Femininity

Abstract

Femininity is a form of gender identity: the attributes, behaviors, and self-conceptions a culture associates with women, and a person's own endorsement of them. This article treats it as a problem in social cognition rather than a fixed essence. It develops the main threads: the measurement revolution that recast femininity and masculinity from the two poles of one scale into two independent dimensions (Constantinople; Bem; Spence); the gender-schema account that makes femininity a cognitive lens (Bem); the content of the feminine stereotype and the prescriptive norms that police it (Prentice & Carranza; Mahalik); and the communion dimension, objectification, and the measured drift of these stereotypes across decades (Helgeson; Fredrickson & Roberts; Eagly et al.; Hsu et al.). A worked example and three interactive demonstrations make each mechanism manipulable.

Keywords: femininity, gender identity, gender schema

To call a trait, a gesture, or a preference “feminine” is to invoke a shared cultural map of what women are supposed to be. The map is detailed and widely known: warmth, nurturance, sensitivity to others, gentleness, an orientation toward relationships and appearance. What makes femininity a subject for cognitive and social science is that this map is not a simple reflection of who women are—it is a mental structure, learned and applied, that shapes how people perceive others, judge themselves, and regulate their own behavior.

The scientific study of femininity has therefore been less about cataloguing feminine traits than about asking what kind of thing femininity is: a single dimension or one of several, a stable attribute or a cognitive schema, a description of how women behave or a prescription for how they should. The sections below take these questions in turn, after first placing femininity within the broader category of gender identity under which it is classified.

What Femininity Is

Femininity, in the sense the behavioral sciences study it, is the set of psychological attributes, behaviors, interests, and self-conceptions that a culture associates with women and girls, together with the degree to which a given person endorses and enacts them. Two features fix the concept. The first is that it is cultural and learned rather than a direct read-out of biological sex: the specific traits counted as feminine—and the strength of the link—vary across time and place, which is why femininity is studied as a social construction with real psychological effects rather than as a fixed essence. The second is that it is distinct from both sex and gender identity in the narrow sense: a person's femininity is not the same as whether they are female, nor the same as whether they identify as a woman, but a separate question of which gendered attributes they endorse.

Because femininity is defined by a relation to a cultural model rather than by any single trait, the field's central task has been to specify that model, to measure a person's position relative to it, and to ask what the mind does when it applies it. Some aspects are overt, as when a person reports which traits describe them; most are subtler, inferred from how readily a person sorts the world into gendered categories or conforms to unstated norms (Bem, 1981; Mahalik et al., 2005). The sections below follow that structure: first the measurement question that reshaped the field, then the schema account of femininity as cognition, then the content and prescriptive force of the feminine stereotype, and finally its communion core and its change over time.

In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Femininity (D057227) is a descriptor filed as a kind of Gender Identity (D005783) and of Social Behavior (D012919). The placement encodes a substantive claim: femininity is an aspect of how a person locates themselves in the social category of gender, expressed and sustained in behavior among others. The remainder of this article takes its mechanisms and measures in turn, connecting each to the social cognition it requires.

Perspectives on Femininity

The study of femininity is organized less by one grand theory than by a set of perspectives, each tied to a distinct question. The first asks how femininity should be measured and answers with the shift from a single bipolar scale to two independent dimensions. A second asks what, cognitively, femininity is and answers with gender-schema theory. A third asks what the feminine stereotype contains and how it constrains and answers with work on stereotype content and prescriptive norms. A fourth asks what lies at the stereotype's core and whether it changes and answers with the communion dimension, objectification, and cross-temporal meta-analysis. These perspectives are complementary rather than rival: a woman reporting her traits on a questionnaire, a child sorting toys by gender, and a hiring panel penalizing an “unfeminine” candidate each involve femininity, but as a measured attribute, a cognitive process, and a social prescription respectively. Table 1 summarizes them, and the sections that follow develop each in turn.

Figure 1

Femininity as a Learned Cultural Model

Table 1

Perspectives on Femininity

From a single scale to two dimensions

For most of the twentieth century, masculinity and femininity were measured as the two ends of a single ruler: a person high in masculinity was by definition low in femininity, and the two could not both be high. Anne Constantinople's influential critique dismantled this assumption, arguing that masculinity–femininity was probably not a single bipolar dimension at all, that the existing tests did not measure one coherent thing, and that the field had never properly justified treating the two as opposites (Constantinople, 1973). The critique cleared the ground for a new kind of instrument.

Sandra Bem built it. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory treated femininity and masculinity as two independent scales, each a list of socially desirable traits—warm, gentle, and affectionate on the one side; assertive, independent, and competitive on the other—so that a respondent received two scores rather than one (Bem, 1974). This made androgyny measurable for the first time: a person high on both dimensions. Bem later refined how the inventory should be scored, favoring a treatment of masculinity and femininity as separate continuous dimensions rather than a single difference score (Bem, 1977). Working in parallel, Janet Spence and colleagues developed the Personal Attributes Questionnaire, which likewise separated the expressive, communal cluster associated with femininity from the instrumental, agentic cluster associated with masculinity, and related the two to self-esteem (Spence, Helmreich & Stapp, 1975). The shared achievement was to turn femininity from the mere absence of masculinity into a dimension in its own right. Demo 1 lets the reader set a person's femininity and masculinity scores and read off the resulting sex-role typology.

Gender schema: femininity as a cognitive lens

Having two dimensions raised a deeper question: what is a person doing when they are strongly sex-typed? Bem's answer, gender-schema theory, reframed femininity from a bundle of traits into a mode of information processing. A schema is a cognitive structure that organizes perception; a gender schema sorts an enormous range of information—objects, activities, roles, and personal attributes—into the categories masculine and feminine, even when sex is irrelevant to the matter at hand (Bem, 1981). Sex-typed individuals, on this account, are not simply those who happen to possess feminine or masculine traits but those most ready to use the gender schema: they spontaneously encode themselves and the world in gendered terms and regulate their behavior to keep it consistent with the schema's feminine or masculine pole—the developmental process of sex typing by which a child comes to endorse and enact the attributes prescribed for their sex.

The move is consequential because it locates femininity in cognition rather than in character. A feminine self-concept, in schema terms, is maintained by a readiness to notice gender, to assimilate new information to it, and to feel that departures from the feminine ideal are self-relevant failings. It also explains how femininity reproduces itself across a culture: children acquire not just a list of feminine traits but the disposition to view the world through gender at all, which is why the theory carried a practical recommendation to raise children to be more gender-aschematic. Femininity, in short, can be a lens as much as a content.

Feminine norms and stereotype content

If femininity is a cultural model, what exactly does the model contain, and how tightly does it bind? Kay Deaux and Laurie Lewis showed that the gender stereotype is not a single global impression but a structure of separable components—traits, role behaviors, physical characteristics, and occupations—that can vary independently, so that knowing someone fits the feminine stereotype on one component does not guarantee the others (Deaux & Lewis, 1984). The feminine stereotype, in other words, has internal structure rather than being an undifferentiated whole.

Crucially, the stereotype is not merely descriptive but prescriptive: it specifies not only how women are but how they ought and ought not to be. Deborah Prentice and Erica Carranza mapped these prescriptions, distinguishing what women should be (warm, kind, interested in children), what they should not be (dominant, arrogant), what they are allowed to be, and what they do not have to be—a four-way scheme that captures the double bind in which intensified prescriptions meet tightened proscriptions (Prentice & Carranza, 2002). James Mahalik and colleagues operationalized this normative pressure directly, building the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory to measure how far a person adheres to culturally defined feminine norms such as investment in appearance, niceness in relationships, and modesty (Mahalik et al., 2005). More recent work confirms that the stereotype remains multidimensional: Tanja Hentschel and colleagues found that men and women still characterize the sexes along distinct, separable trait dimensions, and that self-characterizations do not simply track the stereotype (Hentschel, Heilman & Peus, 2019). Demo 2 lets the reader set a profile of feminine-norm endorsements and read off an overall conformity index.

Communion, objectification, and change over time

Running through the feminine stereotype is a single organizing theme: communion, the orientation toward warmth, connection, and the welfare of others, as opposed to the agency—assertion, mastery, independence—that organizes the masculine stereotype. Vicki Helgeson showed that this dimension has consequences for well-being, and in particular that unmitigated communion—communion without any balancing agency, an exclusive focus on others at the expense of the self—is associated with poorer adjustment (Helgeson, 1994). Femininity's defining virtue, pressed to an extreme, becomes a liability.

The feminine emphasis on appearance has its own cognitive cost. Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts's objectification theory argued that growing up female in a culture that sexualizes the female body leads girls and women to internalize an observer's perspective on themselves—to monitor their own appearance as if from outside—which consumes attention and raises the risk of shame, anxiety, and disordered eating (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Wendy Wood and Alice Eagly's biosocial synthesis helped organize this literature, distinguishing two research traditions on gender identity: one treating it as self-categorization as a woman or man, the other as the gendered attributes a person endorses, and clarifying which questions each can answer (Wood & Eagly, 2015).

None of this is static. Jean Twenge's cross-temporal meta-analysis showed that women's self-reported endorsement of masculine, agentic traits rose substantially across the decades after the inventories were created, narrowing the gap with men (Twenge, 1997); a later cross-temporal analysis of Bem Sex-Role Inventory scores from 1993 to 2012 found that masculine and feminine self-ratings continued to shift over time (Donnelly & Twenge, 2017). Alice Eagly and colleagues, analyzing U.S. public-opinion polls from 1946 to 2018, found that the communion stereotype of women not only persisted but strengthened, even as beliefs about competence equalized (Eagly et al., 2020). A meta-analytic review by Nina Hsu and colleagues took stock of the actual sex differences in agency and communion that these stereotypes track, finding real but modest average differences that vary by how the constructs are measured (Hsu et al., 2021). Demo 3 lets the reader set a starting stereotype level and an annual rate of change and watch the trajectory across decades.

Worked Example

The mechanisms become concrete in three small exercises, each matching one of the demonstrations. The indices below are illustrative—they capture the qualitative shape of the published findings rather than reproducing any single reported statistic.

Two dimensions (a sex-role typology). Score femininity F and masculinity M independently, each 0–10, and classify by a median split at 5. A respondent scoring F = 8 and M = 7 is above the split on both and is classified androgynous. One scoring F = 8, M = 3 is feminine-typed; F = 3, M = 8 is masculine-typed; and F = 3, M = 2 is undifferentiated. The point is that two independent scores yield four types, not a single position on one ruler: androgyny and undifferentiation are invisible to a bipolar scale but fall straight out of the two-dimensional scheme. Demo 1 lets the reader move both scores and watch the type change.

Feminine norms (a conformity index). Represent five feminine-norm domains—investment in appearance, niceness in relationships, modesty, domesticity, and care for children—each rated 0–10 for how strongly a person endorses the norm, and average them for a 0–10 conformity index. A person rating appearance 8, niceness 7, modesty 6, domesticity 5, and care 9 scores (8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 9) ÷ 5 = 7.0. A person rating 3, 4, 2, 3, 3 scores (3 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 3) ÷ 5 = 3.0. The point is that conformity to feminine norms is a profile across domains, not a single quantity, and two people with the same average can endorse very different norms. Demo 2 lets the reader set all five and read off the index.

Change over time (a cross-temporal trajectory). Model a stereotype or trait level as a straight line over years: level = baseline + rate × (year − 1974), with the level capped at 10. Take a feminine-communion stereotype with baseline = 6.0 in 1974 and a rate of +0.03 per year. By 2004 the modeled level is 6.0 + 0.03 × 30 = 6.9; by 2018 it is 6.0 + 0.03 × 44 = 7.32, rounded to 7.3. A masculine-agency self-rating among women with baseline = 5.0 and a steeper rate of +0.04 reaches 5.0 + 0.04 × 44 = 6.76, or 6.8, by 2018. The point is that stereotypes drift at measurable, construct-specific rates: the communion stereotype can hold or strengthen while women's agentic self-ratings rise, exactly the divergence the cross-temporal literature reports. Demo 3 lets the reader set the baseline and rate and watch the trajectory.

Discussion

Read across its perspectives, the science of femininity describes a learned cognitive and social structure rather than a natural kind. Femininity is best measured not as the opposite of masculinity but as an independent dimension, which makes androgyny and undifferentiation visible (Constantinople, 1973; Bem, 1974; Spence, Helmreich & Stapp, 1975); it operates as a cognitive schema that sorts the self and the world by gender (Bem, 1981); it carries specifiable content and prescriptive force that constrain how women may behave (Deaux & Lewis, 1984; Prentice & Carranza, 2002; Mahalik et al., 2005); and its communion core has both costs and a measurable history (Helgeson, 1994; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Eagly et al., 2020). Placed under gender identity in the MeSH vocabulary, femininity earns the classification: it is one of the ways a person locates themselves within the social category of gender.

The practical stakes are continuous with the psychology. Because femininity is constituted by cognitions—which traits one endorses, how readily one sorts by gender, which norms one feels bound by—it can shift as those cognitions change, and the cross-temporal record shows exactly such movement without erasing the stereotype's core (Twenge, 1997; Donnelly & Twenge, 2017). But the prescriptive and objectifying faces of femininity are a standing caution: the same model that supplies identity and belonging also polices appearance and penalizes deviation, and its communal ideal, pressed too far, undermines well-being (Helgeson, 1994; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). The honest summary is that femininity is now well mapped as a measurable, multidimensional, historically changing construct, while the questions of how its prescriptions should loosen, and how far its measured sex differences reflect roles rather than nature, remain genuinely open (Hsu et al., 2021; Wood & Eagly, 2015).

Current Directions

The most active front is cross-temporal measurement: treating the feminine stereotype as a moving target and tracking its components separately over decades. The headline finding is a dissociation—the communion stereotype of women has persisted or even strengthened while beliefs about competence have equalized, so femininity is not fading uniformly but changing shape (Eagly et al., 2020). A second strand revisits the self-report inventories themselves: analyses of Bem Sex-Role Inventory responses across successive cohorts ask whether the trait lists written in the 1970s still mean the same thing to respondents today, and document continued drift in masculine and feminine self-ratings (Donnelly & Twenge, 2017). A third front reconciles the stereotype with the evidence on actual differences, using meta-analysis to estimate how large the agency and communion gaps really are and how much they depend on measurement choices (Hsu et al., 2021). A fourth continues to refine the structure of the stereotype, showing that masculine and feminine characterizations remain multidimensional and that people's self-descriptions diverge from the stereotypes they hold of their group (Hentschel, Heilman & Peus, 2019). The common thread is a move from asking what femininity is to measuring, component by component, how it is changing.

Common Misconceptions

Femininity is just the opposite of masculinity.

This is the bipolar assumption the field abandoned. Femininity and masculinity are independent dimensions, so a person can be high on both (androgynous) or neither (undifferentiated); treating them as opposite ends of one scale makes those common cases invisible (Constantinople, 1973; Bem, 1974).

Femininity is a biological trait of females.

It is a culturally defined and learned model, not a direct read-out of sex. The specific traits counted as feminine, and the strength of the link to being female, vary across cultures and have shifted measurably over recent decades (Twenge, 1997; Eagly et al., 2020).

The feminine stereotype only describes how women are seen.

It also prescribes how women should and should not behave. Prescriptive stereotypes specify what women ought to be (warm, modest) and ought not to be (dominant, arrogant), which is why violating them carries a social penalty (Prentice & Carranza, 2002).

More femininity is straightforwardly better for women.

Not always. Communion unbalanced by agency—an exclusive focus on others—predicts poorer adjustment, and the feminine emphasis on appearance can foster self-objectification, with costs to attention and mental health (Helgeson, 1994; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

Glossary

Agency.

The dimension of assertion, mastery, independence, and competition culturally associated with masculinity, contrasted with the communion associated with femininity (Helgeson; Hsu et al.).

Androgyny.

The condition of scoring high on both the femininity and masculinity dimensions at once; made measurable by treating the two as independent scales (Bem).

Bem Sex-Role Inventory.

A self-report instrument that measures femininity and masculinity on two independent scales of socially desirable traits, yielding two scores rather than one (Bem).

Communion.

The dimension of warmth, nurturance, connection, and concern for others' welfare that forms the organizing core of the feminine stereotype (Helgeson; Eagly et al.).

Conformity to feminine norms.

The degree to which a person adheres to culturally defined feminine norms—such as investment in appearance, niceness, and modesty—as measured by the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory (Mahalik et al.).

Cross-temporal meta-analysis.

A method that treats year of data collection as a variable, pooling studies across decades to estimate how a trait or stereotype has changed over time (Twenge; Donnelly & Twenge).

Femininity.

The culturally defined set of attributes, behaviors, and self-conceptions associated with women, and a person's endorsement of them; in MeSH, a form of gender identity.

Gender schema.

A cognitive structure that organizes and sorts information—including facts about the self—into the categories masculine and feminine, readily applied by sex-typed individuals (Bem).

Objectification theory.

The account that a culture sexualizing the female body leads girls and women to internalize an observer's perspective on themselves, with costs to attention and mental health (Fredrickson & Roberts).

Personal Attributes Questionnaire.

A self-report measure separating the expressive, communal cluster associated with femininity from the instrumental, agentic cluster associated with masculinity (Spence, Helmreich & Stapp).

Prescriptive stereotype.

A stereotype that specifies not only how a group is but how its members should and should not behave, so that deviation carries a social penalty (Prentice & Carranza).

Sex typing.

The process by which a person comes to endorse the traits, preferences, and self-concept culturally prescribed for their sex, and to regulate behavior to match them (Bem).

Two-dimensional model.

The view that femininity and masculinity are independent dimensions rather than the poles of a single scale, so that a person receives a separate score on each (Constantinople; Bem; Spence).

Unmitigated communion.

Communion without balancing agency—an exclusive focus on others at the expense of the self—which is associated with poorer psychological adjustment (Helgeson).

Key Researchers

Sandra L. Bem

(1944–2014; Cornell University). Psychologist who reconceived femininity as one of two independent dimensions rather than the opposite of masculinity, building the Bem Sex-Role Inventory and, later, gender-schema theory, which casts femininity as a cognitive lens. Wikipedia

Alice H. Eagly

(Northwestern University). Social psychologist whose social-role theory frames femininity as the communal expectations attached to women's roles, and whose cross-temporal meta-analysis tracked how those stereotypes have shifted across decades. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page · Wikipedia

Barbara L. Fredrickson

(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Social psychologist who, with Tomi-Ann Roberts, formulated objectification theory, explaining how the cultural sexualization of the feminine body shapes women's self-perception and mental-health risks. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page · Wikipedia

James R. Mahalik

(Boston College). Counseling psychologist who operationalized femininity as conformity to a set of culturally defined feminine norms, building the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page

Janet Taylor Spence

(1923–2015; University of Texas at Austin). Psychologist who developed the Personal Attributes Questionnaire and the two-dimensional expressive/instrumental model of femininity and masculinity, and a former president of the American Psychological Association. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Jean M. Twenge

(San Diego State University). Psychologist whose cross-temporal meta-analyses measured how women's and men's endorsement of feminine and masculine traits has changed across successive generations. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Wendy Wood

(University of Southern California). Social psychologist whose biosocial analysis with Alice Eagly distinguishes the two research traditions on gender identity, separating self-categorization from the gendered attributes a person endorses. Google Scholar · Faculty page · Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

What is femininity?

Femininity is the set of psychological attributes, behaviors, interests, and self-conceptions that a culture associates with women and girls, together with how strongly a given person endorses and enacts them. It is studied as a learned social construction with real cognitive effects rather than as a fixed essence, and in the MeSH vocabulary it is classified as a kind of gender identity.

Is femininity the opposite of masculinity?

No, and this is the field's central correction. For decades the two were measured as the ends of one scale, but Constantinople's critique and the inventories built by Bem and Spence recast them as independent dimensions. A person can therefore score high on both (androgynous), high on one, or low on both (undifferentiated)—possibilities a single bipolar scale cannot represent.

What is gender-schema theory?

Gender-schema theory, developed by Sandra Bem, treats femininity as a mode of cognition rather than a bundle of traits. A gender schema is a mental structure that sorts information—objects, activities, roles, and facts about the self—into masculine and feminine categories. Strongly sex-typed people are those most ready to apply this schema, spontaneously encoding themselves and the world in gendered terms.

What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive feminine stereotypes?

A descriptive stereotype says how women are generally seen; a prescriptive one says how they should and should not behave. Prentice and Carranza mapped the feminine prescriptions—women should be warm and modest, should not be dominant or arrogant—and showed that violating them brings social penalties, which is what gives the feminine stereotype its constraining force.

What is the communion dimension?

Communion is the orientation toward warmth, nurturance, connection, and concern for others that forms the core of the feminine stereotype, contrasted with the agency—assertion, mastery, independence—at the core of the masculine one. It is femininity's defining virtue, but communion unbalanced by agency (“unmitigated communion”) is linked to poorer psychological adjustment.

Has the meaning of femininity changed over time?

Yes, measurably. Cross-temporal meta-analyses show women's endorsement of agentic, “masculine” traits rising across recent decades. Yet the change is not uniform: analyses of U.S. opinion polls from 1946 to 2018 found the communion stereotype of women persisted and even strengthened even as beliefs about competence equalized, so femininity is changing shape rather than simply fading.

What is objectification theory?

Objectification theory, proposed by Fredrickson and Roberts, holds that growing up female in a culture that sexualizes the female body leads girls and women to adopt an observer's perspective on themselves—habitually monitoring their own appearance. This self-objectification consumes cognitive resources and raises the risk of shame, anxiety, and disordered eating.

Why does MeSH classify femininity as a form of gender identity?

Because femininity is one of the ways a person situates themselves within the social category of gender: it concerns the gendered attributes a person endorses and expresses, which is an aspect of gender identity. MeSH also files it under social behavior, reflecting that femininity is enacted and sustained in interaction with others rather than held in private.

References

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215

Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354

Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035334

Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991

Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 76(9–10), 556–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y

Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 412–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.412

Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men's and women's characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011

Hsu, N., Badura, K. L., Newman, D. A., & Speach, M. E. P. (2021). Gender, “masculinity,” and “femininity”: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000343

Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory. Sex Roles, 52(7–8), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3709-7

Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076857

Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36(5–6), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766650

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73(11–12), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2