Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association with Ambivalent Sexism

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 2, 255 - 274, 14.08.2024

Beril Türkoğlu , Nuray Sakallı

https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2023-1164878

Öz

Research in social psychology has concentrated on measuring masculinity ideology since the 1950s, primarily using samples from White and European American populations. In Türkiye, researchers have employed adapted versions of established scales such as the Male Role Norms Scale, neglecting the potential cultural nuances associated with masculinity. Addressing the research gap in non-Western cultures, we present the Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale (TMIS), specifically tailored to the cultural context of Türkiye. In Study 1, we developed the TMIS as a novel measure, assessing its relationship with Ambivalent Sexism and Ambivalence toward Men for content and construct validity. The sample included 297 men and 294 women university students through convenient sampling. Exploratory factor analyses identified a four-factor structure for the TMIS, encompassing 22 items related to respectability/responsibility, disdain for gay men, emotional restriction, and dominance. Convergent validity was established through correlations with hostile and benevolent sexism, and hostility toward men. The low correlation between the TMIS and benevolence toward men demonstrated divergent validity. In Study 2, the four-factor structure was confirmed with 209 non-student participants (96 women and 113 men) using convenient sampling. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the bi-factor model over the second-order and single-factor models. In the bi-factor model, each item is loaded onto specific sub-factors and an overarching traditional masculinity ideology factor, eliminating hierarchy among sub-factors by accounting for shared variances. Results affirmed the TMIS’s four-factor structure and provided a global-factor measure for future applications. We discussed the intersections and divergences of the TMIS with the existing literature on masculinity measures, emphasizing its cultural relevance and potential for broader applicability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkish culture masculinity ideology ambivalent sexism validity reliability bi-factor model

Proje Numarası

yok

Kaynakça

  • Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 16, 296-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00174.x google scholar
  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons. google scholar
  • Brannon, R., & Juni, S. (1984). A scale for measuring attitudes about masculinity. Psychological Documents, 14(1). https://doi.org/(Document No. 2612) google scholar
  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868 google scholar
  • Doss, B. D., & Hopkins, J. R. (1998). The multicultural masculinity ideology scale: Validation from three cultural perspectives. Sex Roles, 38(9/10), 719-741. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018816929544 google scholar
  • Gerdes, Z. T., Alto, K. M., Jadaszewski, S., D’auria, F., & Levant, R. F. (2017). A content analysis of research on masculinity ideologies using all forms of the male role norms inventory (MRNI). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(4), 584-599. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000134.supp google scholar
  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 google scholar
  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999a). Ambivalence towards men inventory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x google scholar
  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999b). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x google scholar
  • Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228 google scholar
  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447 google scholar
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 google scholar
  • Isacco, A. (2015). Measuring masculinity: Developmental contexts, men’s health, and qualitative research. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16 (2), 141-144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039018 google scholar
  • Janey, B. A., Kim, T., Jampolskaja, T., Khuda, A., Larionov, A., Maksimenko, A., Sharapov, D., & Shipilova, A. (2013). Development of the Russian Male Norms Inventory. Psychology ofMen & Masculinity, 14(2), 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028159 google scholar
  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. google scholar
  • Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied Psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General. Psychology, 9, 2207-2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126 google scholar
  • Lease, S. H., Çiftçi, A., Demir, A., & Boyraz, G. (2009). Structural validity of Turkish versions of the Gender Role Conflict Scale and Male Role Norms Scale. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(4), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017044 google scholar
  • Levant, R. F. (1992). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 379-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.379 google scholar
  • Levant, R., Smalley, K., Aupont, M., House, A., Richmond, K., & Noronha, D. (2007). Initial validation of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15(1), 83-100. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1501.83 google scholar
  • Luyt, R. (2015). Beyond traditional understanding of gender measurement: The gender (re)presentation approach. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(2), 207-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2013.824378. google scholar
  • Luyt, R. (2018). Masculinities Representations Inventory (MRI, English version): A measure of gender (re)presentation. Journal of Men’s Studies, 26(2), 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826517736781 google scholar
  • Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity Masculinity, 4(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3 google scholar
  • McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., Hammer, J. H., Hall, R. J., McKelvey, D. K., & Jones, Z. (2017). Further examination of the factor structure of The Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF): Measurement considerations for women, men of color, and gay men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(6), 724-738. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000225 google scholar
  • Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 google scholar
  • Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2008). Turkish adaptation of The Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory. Turkish Psychological Articles, 11(21), 1-14. http://www.turkpsikolojiyazilari.com/PDF/TPY/21/01-11.pdf google scholar
  • Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2002). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: A study of reliability and validity. Turkish Psychological Articles, 17(49), 47-58. http://www.turkpsikolojiyazilari.com/PDF/TPD/49/47-61.pdf google scholar
  • Sakallı, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44(9-10), 599-610. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012295109711 google scholar
  • Sakallı Uğurlu, N., Türkoğlu, B., Kuzlak, A., & Gupta, A. (2021). Stereotypes of single and married women and men in Turkish culture. Current Psychology, 40, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9920-9 google scholar
  • Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles, 50(January), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000011069.02279.4c google scholar
  • Smiler, A. P., & Epstein, M. (2010). Measuring gender: Options and issues. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology (1st ed., pp. 133-157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1465-1_7 google scholar
  • Thompson, E. H., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038609 google scholar
  • Thompson, E. H. J., & Pleck, J. H. (1995). Masculinity ideologies: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 129-163). Basic Books. google scholar
  • Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 531-543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006006 google scholar
  • Türkoğlu, B. (2013). Manhood on the fault line: Examining manhood under the frame of working and unemployment. Mülkiye Journal, 37, 33-61. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mulkiye/issue/43/224 google scholar
  • Türkoğlu, B., & Cingöz-Ulu, B. (2019). Masculinity ideology and threat to manhood as precursors of violence against women in Turkey. Dokuz Eylül University Journal of Humanities, 6(1), 175-199. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/deuefad/issue/45042/522043 google scholar
  • Uskul, A. K., Cross, S. E., Sunbay, Z., Gercek-swing, B., & Ataca, B. (2012). Honor bound: The cultural construction of honor in Turkey and the Northern United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1131-1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111422258 google scholar

Geleneksel Erkeklik İdeolojisi Ölçeği'nin Geliştirilmesi ve Çelişik Duygulu Cinsiyetçilik ile İlişkisi

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 2, 255 - 274, 14.08.2024

Beril Türkoğlu , Nuray Sakallı

https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2023-1164878

Öz

Sosyal psikoloji alanında yapılan araştırmalar 1950'lerden beri erkeklik ideolojisinin nasıl ölçüleceğine, özellikle Beyaz ve Avrupalı-Amerikalı örneklemler kullanarak odaklanmaktadır. Türkiye’deki araştırmacılar için İngilizceden uyarlanmış erkeklik ideolojisi ölçekleri olsa da (örn., erkek rol normları ölçeği), bu ölçeklerin kelime ve cümle yapısı ile içerdiği psikolojik yapılar kültüre ve gündelik hayata dair ayrıntıları iyi yansıtmayabilir. Batılı olmayan kültürlerde erkeklik ideolojisini ölçmeye yönelik araştırmaların azlığından hareketle bu çalışma, yeni bir erkeklik ideolojisi ölçümü geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu araştırmada, Türkiye’de yapılmış iki ayrı çalışma sunulmaktadır. Çalışma 1'de, yeni bir ölçüm aracı olarak Geleneksel Erkeklik İdeolojisi Ölçeği (GEİÖ) geliştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin içerik ve yapı geçerliliği Çelişik Duygulu Cinsiyetçilik ve Erkeklere İlişkin Çelişik Duygular ile olan ilişkisi incelenerek gösterilmiştir. Kolaylıkla bulunabilen örnekleme yöntemine dayanan ilk çalışmanın örneklemi 297 erkek ve 294 kadın öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizinin sonuçları, GEİÖ’nün 22 maddeden oluşan dört faktörlü bir yapısı olduğunu göstermiştir; saygınlık/sorumluluk, eşcinsel erkekleri küçümseme, duygusal kısıtlama ve baskınlık. GEİÖ, düşmanca ve korumacı cinsiyetçilik ile erkeklere yönelik düşmanca tutumlar arasında orta düzeyde korelasyon görülmüş ve bu da ölçeğin yakınsak geçerliliğine dair bir kanıt teşkil etmiştir. GEİÖ ile erkeklere yönelik korumacı tutumlar arasında ise beklendiği şekilde düşük korelasyonlar görülmüş ve bu sonuç da ölçeğin ıraksak geçerliliği için kanıt oluşturmuştur. Çalışma 2'de, dört faktörlü ölçek yapısı kolaylıkla bulunabilen örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan ve öğrenci olmayan 209 (96 kadın ve 113 erkek) kişiyle doğrulanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin sonuçlarına göre, test edilen model en iyi uyum değerlerini bi-faktör model ile vermiştir. Bi-faktör modelde her bir ölçek maddesi ilgili alt faktörlere ve birleşik bir model içindeki kapsayıcı bir geleneksel erkeklik ideolojisi faktörüne yüklenir; böylece tüm maddeler tarafından paylaşılan ortak varyansları hesaba katarak alt faktörler arasındaki hiyerarşiyi ortadan kaldırır. Bulgular, GEİÖ’nün gelecek araştırmalarda hem dört faktörlü yapıyla hem de tek bir geleneksel erkeklik ideolojisi yapısıyla kullanılabileceğini göstermiştir. GEİÖ’nün mevcut alanyazında diğer erkeklik ideolojisi ölçümleriyle olan kesişimleri ve farklılıkları bulgular ışığında tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkiye kültürü erkeklik ideolojisi çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik geçerlilik güvenilirlik bi-faktör model

Destekleyen Kurum

yok

Proje Numarası

yok

Teşekkür

yok

Kaynakça

  • Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 16, 296-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00174.x google scholar
  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons. google scholar
  • Brannon, R., & Juni, S. (1984). A scale for measuring attitudes about masculinity. Psychological Documents, 14(1). https://doi.org/(Document No. 2612) google scholar
  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868 google scholar
  • Doss, B. D., & Hopkins, J. R. (1998). The multicultural masculinity ideology scale: Validation from three cultural perspectives. Sex Roles, 38(9/10), 719-741. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018816929544 google scholar
  • Gerdes, Z. T., Alto, K. M., Jadaszewski, S., D’auria, F., & Levant, R. F. (2017). A content analysis of research on masculinity ideologies using all forms of the male role norms inventory (MRNI). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(4), 584-599. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000134.supp google scholar
  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 google scholar
  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999a). Ambivalence towards men inventory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x google scholar
  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999b). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x google scholar
  • Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228 google scholar
  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447 google scholar
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 google scholar
  • Isacco, A. (2015). Measuring masculinity: Developmental contexts, men’s health, and qualitative research. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16 (2), 141-144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039018 google scholar
  • Janey, B. A., Kim, T., Jampolskaja, T., Khuda, A., Larionov, A., Maksimenko, A., Sharapov, D., & Shipilova, A. (2013). Development of the Russian Male Norms Inventory. Psychology ofMen & Masculinity, 14(2), 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028159 google scholar
  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. google scholar
  • Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied Psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General. Psychology, 9, 2207-2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126 google scholar
  • Lease, S. H., Çiftçi, A., Demir, A., & Boyraz, G. (2009). Structural validity of Turkish versions of the Gender Role Conflict Scale and Male Role Norms Scale. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(4), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017044 google scholar
  • Levant, R. F. (1992). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 379-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.379 google scholar
  • Levant, R., Smalley, K., Aupont, M., House, A., Richmond, K., & Noronha, D. (2007). Initial validation of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15(1), 83-100. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1501.83 google scholar
  • Luyt, R. (2015). Beyond traditional understanding of gender measurement: The gender (re)presentation approach. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(2), 207-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2013.824378. google scholar
  • Luyt, R. (2018). Masculinities Representations Inventory (MRI, English version): A measure of gender (re)presentation. Journal of Men’s Studies, 26(2), 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826517736781 google scholar
  • Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity Masculinity, 4(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3 google scholar
  • McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., Hammer, J. H., Hall, R. J., McKelvey, D. K., & Jones, Z. (2017). Further examination of the factor structure of The Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF): Measurement considerations for women, men of color, and gay men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(6), 724-738. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000225 google scholar
  • Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 google scholar
  • Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2008). Turkish adaptation of The Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory. Turkish Psychological Articles, 11(21), 1-14. http://www.turkpsikolojiyazilari.com/PDF/TPY/21/01-11.pdf google scholar
  • Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2002). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: A study of reliability and validity. Turkish Psychological Articles, 17(49), 47-58. http://www.turkpsikolojiyazilari.com/PDF/TPD/49/47-61.pdf google scholar
  • Sakallı, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44(9-10), 599-610. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012295109711 google scholar
  • Sakallı Uğurlu, N., Türkoğlu, B., Kuzlak, A., & Gupta, A. (2021). Stereotypes of single and married women and men in Turkish culture. Current Psychology, 40, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9920-9 google scholar
  • Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles, 50(January), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000011069.02279.4c google scholar
  • Smiler, A. P., & Epstein, M. (2010). Measuring gender: Options and issues. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology (1st ed., pp. 133-157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1465-1_7 google scholar
  • Thompson, E. H., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038609 google scholar
  • Thompson, E. H. J., & Pleck, J. H. (1995). Masculinity ideologies: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 129-163). Basic Books. google scholar
  • Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 531-543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006006 google scholar
  • Türkoğlu, B. (2013). Manhood on the fault line: Examining manhood under the frame of working and unemployment. Mülkiye Journal, 37, 33-61. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mulkiye/issue/43/224 google scholar
  • Türkoğlu, B., & Cingöz-Ulu, B. (2019). Masculinity ideology and threat to manhood as precursors of violence against women in Turkey. Dokuz Eylül University Journal of Humanities, 6(1), 175-199. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/deuefad/issue/45042/522043 google scholar
  • Uskul, A. K., Cross, S. E., Sunbay, Z., Gercek-swing, B., & Ataca, B. (2012). Honor bound: The cultural construction of honor in Turkey and the Northern United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1131-1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111422258 google scholar
Toplam 36 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Görsel Algı
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Beril Türkoğlu 0000-0002-4752-5723

Nuray Sakallı 0000-0003-4984-8427

Proje Numarası yok
Yayımlanma Tarihi 14 Ağustos 2024
Gönderilme Tarihi 22 Ağustos 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024 Cilt: 44 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Türkoğlu, B., & Sakallı, N. (2024). Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association with Ambivalent Sexism. Studies in Psychology, 44(2), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2023-1164878
AMA Türkoğlu B, Sakallı N. Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association with Ambivalent Sexism. Studies in Psychology. Ağustos 2024;44(2):255-274. doi:10.26650/SP2023-1164878
Chicago Türkoğlu, Beril, ve Nuray Sakallı. “Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association With Ambivalent Sexism”. Studies in Psychology 44, sy. 2 (Ağustos 2024): 255-74. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2023-1164878.
EndNote Türkoğlu B, Sakallı N (01 Ağustos 2024) Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association with Ambivalent Sexism. Studies in Psychology 44 2 255–274.
IEEE B. Türkoğlu ve N. Sakallı, “Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association with Ambivalent Sexism”, Studies in Psychology, c. 44, sy. 2, ss. 255–274, 2024, doi: 10.26650/SP2023-1164878.
ISNAD Türkoğlu, Beril - Sakallı, Nuray. “Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association With Ambivalent Sexism”. Studies in Psychology 44/2 (Ağustos 2024), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2023-1164878.
JAMA Türkoğlu B, Sakallı N. Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association with Ambivalent Sexism. Studies in Psychology. 2024;44:255–274.
MLA Türkoğlu, Beril ve Nuray Sakallı. “Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association With Ambivalent Sexism”. Studies in Psychology, c. 44, sy. 2, 2024, ss. 255-74, doi:10.26650/SP2023-1164878.
Vancouver Türkoğlu B, Sakallı N. Development of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Scale and Its Association with Ambivalent Sexism. Studies in Psychology. 2024;44(2):255-74.
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Psikoloji Çalışmaları / Studies In Psychology / ISSN- 1304-4680