The HVQ and its short form, the SHVQ, measure how strongly men endorse hypermasculine values: toughness, avoidance of anything feminine, and control of women's sexuality. Respondents rate their agreement with declarative value statements rather than reporting behavior.
Archer (2010) derived both forms in a single program, from a large item pool rated by 600 UK men drawn from occupation and sport-interest groups selected to vary in hypermasculine culture; the short form preserves the full questionnaire's measurement properties.
The questionnaire is unidimensional, with high internal consistency and high test-retest reliability, and it correlates with hostile (but not benevolent) sexism, traditional male role norms, and trait physical aggression.
It is a research instrument: there are no clinical cutoffs, no diagnostic use, and no published norms, and it has not been validated in women or outside the UK derivation context.
At a Glance
Items
HVQ: 26. SHVQ (short form): 16. Both derived in Archer (2010)
Administration time
Approx. 3-5 minutes (SHVQ) or 5-8 minutes (HVQ); no published estimates
Response format
7-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree)
Archer (2010), British Journal of Social Psychology
Introduction
The Hypermasculine Values Questionnaire (HVQ) is a 26-item self-report measure of the extent to which men endorse hypermasculine values, and the Short Hypermasculine Values Questionnaire (SHVQ) is its 16-item short form; the original paper abbreviates the short form HVQ-S, and SHVQ appears in later secondary sources. John Archer (2010) developed both in a single derivation program: an initial pool of 122 value statements, built as 61 statements each paired with an opposite-worded version to control response bias, was rated on a 7-point scale by 600 British men sampled from eight occupation and sport-interest categories, and principal components analysis with item reduction produced the two forms from the dominant first factor. The SHVQ retains the full scale’s measurement properties in a format brief enough for survey batteries; the HVQ offers fuller content coverage where administration time allows.
Understanding Hypermasculine Values
Hypermasculinity denotes an exaggerated commitment to a narrow, traditional version of manhood. The HVQ and SHVQ operationalize this at the level of values: statements a respondent can endorse or reject, concerning toughness, the need to avoid femininity, and the control of women’s sexuality (Archer, 2010). Framing the construct as endorsed values distinguishes them from behavior inventories and from personality-style instruments. The best known of the latter, the Hypermasculinity Inventory (HMI; Mosher & Sirkin, 1984), measures a “macho personality constellation” through 30 forced-choice item pairs organized into calloused sexual attitudes, violence as manly, and danger as exciting. The HVQ and SHVQ are more recent, separate instruments with a different format, a different factor structure, and a different derivation sample; HVQ-family findings should never be attributed to the HMI, nor the reverse.
Theoretical Foundation
Archer (2010) approached hypermasculinity from the study of male aggression and gender-role ideology, seeking a psychometrically modern measure of the values component of hypermasculine culture. Rather than positing subscales in advance, the derivation let the structure emerge empirically; confirmatory factor analysis in a second study supported a single underlying dimension. The instrument therefore yields one score, interpreted as the strength of a man’s endorsement of hypermasculine values, with content spanning toughness norms, rejection of femininity, and beliefs about controlling women’s sexuality.
🧠Key insight: The HVQ and SHVQ treat hypermasculinity as a single dimension of endorsed values, not a typology or a set of subscales; what they measure is how much a man subscribes to a tough, anti-feminine, controlling model of manhood.
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
Two forms: HVQ (26 items) and SHVQ (16 items), declarative value statements
7-point Likert response scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree)
Mixed keying (11 of the 26 HVQ items and 8 of the 16 SHVQ items are reverse-scored), so acquiescent responding is partly controlled
Single total score (mean of all items after reverse-scoring)
Adult male populations; derived and validated with UK samples
Free for research use with citation of Archer (2010)
Construct Coverage
Toughness as an obligation of manhood
Avoidance of femininity, including ridicule of men in gender-atypical roles
Control of women’s sexuality, including dismissal of sexual-harassment concerns
Versions & Adaptations
HVQ (26 items) – the full form, derived in the same paper (Archer, 2010)
SHVQ (16 items) – the short form (Archer, 2010); both forms are documented together on this page
No further published short forms or major adaptations were identified during verification (July 2026)
Research Applications
Aggression research – hypermasculine values as a correlate of trait physical aggression
Sexism and gender-ideology studies – relations with hostile sexism and male role norms
Men and masculinities research – comparing groups or cultures expected to differ in hypermasculine values
Individual-differences batteries – brief, unidimensional format suits multi-measure designs
View Testable Demo
Two ready-to-run implementations are available, one per form:
Rate your agreement with statements about masculine values.
Scoring and Interpretation
Response Format
Participants rate agreement with each statement on a 7-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
Illustrative Items
The full item sets are published in Archer (2010). Four SHVQ items illustrate the content and the mixed keying:
“Real men don’t back away from barroom confrontations”
“Men who take part in yoga or ballet deserve to be ridiculed”
“It’s a good thing for men to cry” (R)
“Nursing is a perfectly respectable occupation for a man” (R)
(R) = reverse-scored. Eight of the sixteen SHVQ items and eleven of the twenty-six HVQ items are reverse-scored; Table 2 of Archer (2010) gives the full keying.
Scoring Procedure
Reverse-score the reverse-keyed items (1↔7, 2↔6, 3↔5).
Average all items (26 for the HVQ, 16 for the SHVQ) to obtain the total score (range 1-7).
Higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of hypermasculine values.
Interpretation
There are no published norms, bands, or cutoffs for either form. Interpretation should be relative: compare scores across groups, conditions, or time points within a study, or standardize within the sample. For descriptive context only: whole-sample per-item means in the derivation samples were 3.2-3.4, below the scale midpoint of 4, with category means ranging from about 2.3 (students on feminine-typed courses) to 4.9 (unemployed men in Study 2) (Archer, 2010). Treating any absolute score as clinically meaningful has no basis in the literature.
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency: HVQ α = .93 and .92, SHVQ α = .91 and .88 in the derivation and replication samples (Studies 1-2); lower in the smaller validity samples (HVQ .84 and .85; SHVQ .74 and .76; Studies 3-4) (Archer, 2010)
Test-retest reliability (8 weeks, n = 80): HVQ r = .91, SHVQ r = .89 (Archer, 2010, Study 2)
Form equivalence: the two forms correlated r = .98 in Studies 1-2 and r = .96 in Study 4 (Archer, 2010)
Factor Structure
Unidimensionality supported for both forms by confirmatory factor analysis in an independent second sample: one-factor CFI = .92 (HVQ) and .93 (SHVQ) (Archer, 2010, Study 2)
Validity Evidence
Convergent validity (HVQ, Study 3): Male Role Norms anti-femininity r = .66, toughness r = .60, status r = .48; HMI violence-as-manly r = .56, calloused-sex r = .51, danger r = .34; traditional attitudes toward women’s rights (AWS-B) r = -.48; BSRI instrumental r = .27 and expressive r = -.32 (Archer, 2010)
Sexism (Study 4): hostile sexism r = .43; benevolent sexism r = .17, non-significant (Archer, 2010)
Aggression: moderate correlations with trait physical aggression, r = .39 (Study 3) and .34 (Study 4); verbal aggression non-significant in both samples (Archer, 2010)
Known-groups patterning: the eight occupation and interest categories differed as predicted in both samples, with uniformed services, manual workers, and unemployed men highest and students on feminine-typed courses lowest (Study 2: F(7,192) = 25.39 for the HVQ) (Archer, 2010)
Related-Instrument Evidence (HMI)
The older Hypermasculinity Inventory has its own evidence base, which should not be attributed to the SHVQ: total-score internal consistency of .89 in the original sample of 135 college men, with validity correlates including drug use, aggressive behavior, dangerous driving, and delinquency (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984); an association between its calloused-sex subscale and self-reported sexual aggression (Mosher & Anderson, 1986); and laboratory evidence that high-HMI men aggressed earlier and more intensely against a female opponent (Parrott & Zeichner, 2003).
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Research Applications
Quantifying hypermasculine value endorsement in adult male samples
Individual-differences predictor in aggression and sexism research
Group comparisons across occupational, subcultural, or experimental conditions
Research Design Considerations
Male samples only: the instrument was derived and validated with men; using it with women or non-binary participants departs from its evidence base
Self-report of values: endorsement of values is not a measure of behavior, and socially undesirable content invites underreporting
UK derivation: item idioms (e.g., “barroom confrontations”) and the value content reflect the British derivation context; check item functioning before use in other cultures
Reverse-keying: ensure the reverse-scored items are correctly recoded in analysis pipelines
Limitations and Cautions
Not a clinical instrument: no cutoffs, no diagnostic meaning, no norms
No subscale interpretation: the scale yields one score; interpreting item clusters as subscales is unsupported
Construct scope: measures endorsed values, not hypermasculine behavior or identity
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:
Archer, J. (2010). Derivation and assessment of a hypermasculine values questionnaire. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 525-551. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X471525
Archer, J. (2010). Derivation and assessment of a hypermasculine values questionnaire. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 525-551. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X471525
Related Instrument (Hypermasculinity Inventory):
Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18(2), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(84)90026-6
Mosher, D. L., & Anderson, R. D. (1986). Macho personality, sexual aggression, and reactions to guided imagery of realistic rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 20(1), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(86)90111-X
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.70
Related Assessments:BSRI: Bem Sex Role Inventory | HMI: Hypermasculinity Inventory (link when its page goes live)
Frequently Asked Questions
Are the HVQ and SHVQ free to use?
Yes, for non-commercial research with citation of Archer (2010). The items were published in the development paper and are reproduced in open research resources.
How long does it take to administer?
The SHVQ takes about 3-5 minutes (16 statements) and the HVQ about 5-8 minutes (26 statements), each rated on a 7-point agreement scale. No published timing estimates exist, so treat these as approximate.
What is the difference between the HVQ and the SHVQ?
Length. The HVQ has 26 items and the SHVQ 16; both come from the same derivation program (Archer, 2010), are scored the same way, and correlate r = .96-.98, effectively measuring the same single dimension. Use the SHVQ when session time is tight; the HVQ gives fuller content coverage.
Are SHVQ and HVQ-S the same scale?
Yes. Archer's (2010) paper abbreviates the short form HVQ-S; SHVQ appears in later secondary sources. Both names refer to the same 16-item short form.
How are the HVQ and SHVQ scored?
Reverse-score the reverse-keyed items, then average all items (26 for the HVQ, 16 for the SHVQ). Scores range from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating stronger endorsement of hypermasculine values. There are no subscales.
How does the SHVQ differ from the Hypermasculinity Inventory (HMI)?
They are different instruments. The HMI (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984) uses 30 forced-choice item pairs with three subscales and measures a "macho" personality style. The SHVQ (Archer, 2010) uses 16 Likert-rated value statements and is unidimensional.
How reliable are the HVQ and SHVQ?
In the derivation and replication samples, internal consistency was α = .93/.92 for the HVQ and .91/.88 for the SHVQ, with 8-week test-retest correlations of .91 and .89 respectively. Alphas were lower (.74-.85) in the smaller validity samples (Archer, 2010).
Can the HVQ or SHVQ diagnose problematic masculinity?
No. Each is a research measure of value endorsement with no clinical cutoffs or norms; no score on it constitutes a diagnosis or a risk classification.
