Previous Measures : How can we improve?

Hi all, great work getting this page started and formatted it looks great! However, one of my main concerns for this page is that I feel we've lacked examining the previous Gender Diagnosticity scales and how we can improve on them. I think that the examples everyone provided were really strong and well thought out, but my questions are concerned how can we improve upon the scales, rather than specific topics. I think if we understand how we can improve the scales then we can include some of those specific topic examples to guide us. Moving forward, Smiler et al. (2010) has noted that Lewin (1994) found that "gender was unclear [after] several decades of theory and research".

Noting this, in Smiler et al. (2010) future research displays that there are conceptual issues as well as methodological ones with the previous scales, such as how labeling or interpreting a scale to be more "masculine" or "feminine" (this is directly from the article), as well as how old the scales are (in the case of the BRSI & PAQ). In our case, we have an up to date scale, as well as one that is generally culturally specific, but I think that a good future research topic should be concerned with validating our scale. Thus, we can show that with the use of mental health disorders (or any of the other examples) we can validate our scale by showing how some different levels of personality dispositions are found to be more strongly correlated with either women or men and this can be correlated to disorders, thus proving whether or scale was actually valid. Another aspect that I feel should be measured with future research is the reliability of our scale since we were unable to repeat the measure (but this would more so be a limitation). Our future research should also include a better sample of the population one that it more representative of all genders. Improving the reliability and validity.

Thoughts about how we can improve our own limitations in future research? As well as improve upon the limitations of others?

Hi Kristi,

I have the same concerns you do. One of my main concerns is how representative our scale is of the population. As you noted Smiler et al. (2010) was concerned about how the scale is interpreted to be more "masculine" or feminine" and due to our sample consisting mainly of females this concern should be addressed in our revised scale as well.

In future research I think it is crucial to considered an appropriate sample size as well as a representative population. We are determining gender diagnosticity and therefore our sample should include an equal, or close to equal sample of BOTH males and females. At the moment our scale is biased to a female population which puts into question the reliability of our scale. If the scale was to be used on a repeated measures study a more representative sample of genders and diversity would possibly yield different results. This therefore discards the validity of our scale due to the scale not measuring what it claims to measure.

When determining possible future research it is crucial to refer to the limitations of our scale. In order to generate a more accurate, reliable, and valid scale, the limitations should be addressed and resolved. The less limitations presented the better the accuracy of our scale. Once a majority of the limitations are addressed and presented within an improved scale one can be more certain that you are controlling for confounding variables and biased results. As mentioned above by myself and Kristi a crucial bias that should be controlled for is the lack of representativeness of males in our sample.

Great points, and I definitely agree. Also, was our method for developing a GD scale the best way to go about it? I think there were some good things about the way we did it, but perhaps some things that could be improved as well for future research.

Hi all, I would like to address again the importance of addressing the limitations of this study in order to provide solutions for future research. When considering future research you are considering the possible improvements that you can make to the study in order to increase both the reliability as well as the validity of the study. Below, I have reworded a couple of the limitations that have been collaborated by the class, and included possible resolutions to these limitations which could aid us in future research.

As mentioned, the overlapping limitation of this study was that a self-report was the only procedure of measurement utilized. Although the use of a self-reports provides ease as well as well as access to information that is reserved only by the individual, its limitations should be considered and the study should be revised for future research. Through the revision of the limitations which this study was hindered by, one is able to develop a better and more accurate study through which gender diagnosticity can be examined. The limitations that should be considered in future research are as follows:

1. When questionnaires ask questions which are private for a particular individual, that individual may respond in a “socially desirable” manner instead of truthfully. To answer a questionnaire in a socially desirable manner is also known as faking good. There are however possible solutions to this limitation that could be considered in future research. It is important to note however that anonymous questionnaires don’t often pose the problem of individuals answering truthfully due to the privacy of the individual being assured.

• One way in which one is able to overcome the problem of individuals answering the questionnaire in a socially desirable manner is to impose a “faking good profile” (Larsen & Buss 2010). This profile is constructed to use in comparison to the responses of an individual to determine whether he or she is “faking good.”

2. This study was representative of ethnicity, religious belief, level of education, and personality, but lacked in the representation of gender. The ratio of individuals who reported their genders were 10 males to 50 females. Due to the limitation of equal gender representation this study is only reliable when distributed to a higher population of BOTH females to males. Due to the lack in reliability and due to the study not measuring what it claims to measure, this study cannot be claimed as reliable or valid.

• In order to define this study as both valid and reliable we need to consider two things 1) that the study measures what it claims to be measuring (validity), and 2) that the study will yield the same results when tested on other populations or sample groups (reliability)
• these two points can be resolved by a sample size that is 1) not biased (for example the sample should not consist of the psychology students constructing the study) 2) representative of both females and males (equal or close to equal number of males and females within the sample) 3) randomly selected to control for other factors such as ethnicity, religious beliefs, educational level, etc.

The first step in future research is resolving these as well as other limitations to the current scale. Once the limitations have been resolved the many interesting and important factors that everyone has suggested could be researched in the future. Once you have a reliable and valid scale on which gender diagnosticity can be measured one will be able to add specific measures to investigate, such as how “gender and personality traits may have great influences on mental disorders,” or determining the correlation between “life expectancy[,] gender and personality traits,” and the rest of the suggestions which have been contributed to this page.

Hi everyone, As mentioned before, an aspect of future research that should be considered is how to revise a study in order to raise its validity and reliability, which will give us more accurate results. I have some additional ideas on solutions to fixing the limitations that were mentioned by GennaFerreira.

1. Solutions to reduce social desirability I found the following methods in the following article: Nederhof, A. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263-280.

• Neutral Questions
  • We should try to make questions that are as neutral as possible, so that it may not be seen as something that a person should answer in a specific way (a socially desirable way) by many different social groups.
• The Bogus Pipeline
  • Participants are told that either an attitude or emotion is being analyzed by a machine, or by a polygraph. However, the wires that are attached to the participant are not real. Since the participant does not know this, they will most likely answer the questions honestly.

2. Solutions to having a more valid and reliable study

• The sample size needs to be much larger; having a few hundred will be more effective than having less than a hundred. This will help eliminate individual differences. Moreover, by having a larger sample, we will be able to have a more equal number of females to males.
• As GennaFerreira mentioned, having random sampling will create less differences between individuals. Therefore, we should be using the random sampling technique to include not only Psychology students but the general public as well.
• In order to increase reliability, this questionnaire should be distributed more times to different samples to see if the results are still the same between different groups (ex. between students, parents etc.). We can also ask multiple questions about the same idea, in order to see if participants are answering it in the same way throughout the questionnaire (I believe we did have a few of these throughout the questionnaire).

3. Solutions to Experimenter/Confirmation Bias and Content

The overarching solution to confirmation bias/content is to develop questions from different perspectives (as in, consider culture, geographic location, SES, age/cohorts, etc) to provide the most objective, all-encompassing questionnaire. The questions were presumably developed by individual students. Although there was some convergence in ideas, the questionnaire could have been streamlined more efficiently. Instead, we could develop questions using either (1) a panel consensus method, where questions are considered as a group or (2) a structured delphi method, where individuals in a panel develop their own questions, which are then consolidated and refined repeatedly until ideas are stabilized and the questionnaire is where we want it to be (eg. objective, representative of different perspectives, provides a variety of possible responses).

4. Language

Aside from translating the questionnaire to multiple languages, I think either question development method as mentioned above could potentially address the language barrier and English comprehension issue.

Objectivity also plays into the neutrality of the questions, as PhoebeDychinco stated would address the social desirability/negative connotations issue.

Hi Jaimie,

when I read Genna's ideas about "when determining gender diagnosticity and therefore our sample should include an equal, or close to equal sample of BOTH males and females." I was wondering does sexual orientation effect the results of gender diagnosticity? That is to say, the more "masculine" role in Lesbian couple, compared with the more "feminine" role in Gay couple? Is this a related part need to be concerned in future research?

Hi SunnyZHENG,

I was hoping someone would bring this up! I summarized a study that looked at heterosexual and homosexual men and women: http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.2.1_Introduction_-_GD_Studies#Gender-Related_Traits_of_Heterosexual_and_Homosexual_Men_and_Women

The same occupational preferences that distinguish men from women are the same that distinguish heterosexual men from gay men and lesbian women from heterosexual women. So yes, lesbian women are more likely than heterosexual women to be self-ascribed as masculine, while gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be self-ascribed as masculine. I'm not entirely certain whether or not their responses would skew the overall results, but I do think it is relevant for future research.

I was reading over my notes/text book from my human sexuality class, which states that gay men and lesbian women are overrepresented in certain occupational areas (the creative arts, and professional sports, respectively). Do you think that a GD or homosexuality-heterosexuality diagnosticity (which was also shown to be just as effective in the same study), would be a stronger predictor of over- or under-representation of the homosexual community over other demographic factors such as educational attainment, SES, or background?

Hi Schuolee,

thanks for your reply and guide me to the related previous studies on sexual orientation and gender-related traits. Firstly, I have to say I have read an article that states many women become homosexual due to genetics. There still have gender differences on homosexual heredity, which may be applied to study homosexual community as you stated above.

Ok, so back to the topic. "Previous studies found that gay men are more feminine than heterosexual men, while lesbian women are more masculine than heterosexual women (Dunne, Bailey, Kirk, & Martin, 2000; Haslam, 1997; Lippa, 2000; Pillard, 1991)." - quote from "GD Studies". As seen, previous research studies the extent of masculine and feminine of the same sex/gender, but how about on opposite sex? For instance, we can compare the masculine or feminine behaviours and cognitions of lesbian women with gay men. What do you think?

Hey SunnyZENG,

I didn't consider comparing masculine vs. feminine preferences/behaviours/cognitions of just the homosexual community for our future research!

I should also note that earlier I wasn't sure if the homosexual community's responses skewed overall responses, but I realized from your response that the study DID mention averages of the homosexual community as a whole:

"In absolute terms, the mean GD scores for gay men (0.51) and for lesbians (0.55) indicated that both groups, on average, had neither strongly male- nor female-typical occupational pref- erences. That is, both group means were near the mid- point of possible GD scores (i.e., 0.50)."

So since the differences between the homosexual and heterosexual community are offset by the average scores as a whole, they're not skewed.

Ok, back to your question. I definitely think we can study and compare gay men and lesbian women alone using GD, since their preferences seem to parallel the heterosexual community. But since, as mentioned above, their responses don't actually skew results, so I'm wondering if the findings/results of the GD would essentially be the same, but applied to opposite sexes? What are your thoughts?

yes, this is what I am thinking. In further studies, researchers might examine GD of homosexualities based on opposite sexes because participants’ sexual orientations and gender identities role in society do really effect the reliability of GD in this research. For future research, participants can be equal sample size of Lesbians and gays, maybe the same method to test the masculine and feminine extents of gay men and lesbian women (or do you have a better way to examine?). Do you agree or any advise?

I agree, we know from research (some summarized in this paper) that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are more likely to experience stigma, bullying, harassment, and as a result negative physical and mental health behaviours and outcomes. Future research could look at the extent to which this is due to gender nonconformity and a GD scale like ours would be perfect to do this.

I really find this topic interesting. Looking back at the results, it appeared that some of the strongest d values correlated with sexual behaviours and mate-selection tasks, as opposed to less strong relations between GD and occupational preferences. Some research on evolutionary psychology has been looking at the psychological mechanisms underlying males and females that may drive our behaviour. If we can relate this to GD scales, it could be really interesting- especially because the correlations for both men and women were so high in a number of categories.

DorothyNeufeld, Sexual behaviour/mate selection and evolutionary theory is an area I'd really like to discuss re: future research, but wasn't sure how to integrate it with our GD findings. If you have any ideas you'd like to like to discuss, I'm completely open to starting a new thread for this on the discussion board!

Not entirely sure if I'm going in the right direction, but I'm just going to throw out some ideas. I'd love to hear your thoughts. - In terms of Attraction: Hyper-masculine and hyper-feminine (the extremes) faces are regarded as more attractive than faces that are more androgynous. Would "hyper-feminine activities" predict the degree of an woman's attractiveness? (Eg. would a woman who enjoys putting on makeup be rated more physically attractive than a woman who enjoys modifying cars?) - Are the "extremes" also "extremes" in terms of masculinity/femininity? (eg. does a hyper-masculine-looking man have a hyper-masculine profile?) - Gender-based scripts in terms of dating - Gender differences in commitment/fidelity - Fluidity of sexual orientation - Successfulness of a relationship in heterosexual couples (gender as a barrier to communication)

Hi Schuolee,

Thanks, I wasn't entirely sure where exactly to reply, I agree it is somewhat unrelated! I found that the behaviours, like wearing-make up and carrying a purse were more gender-typical behaviours, as opposed to what each found attractive. More like a distinction between personal behaviours and personal interests in others. I see where you're going, does wearing makeup assume hyper-femininity in a woman? Not necessarily, I would think, does this behaviour span across males who identify as women- I feel like it doesn't happen as often, despite expressing some other behaviours and interests which appear very feminine. I still feel like wearing make-up specifically, is still socially constrained to women (unfortunately), with exceptions of some violating this social norm (as Jamie Veale pointed out in an earlier thread I believe). I feel like there is a distinction between gender-typical sexual behaviours, which may be more deeply rooted in a male or female nature as opposed to behaviours or occupational preferences which tend to be defined as feminine or masculine at a given time. Sexual behaviours, for adaptive purposes (maybe) may have a longer-lasting imprint on our identified gender. This may be a leap, but it could be interesting. I wasn't sure what you meant in fluidity of sexual-orientation- Successfulness of a relationship in heterosexual couples (gender as a barrier to communication)?

Hi again Schoulee,

I did some further research suggestions on vocational preferences, as an area this study could further examine as it isnt consistent with previous studies that do show a significant relationship between GD and occupational preferences. Added some suggestions in how our study could add new dimensions perhaps to find more in depth correlations between the two.

I like where you're going with the idea sexual behaviour is more deeply engrained in our identified gender. At least, definitely more so than activities such as putting on makeup.

Regarding fluidity of sexual orientation, I was getting at whether or not GD could be predictive of increased likelihood bisexual behaviour. Studies have shown that women, more than men, are more fluid in their sexuality (More women report bisexual experiences than men), but there are more reported homosexual men than homosexual women.

Regarding relationship success, I was considering the possibility that gender differences in communication may affect relationships, but I realized earlier that there is a section on marital status in this posting.

Great work on the Occupational Interests section! Really well-written.

Thanks, actually the areas of bisexuality and its fluidity interests really interests me too, I heard similar things about it being more fluid among women, I wonder why this is. I had no idea there were differences in more reports of homosexual men than women. Great topic. Would be interesting to examine. I appreciate the editing! It looks clear.

I agree with DorothyNeufeld, that a lot of the questions on our scale are socially constructed to be masculine or feminine. There is nothing inherently feminine about make-up or a purse - it's just what our society makes of it. As Schoulee rightly points out, some of the other sexuality-related variables may have some biological explanation - although I still believe these will be influenced by psychological and social factors.

From an evolutionary perspective though, it seems there is diversity in gender-related personality traits within genders (we know from the sexual orientation studies). The textbook discussion on the evolutionary reasons for the differences in the Big-5 traits is relevant here - is it adaptive to as a society have different levels of gender-typed personality. Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective it is adaptive to have a minority of people who are gender atypical to help "bridge the divide" among the sexes and help with a society to have more harmony.