant, W. S. Pollack,
(Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11-32). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Pugh, M. V., & Hart, D. (1999). Identity development and peer group participation. In J. A.
McLellan & M. V. Pugh (Eds.), The role of peer groups in adolescent social identity:
Exploring the importance of stability and change (pp. 55-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Reeder, H. M. (2003). The effect of gender role orientation on same- and cross-sex friendship
formation. Sex Roles, 49, 143-152. doi:10.1023/A:1024408913880
Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal
characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367-386.
Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 933-1016). New York: Wiley.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C., & Berenbaum, S. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, 6th ed., pp. 858-932). New York, NY: Wiley.
Sallee, M. W., & Harris, F. (2011). Gender performance in qualitative studies of masculinities.
Qualitative Research, 11, 409-429. doi:10.1177/1468794111404322
Shields, S. A. (1993). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning of emotion. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Shields, S. A. (1998). Gender in the psychology of emotion: A selective research review. In D. L.
Anselmi & A.L. Law (Eds.), Questions of gender, perspectives and paradoxes (pp. 376-390).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Shields, S. A., & DiCicco, E. C. (2011). The social psychology of sex and gender: From gender

differences to doing gender. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 491-499. doi:
10.1177/0361684311414823
Shrier, L. A., Shih, M.-C., Hacker, L., & de Moor, C. (2007). A momentary sampling study of the
affective experience following coital events in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, e1-
e8. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.014
Smiler, A. P., & Kubotera, N. (2010). Instrumental or expressive?: Heterosexual men’s expectations of
women in two contexts. Men and Masculinities, 12, 565-574. doi:10.1177/1097184X09337112
Smith, C. J., Noll, J. A., & Bryant, J. B. (1999). The effect of social context on gender
self-concept. Sex Roles, 40, 499-512. doi:10.1037/t00748-000
Spence, J. T. (1991). Do the BSRI and PAQ measure the same or different concepts? Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 15, 141-165.
Spence, J. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence
for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624-635. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.905
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their
relationship with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: A
measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 4, 43-44.
Strough, J., Leszczynski, J., Neely, T., Flinn, J., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence to later
adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles, 57, 385-396.

Syed, M., & Juan, M. D. (2012). Birds of an ethnic feather? Ethnic identity homophily among
college-age friends. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1505-1514.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.012
Tatum, B. D. (2004). Family life and school experience: Factors in the racial identity development of
Black youth in White communities. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 117-135. doi:10.1111/j.0022-
4537.2004.00102.x
Terman, L. M. & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. New
York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical)
review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16, 115-133. doi: 10.1037/a0038609
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral
Scientist, 29, 531-543. doi:10.1177/000276486029005003
Twenge, J. (2009). Status and gender: The paradox of progress in an age of narcissism. Sex Roles, 61,
338-340. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9617-5
Vittengl, J. R., Clark, L. A., Thase, M. E., & Jarrett, R. B. (2014). Replication and extension: Separate
personality traits from states to predict depression. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 225-
246. doi:10.1521/pedi_2013_27_117
Werking, K. (1997). We're just good friends: Women and men in nonromantic relationships. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.
Wise, R. A., & King, A. R. (2008). Family environment as a predictor of the quality of college students'
friendships. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 828-848. doi:10.1177/0192513X07309461
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73, 461-

473. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2
Yancey Martin, P. (2003). "Said and done" versus "saying and doing": Gendering practices, practicing
gender at work. Gender & Society, 17, 342-366. doi:10.1177/0891243203251716

Table 1
Characteristics of Participants
Variables
Men Women
M (SD) or
n (%)
M (SD) or
n (%)
BSRI Scores
Baseline BSRI Femininity 4.59 (.75) 4.97 (.67)
Baseline BSRI Masculinity 5.15 (.53) 4.85 (.63)
Momentary BSRI Femininity .57 (.59) .62 (.51)
Momentary BSRI Masculinity .45 (.55) .41 (.66)
Age 20.18 (.98) 20.00 (1.21)
Race
White 11 (100%) 16 (100%)
Ethnicity
Hispanic 1 (9.1%) 0 (0)
Non-Hispanic 10(90.9%) 16 (100%)
Year in School
Freshman 2 (18.2%) 4 (20%)
Sophomore 1 (9.1%) 1 (5%)
Junior 4 (45.5%) 7 (35%)
Senior 4 (27.3%) 4 (40%)
Note. Baseline femininity and masculinity were scored on a 7-point Likert scale (range = 3.25–
6.00; possible range 1–7). Higher scores represent greater femininity or masculinity. Ages
ranged from 18–22 years. Women and men did not differ on baseline masculinity, t(1,25) = .92,
p = .37 or on baseline femininity, t(1,25) = -1.32, p = .20. There were no significant differences
between women and men in terms of momentary femininity, 𝐹(1, 244) = 0.07, 𝑝 = .79 or
masculinity, 𝐹(1,405) = 0.05, 𝑝 = .82.

Running head: CONTEXTUAL SPECIFICITY OF GENDER
Table 2
Number of Reports Made in Same- and Other-Gender Groups
Note. Men reported being in same-gender groups (i.e. with other men) more often than did
women, and women reported being in cross-gender (i.e. with men) groups more often than did
men, χ2(1) = 35.74, p < .001. It is important to note the limited number of observations for men
in cross-gender groups.
Same-gender group Cross-gender group
Participants’ Gender n M SD Range n M SD Range
Men 32 4.94 2.87 1-11 11 3.82 4.09 1-14
Women 113 15.01 11.67 1-49 287 15.39 10.47 1-50

CONTEXTUAL SPECIFICITY OF GENDER
36
Figure 1. The proportion of time college students spent in same- and cross-gender groups over a
2-week period by gender
0.74
0.29
0.26
0.71
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Male Female
Proportion
Same
Cross

37
Figure 2. Variations in femininity and masculinity over a 2-week period for the female
participant with the largest number of observations.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
BSRIScore
Observations
BSRI Femininity BSRI Masculinity

38
Figure 3. Variations in femininity and masculinity over a two-week period for the male
participant with the largest number of observations.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
BSRIScore
Observations
BSRI Feminity BSRI Masculinity

SERS-D-15-00139_Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to SERS-D-15-00139_Final

Similar to SERS-D-15-00139_Final (20)

More from Clare Mehta

More from Clare Mehta (6)

SERS-D-15-00139_Final