The BSRI measures masculinity and femininity as two independent trait dimensions rather than opposite ends of one continuum, which makes psychological androgyny (high on both) measurable for the first generation of gender-role research.
Sandra Bem built the inventory from personality characteristics judged more desirable in American society for one sex than the other; a built-in social desirability scale controls for response bias.
The two scores are statistically near-independent and highly reliable, and half a century of research links masculinity scores to self-esteem and adjustment, and femininity scores to relationship outcomes.
Its 1970s U.S. item content, binary framing of gender, and disputed classification methods are well-documented limitations; treat category labels as research descriptors, not identities or diagnoses.
At a Glance
Items
60 (20 masculine, 20 feminine, 20 neutral; the neutral items form a Social Desirability control scale)
Administration time
About 10 minutes (publisher estimate)
Response format
7-point scale, 1 = never or almost never true, 7 = always or almost always true
Scores
Masculinity and Femininity (independent); fourfold classification: masculine, feminine, androgynous, undifferentiated
Bem (1974), Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Introduction
The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) is among the most influential measures in the psychology of gender. Developed by Sandra Bem (1974), it was one of the first instruments to treat masculinity and femininity as independent dimensions rather than opposite poles of a single continuum; the Personal Attributes Questionnaire emerged from Janet Spence’s group in the same period (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975). This conceptual move made it possible to describe people who score high on both dimensions, for whom Bem popularized the term psychological androgyny, and it reframed decades of research on gender and adjustment.
Understanding Gender Role Orientation
Before the BSRI, masculinity-femininity inventories forced a choice: a more masculine self-description automatically meant a less feminine one. Bem (1974) rejected that assumption. Items were selected empirically: personality characteristics were rated by judges for how desirable they were in American society for a man or for a woman, and traits entered the Masculinity or Femininity scale only when judged significantly more desirable for one sex than the other. Masculine items reflect an instrumental, agentic orientation and feminine items an expressive, communal one (Bem, 1974). Twenty neutral items, judged equally desirable for both sexes, form a Social Desirability scale that controls for a general tendency to endorse desirable traits.
Theoretical Foundation
The BSRI preceded its best-known theoretical frame. Bem’s gender schema theory (Bem, 1981b) argued that sex-typed individuals process information through culturally supplied gender schemas, and it used the BSRI to identify sex-typed and non-sex-typed respondents; the inventory thus became the operational core of the theory rather than a product of it. In the original psychometric work, the theoretical claim was narrower: masculinity and femininity are empirically separable self-concept dimensions, and their balance within a person is itself a meaningful individual difference (Bem, 1974).
Four Gender Role Categories
Crossing high and low standing on the two scales yields four profiles: masculine (high M, low F), feminine (high F, low M), androgynous (high on both), and undifferentiated (low on both). The fourfold median-split classification was introduced by Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975) and subsequently adopted by Bem (1977); Bem’s original 1974 scoring used a t-ratio of the within-person difference between femininity and masculinity means.
📏 Key insight: The BSRI’s lasting contribution is measurement, not typology; by making masculinity and femininity independent scores, it turned androgyny from a metaphor into a testable variable.
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
60 trait adjectives and phrases, self-rated for how true each is of oneself
7-point response scale, labeled at each point (Bem, 1974)
Two primary scores (Masculinity, Femininity) plus a Social Desirability control scale
About 10 minutes to complete; validated for ages 16 and older
Androgyny / differentiation – the joint configuration of the two scores, classified into four categories
Versions & Adaptations
Original 60-item BSRI (Bem, 1974)
Short Form, 30 items (Bem, 1981a, professional manual); a UK psychometric evaluation of the short form is provided by Colley, Mulhern, Maltby, and Wood (2009)
BSRI-12, a 12-item reduction examined psychometrically in an older Brazilian population (Carver, Vafaei, Guerra, Freire, & Phillips, 2013)
Numerous translations exist; validation quality varies by language and sample
Research Applications
Gender-role and individual-differences research – the standard operationalization of sex-typing and androgyny
Adjustment and wellbeing studies – relating masculinity/femininity configurations to mental-health outcomes
Developmental and cohort research – tracking gender-role self-description across age groups and historical time
Cross-cultural measurement research – testing whether 1970s U.S. item content travels across cultures
Rate how well sixty personality characteristics describe you.
Scoring and Interpretation
Response Format
Each characteristic is rated on a 7-point scale from 1 = never or almost never true to 7 = always or almost always true; every scale point carries a label (Bem, 1974).
Illustrative Items
The full item set is licensed through Mind Garden; four genuine items per scale illustrate the content:
Masculinity: self-reliant; assertive; willing to take risks; has leadership abilities
Masculinity score = mean of the 20 masculine items (range 1-7).
Femininity score = mean of the 20 feminine items (range 1-7).
Classification. Bem’s (1974) original index was a t-ratio of the within-person F-M difference. Standard practice since Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975), adopted by Bem (1977), is the fourfold median split shown below.
Masculinity
Femininity
Category
Above median
Above median
Androgynous
Above median
Below median
Masculine
Below median
Above median
Feminine
Below median
Below median
Undifferentiated
Medians should come from the researcher’s own sample or from the manual’s normative tables (Bem, 1981a). Category membership therefore depends on the reference sample, and classification can shift across samples and eras, a documented weakness of the method (Hoffman & Borders, 2001).
Population Norms
Original normative means (Bem, 1974, Table 6):
Sample
N
Masculinity M
Femininity M
Source
Stanford males
444
4.97
4.44
Bem (1974)
Stanford females
279
4.57
5.01
Bem (1974)
Foothill College males
—
4.96
4.62
Bem (1974)
Foothill College females
—
4.55
5.08
Bem (1974)
These are 1970s U.S. college norms. Women’s masculinity scores rose substantially in subsequent decades (Twenge, 1997), so contemporary samples should not be classified against them. No absolute score bands (high/moderate/low) have a published basis, and none are offered here.
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency: Masculinity α = .86 in both normative samples; Femininity α = .80 and .82; Social Desirability α = .70 and .75 (Bem, 1974)
Test-retest reliability (about 4 weeks, n = 56): Masculinity r = .90, Femininity r = .90, Androgyny score r = .93, Social Desirability r = .89 (Bem, 1974)
Structure and Independence of the Scales
Near-zero Masculinity-Femininity correlations in the original samples (.11, -.14, -.02, -.07), supporting the two-dimensional conception (Bem, 1974)
Confirmatory factor analysis of the 60 items in 671 adults supported seven first-order factors organized under two second-order factors corresponding to masculinity and femininity, with relatively small age and gender differences in structure (Blanchard-Fields, Suhrer-Roussel, & Hertzog, 1994)
Early factor-analytic critique questioned the unidimensionality and content of the scales, particularly the Femininity scale (Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979)
Social desirability control: androgyny scores were essentially uncorrelated with the Social Desirability scale (.08 and .04) (Bem, 1974)
Item validity over time: a 1990s U.S. replication of the original item-selection procedure found most items still differentially desirable by sex, though with signs of weakening sex-typing (Holt & Ellis, 1998)
Adjustment and Behavioral Correlates
Self-esteem: a meta-analytic review of 35 studies concluded the evidence best supports the masculinity model, with masculinity the dominant predictor of self-esteem (Whitley, 1983); Bem (1977) similarly reported that androgynous and masculine groups outscored feminine and undifferentiated groups on self-esteem
Mental health: a meta-analysis of 26 studies found masculine and androgynous individuals showed better mental-health outcomes than feminine-typed individuals (Bassoff & Glass, 1982); a companion review concluded the data favor the masculinity model over an androgyny advantage (Taylor & Hall, 1982)
Behavioral flexibility: androgynous participants displayed both independence under conformity pressure and nurturant behavior across laboratory situations, whereas sex-typed participants showed domain-specific deficits (Bem & Lewis, 1975; Bem, Martyna, & Watson, 1976)
Coping and symptoms: masculinity and femininity showed distinct relations to coping styles and psychological symptoms in adults (Lengua & Stormshak, 2000)
Relationships: in married couples, marital happiness was consistently linked to the femininity of one’s partner; spouses of feminine or androgynous partners reported greater happiness (Antill, 1983)
Social perception: androgynous stimulus persons tended to be evaluated more favorably than sex-typed ones (Major, Carnevale, & Deaux, 1981)
Development and Historical Change
Early adolescence: sex differences in masculinity intensified across grades 6-8, while femininity showed no such divergence; pubertal timing did not account for the effect (Galambos, Almeida, & Petersen, 1990)
Cohort change: women’s BSRI masculinity scores rose steadily from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s (r = .74 with year), men’s masculinity rose more modestly (r = .47), and men’s femininity showed no increase, shrinking the sex difference in masculinity (Twenge, 1997)
Cross-cultural measurement: in a contemporary Japanese sample, men and women did not differ significantly on masculine or feminine characteristics, and the authors argued that the U.S.-derived items translate imperfectly, motivating culture-specific approaches (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2002)
Classification stability: a 25-year reassessment documented substantial variability in how BSRI classifications behave across samples and scoring choices (Hoffman & Borders, 2001)
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Research Applications
Operationalizing sex-typing, androgyny, and gender-role self-concept in individual-differences research
Studying how gender-role configurations relate to adjustment, coping, and interpersonal outcomes
Cohort and cross-cultural comparisons of gender-role self-description, with appropriate measurement caution
Research Design Considerations
Choose and report the classification method explicitly (sample median split vs manual norms vs continuous scores); results can differ by method (Hoffman & Borders, 2001)
Prefer continuous M and F scores where the hypothesis allows; median splits discard information and are sample-dependent
Norms are historical: classifying modern respondents against 1970s medians misclassifies systematically, given documented cohort change (Twenge, 1997)
Licensing: budget for Mind Garden licenses before data collection; the instrument is not free to reproduce
Cultural Considerations
Item content reflects 1970s American gender norms; desirability-based item validity has weakened even within the U.S. (Holt & Ellis, 1998)
Direct translations can fail to capture local gender constructs (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2002); check local validation work before use
Limitations and Cautions
Binary framing: the instrument assumes trait masculinity/femininity anchored to a two-sex framework and does not accommodate non-binary identities
Category labels are descriptive, not diagnostic, and depend on the reference sample
Self-report of desirable traits invites impression management despite the social desirability control
Factor structure is more complex than two clean dimensions (Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979; Blanchard-Fields et al., 1994)
Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.
Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development:
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
For the 30-item Short Form:
Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (no DOI)
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
Scoring, Manual, and Short Forms:
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
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. (1981a). Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (no DOI)
Colley, A., Mulhern, G., Maltby, J., & Wood, A. M. (2009). The short form BSRI: Instrumentality, expressiveness and gender associations among a United Kingdom sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(3), 384-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.005
Carver, L. F., Vafaei, A., Guerra, R., Freire, A., & Phillips, S. P. (2013). Gender differences: Examination of the 12-Item Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI-12) in an older Brazilian population. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e76356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076356
Bem, S. L., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 634-643. https://doi.org/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(5), 1016-1023. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.1016
Psychometric Critique and Reassessment:
Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 996-1016. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.996
Blanchard-Fields, F., Suhrer-Roussel, L., & Hertzog, C. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: Old questions, new answers. Sex Roles, 30(5-6), 423-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01420602
Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39(11-12), 929-941. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018836923919
Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2001.12069021
Adjustment and Correlates:
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(4), 765-778. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.765
Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 347-366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.347
Bassoff, E. S., & Glass, G. V. (1982). The relationship between sex roles and mental health: A meta-analysis of twenty-six studies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(4), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000082104019
Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.145
Major, B., Carnevale, P. J. D., & Deaux, K. (1981). A different perspective on androgyny: Evaluations of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 988-1001. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.988
Lengua, L. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2000). Gender, gender roles, and personality: Gender differences in the prediction of coping and psychological symptoms. Sex Roles, 43(11-12), 787-820. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011096604861
Development and Historical Change:
Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Petersen, A. C. (1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex role attitudes in early adolescence: Exploring gender intensification. Child Development, 61(6), 1905-1914. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130846
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
Sugihara, Y., & Katsurada, E. (2002). Gender role development in Japanese culture: Diminishing gender role differences in a contemporary society. Sex Roles, 47(9-10), 443-452. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021648426787
Related Assessments: HVQ: Hypermasculine Values Questionnaire and HMI: Hypermasculinity Inventory (links added when their pages go live)
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the BSRI measure?
How strongly a person's self-description matches culturally masculine (instrumental) and culturally feminine (expressive) personality traits. Because the two scores are independent, a person can be high on both (androgynous), high on one (masculine or feminine), or low on both (undifferentiated).
How long does it take?
About 10 minutes for the 60-item version, per the publisher.
Is the BSRI free to use?
No. It is copyright Consulting Psychologists Press (1978, 1981) and licensed through Mind Garden, Inc.; research and commercial uses require purchasing the appropriate license.
How is it scored?
Masculinity and Femininity are each the mean of 20 items (range 1 to 7). Classification into the four categories is usually done by median split on both scores, using the researcher's own sample medians or the manual's norms. Bem's original 1974 procedure used a t-ratio instead; results can differ by method.
How reliable is it?
In the original samples, internal consistency was .86 for Masculinity and .80 to .82 for Femininity, with 4-week test-retest correlations of .90 for both scales (Bem, 1974).
Should I use the 1970s norms to classify my participants?
No. Women's masculinity scores rose substantially between the 1970s and 1990s (Twenge, 1997), so historical medians misclassify modern respondents. Use your own sample's medians, or analyze the continuous scores.
How does the BSRI differ from the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ)?
Both emerged in the mid-1970s and measure instrumental and expressive traits as separate dimensions. The BSRI has 60 items including a social desirability scale; the PAQ is shorter and grew out of Spence and Helmreich's research program. The fourfold classification used with both instruments was introduced by the PAQ group (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975).
