Start to Intro

May I move your summary and incorporated into the last section of introduction?

I feel like if we have summary for each page of the introduction section, it might become repetitive.

and do you think it might be proper to mention the article by Lippa, Richard and Connelly, Sharon since we are attempting to replicate their findings?

I think this section is just supposed to be a broad overview of the history of measuring gender to give the reader a starting point for our project. I think specifics of previous gender diagnosticity should go later in the introduction.

I also agree that it is little too detailed for the purpose of our report and for this section.

so how about writing an overview. Just mentioning the theories by different researchers.

maybe starting from(I'm referring to the textbook) the theory where masculinity and femininity was measured as a single personality dimension.

And then the development of the concept of androgyny, (completely separating into two independence dimensions)

and then different theories which came about after realizing that masculinity and femininity are not completely separate

and then leading to the development of Gender Diagnosticity(Lippa,1990) which we are replicating.

Textbook seem to condensed and comprehensive overview in chapter 6, under "The Search for Androgyny"

I think that looks good but the part about actually mentioning gender diagnosticity should be saved for the next section of the introduction.

I agree that this may be too detailed. However, the Smiler & Epstein paper is quite extensive in explaining the measures they reviewed, and it was quite difficult interpreting each measure. I attempted to summarize the measures by providing context on what they measure as well as what findings they have achieved in the past. If I didn't mention these aspects of the measures then I was afraid of it being too generic and not informative. For example, if I had just said that Smiler & Epstein measure the construct of "support and adherence to cultural gender norms" by using trait measures, then this provides no background information on what trait measures are and what the outcomes of these measures were. With that said, I can see how the length of this section might become too long if we mention all of the measures.

I added the summary component (which briefly touched on gender diagnosticity) as a way to transition to the next part of the introduction - the gender diagnosticity section. However, I am definitely open to it being moved to the end of the introduction as a way of concluding the intro :)

Also, with regards to your comment about the Lippa et al. paper, I personally think it would be best to mention it in the next part of the intro (the gender diagnosticity section) instead of this section.

I personally think a version of the summary that was written could make a nice final to the introduction so we can also lighten this first section. However, if everyone else thinks it should stay that I am also fine with that.