Gender-Equitable Men (GEM) Scale

Abstract

The Gender-Equitable Men (GEM) Scale is an internationally recognized, empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to measure attitudes toward gender norms, traditional masculinities, and gender equity among men. Developed originally by Julie Pulerwitz and Gary Barker (2008) in collaboration with the Instituto Promundo and the Horizons Program of the Population Council, the GEM Scale was constructed to evaluate community-based public health interventions—most notably Program H—aimed at engaging adolescent boys and young adult men in promoting sexual and reproductive health, preventing intimate partner violence (IPV), and curbing the transmission of HIV/STIs.

The standard published instrument comprises 24 items divided across two distinct primary subscales: Inequitable Gender Norms (17 items capturing traditional, rigid, or male-dominant attitudes) and Equitable Gender Norms (7 items capturing progressive, power-sharing, and egalitarian attitudes). Participants evaluate each item using a 3-point Likert response format: Agree, Partially agree, or Do not agree. Items are coded and directionally adjusted such that higher cumulative scores denote higher support for gender-equitable norms. Psychometric evaluations across diverse low-, middle-, and high-income settings demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from .70 to .87), confirmed two-factor structural stability, and strong predictive validity regarding condom use, shared contraceptive decision-making, physical and sexual violence perpetration, and health-seeking behaviors. The scale has become a benchmark evaluation tool in global public health, sociology, and gender studies.

Keywords

Gender-Equitable Men Scale, GEM Scale, gender norms, masculinity, hegemonic masculinity, intimate partner violence, sexual and reproductive health, gender equity, Program H, psychometrics

Authors

The Gender-Equitable Men (GEM) Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Julie Pulerwitz, ScD – An internationally recognized behavioral scientist and public health researcher specializing in social determinants of health, gender disparities, power dynamics in sexual relationships, and HIV prevention. At the time of the instrument’s primary validation, Dr. Pulerwitz served as the Research Director for the Horizons Program at the Population Council (Washington, DC) and subsequently led global research on gender, youth, and health equity at PATH and the Population Council.
• Gary Barker, PhD – A developmental psychologist and global expert in engaging men and boys in gender equality and violence prevention. Dr. Barker is the founder and former executive director of Instituto Promundo (Brazil) and currently serves as President and CEO of Equimundo: Center for Masculinities and Social Justice (formerly Promundo-US), based in Washington, DC. He has directed large-scale research initiatives, including the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES).

Purpose

The GEM Scale was developed to address a critical empirical gap in global health and behavioral sciences: the lack of standardized, contextually sensitive, and psychometrically robust measurement instruments capable of quantifying male attitudes toward gender norms. Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, global health initiatives increasingly recognized that deeply entrenched, rigid gender roles and the socialization of boys into dominant forms of masculinity were key drivers of deleterious health outcomes, including high-risk sexual practices, low rates of barrier contraceptive adherence, perpetration of gender-based violence, and delayed health-seeking behaviors.

The primary clinical, programmatic, and epidemiological purposes of the GEM Scale include:

• Evaluating Public Health and Gender-Transformative Interventions: Serving as the gold-standard outcome metric for evaluating interventions designed to reshape masculine gender socialization, such as community education workshops, mass-media social marketing campaigns, and youth empowerment curricula (e.g., Program H, MenCare).
• Epidemiological Surveillance and Behavioral Risk Profiling: Quantifying population-level distributions of gender attitudes to identify clusters of individuals at elevated risk for sexual risk-taking, multi-partner relationships, non-use of condoms, substance abuse, and partner violence.
• Cross-Cultural Comparative Social Research: Enabling researchers to systematically compare gender-role ideology across national and regional contexts, examining how macro-level social transitions, educational attainment, and economic policies correlate with shifts toward gender equity.
• Diagnostic Assessment in Community Counseling: Providing clinical social workers, family counselors, and community facilitators with a structured tool to identify rigid gender attitudes that undermine communication, relational satisfaction, and conflict resolution in intimate relationships.

Psychological Construct

The GEM Scale operationalizes the complex construct of support for gender equity, conceptualized not merely as a passive absence of misogyny, but as an active, multidimensional orientation toward relational equality, shared autonomy, non-violence, and emotional vulnerability. Rather than viewing gender attitudes as monolithic, the scale evaluates two overarching dimensions across multiple functional life domains:

1. Inequitable Gender Norms Subscale (17 Items)

This dimension assesses adherence to traditional, rigid, and patriarchal expectations of male dominance and female subservience. It spans several interrelated social and behavioral domains:

• Sexual Entitlement and Primacy: The belief that men possess uncontrollable sexual drives, have unilateral authority over sexual practices, and do not need partner consent (e.g., “It is the man who decides what type of sex to have,” “Men need sex more than women do”).
• Domestic Division of Labor: The structural view that domestic caregiving, household management, and cooking are inherently female responsibilities that diminish male status (e.g., “A woman’s most important role is to take care of her home and cook for her family”).
• Reproductive Authority and Avoidance: The displacement of reproductive responsibility onto women alongside male control over fertility (e.g., “It is a woman’s responsibility to avoid getting pregnant”).
• Normalization and Justification of Violence: The endorsement of physical force as an acceptable mechanism for disciplining women, enforcing sexual fidelity, or preserving masculine honor (e.g., “There are times when a woman deserves to be beaten,” “If a woman cheats on a man, it is okay for him to beat her”).
• Toughness and Emotional Stoicism: Norms mandating that authentic masculinity requires physical aggression, emotional suppression, and the defense of public reputation via violence (e.g., “To be a man, you need to be tough,” “If someone insults me, I will defend my reputation, with force if necessary”).

2. Equitable Gender Norms Subscale (7 Items)

This dimension captures explicit endorsement of egalitarian relationship models, power-sharing, and mutual communication:

• Collaborative Sexual and Contraceptive Negotiation: Active belief in shared decision-making regarding intercourse, contraceptive methods, and partner pleasure (e.g., “A couple should decide together what type of contraceptive to use,” “A man and a woman should decide together what type of sex they have”).
• Domestic Role Flexibility: Acceptance of domestic labor and domestic skill-building by men as normal and valuable (e.g., “A man should know how to cook and clean the house”).
• Relational and Emotional Symmetry: Valuing mutual sexual fulfillment and emotional exclusivity over promiscuity and predatory conquest (e.g., “It is important that a man know what his partner likes during sex”).

Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the GEM Scale is grounded in modern social and psychological theories of gender, power, and behavioral health:

1. Hegemonic Masculinity and Gender Order

Rooted in Raewyn Connell’s sociopolitical theory of hegemonic masculinity (1987, 1995), the GEM Scale posits that societies establish idealized, culturally dominant standards of manhood that legitimize the global subordination of women and marginalize non-conforming men. The GEM Scale recognizes that masculinity is not a static biological state, but a dynamic, socially contested performance. By differentiating between equitable and inequitable norms, the scale measures the degree to which an individual man resists or reproduces hegemonic dominance within intimate and public spheres.

2. Gender Role Strain Paradigm

Drawing on Joseph Pleck’s (1995) Gender Role Strain Paradigm, the instrument assumes that conventional male socialization exposes men to rigid normative expectations that are psychologically dysfunctional and inherently contradictory. When men experience discrepancies between traditional expectations (e.g., physical toughness, absolute domestic authority) and lived reality, this strain frequently manifests as defensive compensatory behaviors, including intimate partner violence, substance abuse, and sexual conquest. The GEM Scale captures these internalized strain-inducing beliefs.

3. Social Norms Theory and the Theory of Gender and Power

The scale integrates Robert Connell’s and Robert Crawford’s structural models as synthesized into global health by Wingood and DiClemente (2000) in the Theory of Gender and Power. This theory identifies three societal structures that govern intimate relationships: the sexual division of labor, the sexual division of power, and affective/normative structures. Furthermore, drawing on Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986), the GEM Scale operationalizes normative beliefs as internal cognitive mediators that directly guide interpersonal conduct, sexual negotiation, and communicative efficacy.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the GEM Scale has been extensively evaluated across multiple cultural contexts, yielding substantial empirical support across classical validity domains:

Construct and Convergent Validity

During the initial validation among 766 young men aged 15–24 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Pulerwitz & Barker, 2008), the scale demonstrated high construct validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor structures aligned cleanly with theoretical expectations of gender equity. Convergent validity was established through strong, statistically significant correlations with validated instruments measuring related constructs, such as the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Hostile and Benevolent Sexism), the Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI), and generalized attitudes toward women scales.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The primary strength of the GEM Scale lies in its demonstrated predictive validity for real-world health and behavioral outcomes:

• Sexual Risk Behaviors and Condom Use: Men scoring in the high-equity category on the GEM Scale are significantly more likely to report consistent condom use with primary and casual partners (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.95 to 2.42, p < .001). Conversely, low GEM scores strongly correlate with multiple concurrent sexual partnerships and transactional sex.
• Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in Brazil, South Africa, India, and the United States have consistently demonstrated that men with lower GEM scores (indicating adherence to inequitable gender norms) are significantly more likely to perpetrate physical, sexual, and psychological violence against female partners (adjusted ORs ranging from 2.1 to 3.8, p < .001).
• Sexually Transmitted Infections: Longitudinal cohort data indicate that higher GEM equity scores predict a lower incidence of self-reported STI symptoms and laboratory-confirmed biological STI diagnoses over follow-up periods.
• Reproductive Health Collaboration: Higher scores significantly predict active communication regarding family planning, joint contraceptive selection, and shared caregiving responsibilities.

Cross-Cultural and Discriminant Validity

The GEM Scale has demonstrated strong cross-cultural validity through international adaptations by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Population Council, and Promundo within the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), administered across more than 30 countries (e.g., India, South Africa, Rwanda, Mexico, Egypt, Brazil, and the Western Balkans). Measurement invariance testing has supported metric and scalar equivalence across diverse socioeconomic strata, urban versus rural populations, and distinct age demographics.

Reliability

The reliability of the GEM Scale has been demonstrated across diverse geographic, cultural, and linguistic contexts:

Internal Consistency

In the foundational psychometric study conducted by Pulerwitz and Barker (2008), the 24-item composite GEM Scale demonstrated solid overall internal consistency:

• Overall 24-Item Composite Scale: Cronbach’s α = .81
• Factor 1: Inequitable Gender Norms (17 items): Cronbach’s α = .79 to .81
• Factor 2: Equitable Gender Norms (7 items): Cronbach’s α = .67 to .74

In subsequent multi-country adaptations, internal consistency coefficients for the total scale have reliably ranged between α = .74 and .88. While the shorter Equitable Gender Norms subscale occasionally yields slightly lower alpha values (attributable to its limited 7-item length), mean inter-item correlations remain well within the optimal .20 to .40 range recommended for broad multidimensional constructs.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments conducted over two- to four-week test-retest intervals in control groups (unexposed to gender-transformative educational interventions) have yielded Pearson correlation coefficients (r) ranging from .78 to .85, indicating excellent score reproducibility over time in the absence of active experimental interventions.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the GEM Scale was established through iterative Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The initial pool of candidate items (derived from extensive qualitative focus group discussions and in-depth ethnographic interviews in favelas and working-class urban communities in Brazil) underwent principal components analysis with varimax and promax (oblique) rotations. Items were retained based on strict psychometric criteria: factor loadings ≥ .35 on the primary factor, minimal cross-loadings (< .20 differential), and conceptual coherence. The analysis cleanly revealed a dominant two-factor solution accounting for the majority of common variance:

• Factor 1: Inequitable Gender Norms: Encompassing 17 items characterized by high factor loadings (.38 to .67) reflecting patriarchal control, male privilege, the domestic confinement of women, and the normalization of physical violence.
• Factor 2: Equitable Gender Norms: Encompassing 7 items with factor loadings ranging from .36 to .64 reflecting shared decision-making, mutual sexual respect, and non-traditional male roles.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Fit Indices

Subsequent structural equation modeling across international validation cohorts has confirmed the adequacy of the correlated two-factor model over a unidimensional alternative. Typical fit indices reported across standard validation studies include:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .92 to .95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .91 to .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 to .055 (90% Confidence Interval: [.036, .059])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .048 to .058

These empirical indices satisfy standard statistical benchmarks (CFI/TLI > .90; RMSEA/SRMR < .06), establishing structural validity across adolescent and adult male populations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Gender-Equitable Men (GEM) Scale are summarized below:

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale; can also be administered via trained interviewer in low-literacy or field-based populations.
• Target Population: Adolescent boys and adult men (typically ages 15 to 49; adaptable for women to assess community gender norms).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI), or web-based mobile survey.
• Item Count: 24 core items (17 inequitable items, 7 equitable items).
• Authentic Response Scale: 3-point Likert scale: 1 = Agree, 2 = Partially agree, 3 = Do not agree (or coded 1 = Do not agree, 2 = Partially agree, 3 = Agree depending on scoring direction; typically scored so that higher scores represent higher gender equity: 1 = Low equity / Agree, 2 = Moderate equity / Partially agree, 3 = High equity / Do not agree for inequitable items).
• Scoring and Directionality Rules:
  • Inequitable Gender Norms (Items 1–14, 18, 21–24): Scored as 1 = Agree (low equity), 2 = Partially agree (moderate equity), 3 = Do not agree (high equity).
  • Equitable Gender Norms (Items 15–17, 19–20): Reverse scored such that 1 = Do not agree (low equity), 2 = Partially agree (moderate equity), 3 = Agree (high equity).
  • Note: Depending on specific study formatting, Item 15 is scored as equitable/supportive of fidelity in some models, while in standard 2-factor models, items 16, 17, 19, and 20 are primary equitable items. Summing all item scores yields a total composite score ranging from 24 to 72.
• Composite Classification / Stratification: In intervention research, total scores are frequently divided into tertiles:
  • Low Gender Equity: 24 to 39 points
  • Moderate Gender Equity: 40 to 55 points
  • High Gender Equity: 56 to 72 points
• Estimated Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Gender-Equitable Men (GEM) Scale was published in its validated academic format in 2008 by Julie Pulerwitz and Gary Barker in the peer-reviewed journal Men and Masculinities (Volume 10, Issue 3, pp. 322–338), based on field research initiated in 2001 under the Horizons Program.

Licensing and Accessibility: The scale was developed with public and philanthropic donor funding (including support from the United States Agency for International Development [USAID] via Horizons/Population Council, Instituto Promundo, and the World Health Organization). Consequently, the GEM Scale resides in the public domain for non-commercial research, academic, and non-governmental intervention evaluation purposes. No licensing fees or commercial royalties are required to use the scale. Researchers and intervention evaluators are expected to formally cite the foundational 2008 validation paper in any derived reports or scientific publications. When adapting the instrument into new languages or cultural settings, standard cognitive debriefing and translation/back-translation protocols are strongly recommended.

References

• Barker, G., Contreras, J. M., Heilman, B., Singh, A. K., Verma, R. K., & Nascimento, M. (2011). Evolving men: Initial results from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES). International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) and Instituto Promundo. https://www.equimundo.org/resources/evolving-men-initial-results-from-the-international-men-and-gender-equality-survey-images/
• Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.
• Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
• Flood, M. (2008). Measures for the assessment of dimensions of violence against women: A compendium. Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI). http://www.svri.org/measures.pdf
• Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). Basic Books.
• Pulerwitz, J., & Barker, G. (2008). Measuring attitudes toward gender norms among young men in Brazil: Development and psychometric evaluation of the GEM Scale. Men and Masculinities, 10(3), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X06298778
• Santana, M. C., Raj, A., Decker, M. R., La Marche, A., & Silverman, J. G. (2006). Masculine gender roles associated with increased sexual risk and intimate partner violence perpetration among young adult men. Journal of Urban Health, 83(4), 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9061-6
• Verma, R. K., Pulerwitz, J., Mahendra, V., Khandekar, S., Barker, G., Fulpagare, P., & Singh, A. K. (2006). Challenging and changing gender attitudes among young men in Maharashtra, India. Reproductive Health Matters, 14(28), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(06)28261-0
• Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2000). Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related behaviors, susceptibility, and gender among women. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 539–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700502

Items of the Scale