Gender Self-Definition and Gender Self-Acceptance in Women

Journal of Counseling & Development
Summer 2006

Volume 84 358
2006 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.
Over the past few decades, womens identity development has
come to be recognized as a process that may differ from iden-
tity stage models developed from earlier studies in which only
men participated. Researchers such as Conarton and Kreger-
Silverman (1988), Gilligan (1982), Josselson (1987, 1994),
Chodorow (1978), Downing and Roush (1985), among many
others, have made important contributions to the understand-
ing of womens identity as females. To a large extent, however,
the quest to better conceptualize female identity has focused
on White women, thereby perpetuating, albeit inadvertently,
an unbalanced and exclusionary approach to identity research.
Moreover, this approach tended to perpetuate a one-dimen-
sional view of women as gendered beings but not as individu-
als who also possess an ethnic or racial identity that intersects
with gender in a womans total identity. The work of Ossana,
Helms, and Leonard (1992) and Parks, Carter, and Gushue (1996)
reflected some notable exceptions to this approach in that their
research explored womens identity as Blacks and Whites; how-
ever, women of other ethnicities, such as Latina/Hispanic and
Asian, have not been studied in this regard.
In addition, two relatively new gender identity constructs,
gender self-definition and gender self-acceptance (Hoffman,
1996; Hoffman, Borders, & Hattie, 2000), merit exploration
both in relation to more recognized female identity con-
structs and to ethnic identity. Such exploration serves to
broaden understanding of how womens gender identity con-
structs may connect to each other as well as to womens
ethnic identity. This kind of exploration also provides a more
integrated approach to womens identity research. Toward
this goal, the primary purpose of this article was to present
results of a study of ethnically diverse women that was de-
signed to explore the relationships among selected gender
identity constructs and between those constructs and ethnic
identity. First, current relevant models related to female and
ethnic identity and their corresponding instruments are pre-
sented and discussed.
Stage/Status Models: Feminist and
Womanist Identity
Two related but different models of womens identity develop-
ment are the Feminist Identity Development Model (Down-
ing & Roush, 1985) and the Womanist Identity Development
Model (Ossana et al., 1992). Both are based on the concept
that womens identity development is a progression through
various stages or statuses over the life span. Each of these
models is discussed briefly below.
Feminist Identity Development
Downing and Roush (1985) proposed a model of womens
feminist identity development that is based largely on Crosss
(1971) Black Identity Development Model. Both models
reflect a progression through stages or statuses wherein one
moves from (a) unawareness of inequity and discrimination
through (b) experience of crises that force one to confront
such inequities to (c) an immersion and identification with
ones own group that provide opportunities for reflection
and exploration to (d) integration of ones experiences
around the area of oppression and a concomitant achieve-
ment of balance (i.e., able to evaluate people as individuals
instead of only as group members) and, finally, to (e) a com-
mitment to meaningful action toward eliminating the ism
involved. Downing and Roush labeled the stages of their
model Passive Acceptance, Revelation, Embeddedness-
Rose Marie Hoffman, Department of Educational Psychology, Administration, and Counseling, California State University,
Long Beach. The author thanks Susan Mulvaney Platt for statistical assistance with the study, Stacey Giem for support with data
collection and data input, and Stacy Kirch for assistance with data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Rose Marie Hoffman, Department of Educational Psychology, Administration, and Counseling, California State
University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840-2201 (e-mail: rhoffman@csulb.edu).
Gender Self-Definition and
Gender Self-Acceptance in Women:
Intersections With Feminist,
Womanist, and Ethnic Identities
Rose Marie Hoffman
The author explored the relationships among womens gender identity constructs as well as the relationships of those
constructs to ethnic identity. Nine of the 12 hypothesized relationships between gender self-definition and female
identity development statuses and between gender self-acceptance and female identity development statuses were
supported. Gender self-definition and gender self-acceptance were also both positively correlated with ethnic
identity. Analyses of the Hoffman Gender Scale (R. M. Hoffman, 1996; R. M. Hoffman, L. D. Borders, & J. A. Hattie, 2000)
provided additional support for its use as a measure of gender self-definition and gender self-acceptance.

Summer 2006

Volume 84 359
Gender Self-Definition and Gender Self-Acceptance in Women
Emanation, Synthesis, and Active Commitment, mirroring
Crosss designations of Pre-Encounter, Encounter, Immersion-
Emersion, Internalization, and Internalization-Commitment.
Noting concerns with Eriksons (1963) placement of iden-
tity as a precursor to intimacy, concerns that are widely
acknowledged (Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1982; Josselson,
1973; Marcia & Friedman, 1970; Williams, 1977), Downing
and Roush instead saw their model as congruent with Kegans
(1982) developmental model and with Rebecca, Hefner, and
Oleshanskys (1976) sex role transcendence theory. Kegans
model was based on a lifelong process of differentiation
from embeddedness. Rebecca et al.s sex role transcendence
theory emphasizes an individuals progression from a lack
of awareness of gender roles through a polarization stage
wherein traditional roles are adopted and valued. The final
stage is transcendance of gender role stereotypes, which is
marked by an ability to perceive and express qualities as
human rather than masculine or feminine.
The Downing and Roush (1985) model served as a spring-
board for the measurement of feminist identity development.
Separate instruments based on the model were developed by
Rickard (1990) and by Bargad and Hyde (1991). Rickard
limited her Feminist Identity Scale (FIS) to affective and
cognitive components of attitudes toward self (p. 147). She
perceived active commitment as a behavioral manifestation
of the synthesis level of development and, thus, addressed
only the first four levels of feminist identity development in
her instrument. In contrast, Bargad and Hydes Feminist Iden-
tity Development Scale (FIDS) contains five subscales that
correspond to each of the five levels of development.
Womanist Identity Development
Feminisms primary focus on gender issues has frequently
been interpreted as a lack of concern with ethnicity and
race. The perception that feminism represented primarily
White womens interests resulted in the development of a
different but related perspective called womanism (Henley,
Meng, OBrien, McCarthy, & Sockloskie, 1998). The
womanist position is based on the recognition of poverty,
racism, and ethnocentrism as equal concerns with sexism
(Henley et al., 1998, p. 321), reflecting beliefs that women of
all ethnicities and races might share.
In 1990, Helms (see Ossana et al., 1992) proposed a model
of womanist identity development with stages (statuses) that
paralleled the first four stages of Crosss (1971) Black Iden-
tity Development Model and Downing and Roushs (1985)
Feminist Identity Development Model. Helms retained Crosss
descriptors for the four statuses: Pre-Encounter, Encounter,
Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization. Arguing that
womens healthy gender identity development involves
movement from an externally and societally based definition
of womanhood to an internal definition grounded in the
womans own values, beliefs, and abilities (Ossana et al., 1992,
p. 403), Helms did not support active commitment as an
evolved status of womens identity development as females.
Thus, Helms differed from Cross as well as from Downing and
Roush in her conceptualization of the relative importance of
this aspect of development. Helms (see Ossana et al., 1992)
designed the Womanist Identity Attitudes Scale (WIAS) to
assess attitudes related to each of the four statuses of her model.
Gender Self-Confidence, Gender
Self-Definition, and Gender
Self-Acceptance: Alternative Concepts
for Exploring Womens Identity
In some of my earlier work (Hoffman, 1996; Hoffman et al.,
2000), I proposed a different type of model for conceptualizing
identity related to ones gender. Unlike stage or status models,
my model is focused on ones current perception of self as a
gendered being rather than on the process of development. A
construct called gender self-confidence, first identified by
Lewin (1984), provided the basis for my theory. I examined
womens and mens gender self-confidence separately.
Gender Self-Confidence
Gender self-confidence is defined as ones intensity of belief
that one meets ones own personal standards for femininity
(femaleness)/masculinity (maleness), according to Hoffman
et al. (2000). This definition is based on Lewins (1984) con-
tention that masculinity and femininity measures should as-
sess individuals beliefs about their competence as males and
females, beliefs that she argued are derived from personal and
idiosyncratic, rather than stereotypical and ubiquitous, per-
ceptions of masculinity and femininity. Consistent with
Lewins arguments was Spences (1985, 1999) conceptualization
of masculinity and femininity as ones sense of adequacy as a
male or female and her belief that masculinity can be con-
ceived of as maleness and femininity as femaleness. It is impor-
tant to understand that conceptualizing femininity as female-
ness and masculinity as maleness is not meant to imply nor
support an essentialist position; rather the conceptualization
simply suggests that individuals should be free to form their
own definitions of these constructs. In sum, gender self-
confidence refers to ones genuine self-assuredness about being
female or malehow much one accepts, respects, and values
oneself as a female or male person.
Lewins (1984) assertion that MF [masculinity and femi-
ninity] tests should assess gender self-confidence (p. 200)
and Spences focus on gender identity (Spence, 1985, 1999;
Spence & Buckner, 1995, 2000) as integral to a discussion
of masculinity and femininity measurement provided the
impetus for development of the Hoffman Gender Scale (HGS;
Hoffman, 1996; Hoffman et al., 2000), which was designed
to measure gender self-confidence. I theorized that gender self-
confidence was grounded in ones gender identity, defined as
security about ones own femaleness or maleness (cf. Green,

Summer 2006

Volume 84 360
Hoffman
1974; Money, 1994). I posited that ones gender identity was in
turn encompassed by ones gender self-concept, which I de-
fined as ones broad perception of self as a woman or a man.
This is consistent with Spences (1999) subsequent proposi-
tion that gender identity is conceived as one of the earliest
and crucial features of the self-concept to develop (p. 280).
My theory suggests that one may perceive oneself as fe-
male or male and have attitudes, feelings, and behaviors
related to that perception (gender self-concept) without nec-
essarily possessing a secure sense of ones femaleness or
maleness (gender identity). Furthermore, individual men and
women may shun societally prescribed gender roles and still
have a strong gender identity. In other words, they may de-
fine their masculinity and femininity in a variety of other
ways; for example, Kimmel (2000) argued fervently that he
was expressing his self-defined masculinity by being ten-
der, loving, and nurturing (p. 266) toward his newborn son.
Similarly, a woman may conceptualize her independence as
an aspect of her femininity. In addition, an individual may
have a secure gender identity but not necessarily be gender
self-confident, not necessarily believing that she or he meets
personal, self-defined standards for femininity (femaleness)
or masculinity (maleness), respectively. (Note that ones
gender self-concept is different from ones gender role self-
concept, the focus of the latter being gender stereotypes;
see Athenstaedt, 2003, for a discussion of the latter term.)
Gender Self-Definition and Gender Self-Acceptance
Previous factor analyses of the HGS (Hoffman at al., 2000) have
revealed that two constructs, best described as gender self-defini-
tion and gender self-acceptance, explained 62% of the variance.
Gender self-definition refers to how strong a component of ones
identity one considers ones self-defined femininity or masculin-
ity to be. Individuals with very strong gender self-definition
attach a great deal of importance to their femaleness or maleness,
which they view as central to their identity. Gender self-accep-
tance, on the other hand, refers to how comfortable an individual
is as a member of his or her gender. Individuals with strong gen-
der self-acceptance view themselves positively as females and as
males but may or may not view their gender as a critical compo-
nent of their identity. Subsequent studies using the HGS (e.g.,
Hoffman, in press; Lontz, 2000) supported the same factor struc-
ture. Additionally, a positive correlation between gender self-
acceptance and subjective well-being in women and men has
been found (Hoffman, in press). Worthington and Dillon (2003)
further revealed a positive correlation between womens gender
self-acceptance and the Humanistic/Existential subscale of their
Theoretical Orientation Profile ScaleRevised (TOPS-R) as well
as a positive correlation between womens gender self-definition
and the Feminist subscale of the TOPS-R.
Following the development of the HGS, I expanded the Gen-
der Self-Confidence Model to include gender self-definition
and gender self-acceptance (Hoffman at al., 2000). Gender self-
concept was seen as the broadest construct in the model, fol-
lowed by gender identity, and then by gender self-confidence.
Gender self-confidence in turn encompassed both gender self-
definition and gender self-acceptance. Womens identity can
thus be conceptualized in terms of these constructs.
Ethnic Identity
According to Phinney (1996a), ethnic identity focuses on how
group members themselves understand and interpret their own
ethnicity (p. 143) and is a broader construct than racial identity
(Phinney, 1996b). Furthermore, although she recognized that
minority ethnic identity development and White identity devel-
opment were qualitatively different processes due to an underly-
ing power differential, she argued that both processes involved
an exploration of ones ethnicity. Phinney (1993) proposed a
model of ethnic identity formation that is theoretically grounded
in Eriksons (1964, 1968) work. Like other models of ethnic or
racial identity development, Phinneys model supports the idea
that a crisis or awakening of some kind is a precursor to an evolved
or achieved identity. Unlike other models, however, she adapted
some of Marcias (1966, 1980) ego identity terminology to de-
scribe this process. Individuals who had made no commitment
related to ethnic identity and who might or might not have expe-
rienced a crisis (Identity Diffusion; Marcia, 1966, p. 552), as well
as those who had made a commitment to ethnic identity without
experiencing a crisis (Foreclosure), were representative of the
first of the three statuses of Phinneys (1993) model: Unexamined
Ethnic Identity. Those who never experience a crisis or catalyst
toward self-examination regarding their ethnicity remain in a
status of Unexamined Ethnic Identity throughout their lifetime.
Individuals who encounter a crisis but have not yet reached a
point of commitment are in the Ethnic Identity Search/
Moratorium period. Marcia (1966) argued that individuals in
the Moratorium stage of his Ego Identity Model were distin-
guishable from identity diffused individuals by the expression
of an active struggle to make a commitment, a distinction that
Phinney maintained. Finally, those who experience a crisis, work
through the subsequent search for identity, and make a commit-
ment are said to be in the third or final stage, Achieved Ethnic
Identity. Like Phinneys model, revisions of other ethnic or racial
identity development models (e.g., Helms, 1995a; Parham, 1989)
have reflected a conceptual shift from oppression as a focal point
to an emphasis on ego identity statuses (Parks et al., 1996).
To assess ethnic identity, Phinney (1992) developed the
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). Unlike the
measures of feminist and womanist identity development
discussed earlier, individual MEIM items do not correspond
to statuses of development; rather, an overall mean score is
obtained that reflects strength of ethnic identity based on
affective, cognitive, and developmental aspects (J. Phinney,
personal communication, January 31, 2000). Research has
supported use of the MEIM with a junior high school through
college population representing a wide variety of ethnic
groups, including Whites (Phinney, 1996a).

Summer 2006

Volume 84 361
Intersections of Gender Self-Definition
and Gender Self-Acceptance With
Feminist, Womanist, and Ethnic
Identities
The purpose of this study was fourfold: (a) to examine the
relationship between womens Gender Self-Definition (HGS
Factor 1) and the various statuses of feminist and womanist
identity development and the relationship between womens
Gender Self-Acceptance (HGS Factor 2) and the statuses of
feminist and womanist identity development; (b) to explore
the relationships between ethnic identity and gender self-
definition, gender self-acceptance, womanist identity, and
feminist identity; (c) to begin to test a womens or female
identity development model that is currently being con-
structed (Hoffman, 2006); and (d) to serve as a validity study
for the HGS, to further examine factor structure, internal
consistency, and possible differences in gender self-
definition and/or gender self-acceptance related to ethnicity
and age , and to obtain initial testretest and social desir-
ability data.The importance of the study rests largely in the
first three of these four aims, which reflect a crucial shift
from a separatist approach to understanding womens iden-
tity development to one that incorporates multiple aspects
of womens makeup as gendered and ethnic beings.
Conceptualizing Female Identity Development
In considering the relationships between gender self-defini-
tion and the various feminist and womanist identity statuses
and between gender self-acceptance and the feminist and
womanist identity statuses, I have found it useful to conceptu-
alize female identity development as Josselson (1987) did, that
is, in terms of the ego-identity development process proposed
by Marcia (1966,1980). It is also useful to incorporate some of
Phinneys (1993, 1996a) adaptations of Marcias model that
characterize Phinneys work regarding ethnic identity. I pro-
pose that women who endorse statements reflective of the first
status of feminist identity development (i.e., Passive Accep-
tance) or the first status of womanist identity development (i.e.,
Pre-Encounter) could be described as in a state of identity dif-
fusion or foreclosure, an Unexamined Female Identity. Those
who indicate agreement with statements representative of the
second status of feminist identity development (i.e., Revela-
tion) or the second status of womanist identity development
(i.e., Encounter) are viewed as being in the Crisis status in re-
gard to their identity as women. Women who endorse items
reflective of the third status of feminist identity development
(i.e., Embeddedness-Emanation) or the third status of womanist
identity development (i.e., Immersion-Emersion) might be de-
scribed as in a Moratorium/Exploration status that is character-
ized by an active search for female identity. Finally, those who
express agreement with statements that describe the fourth or
fifth statuses of feminist identity development (Synthesis and
Active Commitment, respectively) or the fourth status of
womanist identity development (i.e., Internalization) are con-
ceptualized as possessing an Achieved Female Identity status.
This model for understanding womens identity development
(i.e., Unexamined Female Identity, Crisis, Moratorium/Explo-
ration, and Achieved Female Identity; Hoffman, 2006) thus
incorporates and integrates concepts from all the models dis-
cussed thus far (see Figure 1).
Logically and intuitively, it would seem that gender self-
definition would be stronger among women who identified
with statements reflecting crisis statuses of feminist and
womanist identity development (i.e., Revelation [feminist
model] and Encounter [womanist model]), because their fo-
cus at that period has shifted to their identity as women.
Feminist Identity
Development
Model
a
Black Identity
Development
Model
b
FIGURE 1
Parallels Between Stage/Status Identity Development Models
a
Downing & Roush, 1985.
b
Cross, 1971.
c
Ossana et al., 1992.
d
Phinney, 1993.
e
Marcia, 1966.
f
Josselson, 1987.
g
Hoffman, 2006.
Womanist Identity
Development
Model
c
Ethnic Identity
Model
d
Ego Identity
Model
e
Womens
Identity Model
f
Female
Identity Model
g
Passive
Acceptance
Revelation
Embeddedness-
Emanation
Synthesis
Active
Commitment
Pre-Encounter
Encounter
Immersion-
Emersion
Internalization
Internalization-
Commitment
Pre-Encounter
Encounter
Immersion-
Emersion
Internalization
Unexamined
Ethnic Identity
Ethnic Identity
Search/
Moratorium
Achieved Ethnic
Identity
Identity Diffusion
Foreclosure
Moratorium
Identity Diffusion
Foreclosure
Moratorium
Achieved Ethnic
Identity
Unexamined
Female Identity
Crisis
Moratorium/
Exploration
Achieved Female
Identity
Achieved Ethnic
Identity

Summer 2006

Volume 84 362
Hoffman
Ones femaleness would also seem to be salient to women
who agree with statements that describe moratorium sta-
tuses of feminist and womanist identity development (i.e.,
Embeddedness-Emanation [feminist model] and Immersion-
Emersion [womanist model]), because they are actively seek-
ing opportunities to explore their identity as women as well
as opportunities for sisterhood. As Ng, Dunne, and Cataldo
(1995) observed, a strong identification as a woman is one
of the most important characteristics of the Embeddedness-
Emanation feminist identity development status.
The argument could be made that women who relate to state-
ments descriptive of the Synthesis (feminist model) and Inter-
nalization (womanist model) statuses also identify strongly as
women because these levels of identity development are con-
ceptualized as achieved. My theory suggests, however, that it
is gender self-acceptance rather than gender self-definition that
is more relevant to this level of development. To illustrate,
women who agree with attitudes and behaviors indicative of
Synthesis or Internalization statuses feel good about being
women, but for many women at this level of development, gen-
der may become a less salient issue because other aspects of
their lives become more important. As stated previously in this
article, women with strong gender self-acceptance view them-
selves positively as females but do not necessarily view their
gender as a critical component of their identity. For women who
have reached the Active Commitment status of feminist iden-
tity development, however, identity as a woman (gender self-
definition) would again seem to be salient. In addition to per-
ceiving their gender as a critical component of their identity,
women who endorse statements reflective of Active Commit-
ment status would also be at a point in their development that
allowed them to view themselves positively as females and
thus should also have strong gender self-acceptance.
It further seems likely that lower levels of gender self-accep-
tance would be found among women who were experiencing a
crisis status in their female identity development: (i.e., Rev-
elation [feminist model] and Encounter [womanist model]), as
well as for those who are actively engaged in the search for an
integrated sense of self as a woman (i.e., Embeddedness-Ema-
nation [feminist model] and Immersion-Emersion [womanist
model]). Women in both phases of development (i.e., Crisis and
Moratorium) are likely to be less content as females than those
who are passively acceptant of their status as women
(Unexamined Female Identity) or those who have internalized
or synthesized a positive identity as a woman or made a com-
mitment to fight sexism (Achieved Female Identity).
Thus, three hypotheses were proposed:
1. There would be a positive correlation between HGS
Gender Self-Definition scores and the following FIDS
and WIAS subscale scores: Revelation (FIDS 2), En-
counter (WIAS 2), Embeddedness-Emanation (FIDS 3),
Immersion-Emersion (WIAS 3), and Active Commit-
ment (FIDS 5).
2. There would be a positive correlation between HGS
Gender Self-Acceptance scores and the following FIDS
and WIAS subscale scores: Synthesis (FIDS 4), Inter-
nalization (WIAS 4), and Active Commitment (FIDS 5).
3. There would be a negative correlation between HGS
Gender Self-Acceptance scores and the following
FIDS and WIAS subscale scores: Revelation (FIDS
2), Encounter (WIAS 2), Embeddedness-Emanation
(FIDS 3), Immersion-Emersion (WIAS 3).
Intersections of Gender Identity Constructs and
Ethnic Identity
Although Downing and Roush (1985) posited some tenta-
tive hypotheses regarding how Caucasian women generally
might have different experiences from those of Black women,
particularly with regard to the middle status of their model
(Embeddedness-Emanation), empirical investigation of eth-
nic differences in relation to feminist identity development
is lacking (Fischer et al., 2000; Ng et al., 1995; Snyder &
Hasbrouck, 1996). Further, my literature search revealed no
research that considered any relationship between ethnic
identity and feminist identity, despite the view articulated
by several researchers (e.g., Cross & Vandiver, 2001; Gilbert
& Rader, 2002; Hansen, 2002; Moradi, Subich, & Phillips,
2002) that there is a need for studies that assess multiple
identities. Limited research has been conducted that com-
pared racial identity and womanist identity among Black
women and White women (e.g., Parks et al., 1996). More-
over, no studies were identified that compared womanist
identity and ethnic identity among groups other than Blacks.
This aspect of the study was exploratory; thus, no specific
relationships between ethnic identity and the other con-
structs were predicted.
Method
Participants
A total of 361 women attending a large southern California
university participated in the study. Using the demographic
categories from the 2000 version of the MEIM (J. Phinney,
personal communication, January 31, 2000), 59 (16%) self-
identified as Asian or Asian American, including Chinese,
Japanese, and others; 28 (8%) as Black or African American; 53
(15%) as Hispanic or Latino(a), including Mexican American,
Central American, and others; 160 (44%) as White, Caucasian,
Anglo, European Americannot Hispanic; 1 (.3%) as Ameri-
can Indian/Native American; 15 (4%) as mixed, parents are
from two different groups; and 19 (5%) as other. Age of re-
spondents ranged from 17 to 55 (M = 25.08, SD = 7.19, me-
dian = 23). There were 41 (11%) 1st-year students, 36 (10%)
sophomores, 39 (11%) juniors, 71 (20%) seniors, 129 (36%)
graduate students, and 19 (5%) who self-identified as other.
The demographic items were left blank by 26 participants,
accounting for figures that do not sum to 361 (100%).

Summer 2006

Volume 84 363
Instruments
HGS (Hoffman et al., 2000). The HGS is a 14-item measure
designed to assess gender self-confidence. Gender self-confi-
dence is defined as ones intensity of belief that one meets
ones own personal standards for femininity/masculinity. Sepa-
rate but parallel forms of the instrument were developed for
male and female respondents. The HGS contains two 7-item
subscales representing gender self-definition and gender self-
acceptance. Gender self-definition refers to how strong a com-
ponent of ones identity one considers ones self-defined femi-
ninity or masculinity to be. Individuals with very strong gen-
der self-definition attach a great deal of importance to their
femaleness or maleness. Examples of items on the Gender Self-
Definition subscale are Femininity (femaleness) is an impor-
tant aspect of my self-concept (Form A)/Masculinity (male-
ness) is an important aspect of my self-concept (Form B) and
Being a female is a critical part of how I view myself (Form A)/
Being a male is a critical part of how I view myself (Form B).
Gender self-acceptance refers to how comfortable an individual
is as a member of her or his gender. Individuals with strong
gender self-acceptance view themselves positively as females
and as males but do not necessarily view their gender as a
critical component of their identity. Examples of items on the
Gender Self-Acceptance subscale are I have a high regard for
myself as a female (Form A)/I have a high regard for myself as
a male (Form B) and I am happy with myself as a female
(Form A)/I am happy with myself as a male (Form B). Form A
of the HGS is worded for female respondents, and Form B is
worded for male respondents. Because all participants in this
study were women, only Form A was used.
Scoring of the HGS consists of calculating a separate mean
score for each of the two subscales. The 6-point Likert-type
format (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) yields two
subscale mean scores ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores
indicating stronger levels of the constructs. Hoffman et al. (2000)
reported coefficient alphas for women of .88 for the Gender
Self-Definition subscale and .90 for the Gender Self-Accep-
tance subscale; for men, reported alphas were .93 for the Gen-
der Self-Definition subscale and .80 for the Gender Self-Accep-
tance subscale. At the top of the current HGS, individuals are
also asked to write a brief response to the question What do
you mean by femininity? (for female respondents) and What
do you mean by masculinity? (for male respondents). The pur-
pose of this question is to assist respondents in conceptualiz-
ing their personal definitions of these constructs; responses
have been used in qualitative research (Hoffman, Hattie, &
Borders, 2005). (See Hoffman et al., 2000, for a detailed discus-
sion of the development of this instrument, psychometric data,
and the theory in which the HGS is grounded.)
FIDS (Bargad & Hyde, 1991). The FIDS consists of 39
statements that elicit respondents ratings of their level of
agreement using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Each statement reflects one of
five subscales that are based on Downing and Roushs (1985)
model of feminist identity development, which parallels
Crosss (1971) Black Identity Development Model. Sample
statements from each of the five subscales are Ive never
really worried or thought about what it means to be a woman
in this society (FIDS 1, Passive Acceptance), Recently, I
read something or had an experience that sparked a greater
understanding of sexism (FIDS 2, Revelation), Being part
of a womens community is important to me (FIDS 3,
Embeddedness/Emanation), Some of the men I know are more
feminist than some of the women I know (FIDS 4, Synthesis),
and I want to work to improve womens status (FIDS 5, Ac-
tive Commitment). Scoring of the FIDS involves calculating
a separate mean score for each of the five subscales; thus,
subscale mean scores can range from 1 to 5. Higher scores
represent stronger agreement with subscale items. Bargad and
Hyde reported coefficient alphas for each of the five subscales
as follows: .85 (FIDS 1), .75 (FIDS 2), .82 (FIDS 3), .65 (FIDS
4), .80 (FIDS 5). No testretest data were provided; however,
Bargad and Hyde noted that FIDS subscale scores of partici-
pants who were not enrolled in womens studies courses did
not change significantly during the semester.
WIAS (Ossana et al., 1992). The WIAS is based on Helmss
Womanist Identity Development Model, which closely parallels
the Feminist Identity Development Model (Downing & Roush,
1985) and its precursor, the Black Identity Development Model
(Cross, 1971). Four subscale mean scores are derived from assess-
ing each respondents agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with statements reflec-
tive of each of four statuses (higher scores indicate a stronger
level of agreement with the status represented by the subscale).
Sample statements from the four subscales are In general, I be-
lieve that men are superior to women (WIAS 1, Pre-Encounter),
Maybe I can learn something from women (WIAS 2, Encoun-
ter), I feel like I am betraying my sex when I take advantage of
the opportunities available to me in the male world (WIAS 3,
Immersion-Emersion), and I do not think I should feel posi-
tively about people just because they belong to the same
sexual group as I do (WIAS 4, Internalization). Unlike the
Cross and the Downing and Roush models, Helmss Womanist
Identity Development Model lacks a final stage of commit-
ment to action to effect societal change because Helms em-
phasized a self-conception and interpretation of gender in-
formation based on ones own internal standards and defini-
tion of womanhood (Helms, 1995b, p. 1) rather than social
action for gender equality. Ossana et al. reported coefficient
alphas of .55 (Pre-Encounter), .43 (Encounter), .82 (Immer-
sion-Emersion), and .77 (Internalization). The 43-item ver-
sion of the WIAS was used in this study.
MEIM (Phinney, 1992). The MEIM is a measure of ethnic
identity that is appropriate for all ethnic groups. The current
version of the instrument (obtained from the author on January
31, 2000) consists of 12 items representing two factors: (a)
Ethnic Identity Search (developmental and cognitive com-

Summer 2006

Volume 84 364
Hoffman
ponent; e.g., I think a lot about how my life will be affected
by my ethnic group membership) and (b) Affirmation, Be-
longing, and Commitment (affective component; e.g., I have
a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group). Re-
spondents are asked to indicate level of agreement with each
statement using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree, 4 = strongly agree). The recommended scoring method
is to compute the total mean score. Thus, the range of scores is
from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating a stronger ethnic
identity. Although the MEIM was developed using high
school students and college undergraduates, it also is consid-
ered suitable for a graduate student population (J. Phinney,
personal communication, May 4, 2000). In the study describ-
ing the development of the MEIM, Phinney (1992) reported
alphas of .81 for the high school sample and .90 for the col-
lege sample. Used in dozens of studies since its development,
coefficient alphas for the MEIM typically exceed .80 (J.
Phinney, personal communication, January 31, 2000).
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR Version
6Form 40A; Paulhus, 1984). The BIDR is a measure of social
desirability consisting of two subscales and was used to exam-
ine that construct in relation to the HGS. The first 20 items of
the scale make up the Self Deceptive Enhancement subscale
(e.g., My first impressions of people usually turn out to be
right, I never regret my decisions, Its all right with me if
some people happen to dislike me). Items 21 through 40 make
up the Impression Management subscale, which includes state-
ments such as I never cover up my mistakes, I always de-
clare everything at customs, and I dont gossip about other
peoples business. Respondents indicate their level of agree-
ment with each statement on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Scor-
ing involves adding 1 point for every 6 or 7 response
(after correcting for reverse-scored items), resulting in the
total score ranging from 0 to 20. Higher scores reflect stron-
ger self-deception and impression management, respectively.
Paulhus (1998) reported typical alphas of .67.77 for Self De-
ceptive Enhancement and .77.85 for Impression Management.
Procedure
Female students were recruited through various means, includ-
ing campus flyers and visits to classes, athletic groups, orienta-
tion programs, and so on. Several cash prizes were offered as an
incentive. Prospective participants were invited to attend any
of a series of data collection sessions that were scheduled. Sev-
eral instructors offered to assist by offering extra credit; others
agreed to allow class time to be used for completion of the
instruments. All data collection sessions were facilitated either
by me or by one of two research assistants. Instructions were
read to participants, and informed consent was obtained prior
to completion of the packet of instruments. Average time to
complete all five instruments was 35 minutes.
Results
FIDS/WIAS Subscale Scores
As predicted, gender self-definition was positively corre-
lated (p < .001) with Revelation (.195), Embeddedness/
Emanation (.322), and Active Commitment (.248) statuses
of feminist identity development, and with the Immer-
sion-Emersion status of womanist identity development
(.245; see Table 1). The predicted correlation with the
Encounter status of womanist identity development was
not supported.
Note. 1 = gender self-definition; 2 = gender self-acceptance; 3 = ethnic identity; 4 = Feminist Identity Development ScalePassive Accep-
tance; 5 = Feminist Identity Development ScaleRevelation; 6 = Feminist Identity Development ScaleEmbeddedness/Emanation; 7 =
Feminist Identity Development ScaleSynthesis; 8 = Feminist Identity Development ScaleActive Commitment; 9 = Womanist Identity
Attitudes ScalePre-Encounter; 10 = Womanist Identity Attitudes ScaleEncounter; 11 = Womanist Identity Attitudes ScaleImmersion
Emersion; 12 = Womanist Identity Attitudes ScaleInternalization.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Construct/Scale
1. GSD
2. GSA
3. EI
4. FIDS 1
5. FIDS 2
6. FIDS 3
7. FIDS 4
8. FIDS 5
9. WIAS 1
10. WIAS 2
11. WIAS 3
12. WIAS 4
TABLE 1
Intercorrelations of Gender Self-Definition, Gender Self-Acceptance, Ethnic Identity, and Statuses of
Feminist and Womanist Identity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.490***
.302***
.234***
.032
.093
.086
.195***
.059
.273***
.048
.322***
.079
.241***
.103
.465***
.001
.224***
.030
.066
.011
.062
.248***
.162**
.273***
.327***
.396***
.582***
.118*
.004
.102
.057
.494**
.024
.044
.100
.131*
.030
.328***
.049
.159**
.236***
.234***
.082
.019
.272***
.245***
.147**
.178***
.001
.495***
.551***
.179***
.356***
.135*
.475***
..008
.217***
.077
.151**
.072
.055
.255***
.119*
.110*
.066
.086

Summer 2006

Volume 84 365
Gender Self-Acceptance and
Also as predicted, gender self-acceptance was positively
correlated with the Synthesis (.224, p < .001) and Active
Commitment (.162, p < .01) statuses of feminist identity
development and with the Internalization status of womanist
identity development (.217, p < .001). The expected nega-
tive correlations between gender self-acceptance and the
Encounter (.328) and Immersion-Emersion (.147) statuses
of womanist identity development were also supported (p < .001,
p < .01, respectively); however, the expected inverse rela-
tionship between gender self-acceptance and the parallel
statuses of feminist identity development (i.e., Revelation
and Embeddedness/Emanation) was not supported.
Ethnic Identity
Both gender self-definition (.302) and gender self-acceptance
(.234) were positively correlated with ethnic identity (p < .001).
Ethnic identity was also significantly correlated (p < .001)
with Revelation (.273), Embeddedness/Emanation (.241),
and Active Commitment (.273) statuses of feminist identity
development and with the Immersion-Emersion status of
womanist identity development (.178, p = .001).
HGS: Additional Psychometric Data
One aim of the current study was to obtain further data re-
lated to the HGS factor structure, internal consistency, test
retest reliability, and social desirability as well as to pos-
sible differences in gender self-definition and/or gender self-
acceptance related to ethnicity and age. A maximum likeli-
hood factor analysis was conducted using oblimin rotation,
which was selected because the two factors (Gender Self-
Definition and Gender Self-Acceptance) are related (r = .43).
As was the case in the previous studies, HGS Items 1, 4, 6, 7,
9, 12, and 14 loaded on Factor 1 (Gender Self-Definition);
and Items 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, and 13 loaded on Factor 2. Table 2
presents the mean, standard deviation, itemtotal correla-
tion (r), and the two factor loadings for each item. The mod-
erate correlation between the two subscales (r = .49) was
consistent with the correlation of the two factors (.43) re-
ported by Hoffman (1996) and Hoffman et al. (2000).
Coefficient alpha was .90 for the Gender Self-Definition
subscale and .87 for the Gender Self-Acceptance subscale.
Testretest reliability was assessed after 4 weeks using the
first 75 respondents; of these, 49 (65%) returned the com-
pleted HGS. For gender self-definition, the correlation equaled
.53; for gender self-acceptance, the correlation equaled .49.
Both correlations were significant at the .01 level. Social de-
sirability was assessed by comparing the data obtained from
this study to Paulhuss (1998) normative data for the BIDR.
For women, Paulhus reported a Self-Deceptive Enhancement
(SDE) subscale mean of 6.8 (SD = 3.1), compared with the
mean in this study of 4.66 (SD = 1.98). Paulhuss mean for
women on the Impression Management (IM) subscale was 4.9
(SD = 3.2), compared with the mean in this study of 4.15 (SD
= 2.17). T tests comparing Paulhuss means with the means
obtained in the current study for both subscales indicated
that participants in this study exhibited a significantly lower
degree of socially desirable responding (for SDE, t = 58.71,
p < .001, and for IM, t = 14.49, p < .001).
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to exam-
ine possible differences in gender self-acceptance and gen-
der self-definition among four of the five ethnic groups.
(Because only 1 participant identified as American Indian/
Native American, that category was not analyzed.) The only
significant difference in either gender self-acceptance or
Note. N = 361. F1 = Factor 1 (Gender Self-Definition); F2 = Factor 2 (Gender Self-Acceptance). Boldface indicates the items primary
factor loading.
Item
Gender Self-Definition
When I am asked to describe myself, being female is one of the first things I think of.
(Item 1)
My perception of myself is positively associated with my biological sex. (Item 4)
I define myself largely in terms of my femininity (femaleness). (Item 6)
My identity is strongly tied to my femininity (femaleness). (Item 7)
Being a female is a critical part of how I view myself. (Item 9)
Femininity (femaleness) is an important aspect of my self-concept. (Item 12)
Being a female contributes a great deal to my sense of confidence. (Item 14)
Gender Self-Acceptance
I am confident in my femininity (femaleness). (Item 2)
I meet my personal standards for femininity (femaleness). (Item 3)
I am secure in my femininity (femaleness). (Item 5)
I have a high regard for myself as a female. (Item 8)
I am happy with myself as a female. (Item 10)
I am very comfortable being a female. (Item 11)
My sense of myself as a female is positive. (Item 13)
TABLE 2
Hoffman Gender Scale Descriptive Statistics and Factor Loadings
M SD r F1 F2
3.55
4.43
3.48
3.66
4.04
4.22
4.29
5.09
4.92
5.06
4.94
5.40
5.47
5.24
1.56
1.34
1.36
1.39
1.37
1.28
1.36
0.95
0.99
0.99
1.07
0.84
0.79
0.84
.53
.50
.91
.94
.75
.77
.67
.77
.72
.85
.74
.82
.83
.81
.55
.35
.90
.92
.70
.69
.52
.09
.01
.01
.11
.05
.09
.01
.09
.27
.07
.05
.04
.10
.24
.69
.69
.81
.66
.81
.83
.79

Summer 2006

Volume 84 366
Hoffman
gender self-definition was between Asian American and White
respondents, with Asian American women having stronger gen-
der self-definition than White women (mean for Asian Ameri-
can respondents = 4.24, SD = .94; mean for White respondents
= 3.80, SD = .99, F[3, 292] = 3.421, p < .05). Another ANOVA
was conducted to examine possible differences in gender self-
acceptance and gender self-definition among the five age
groups determined by the data (i.e., 1720, 2124, 2530,
3139, and 4055 years). No age effects were found related to
gender self-definition or gender self-acceptance.
Discussion
This study was designed to further explore gender self-
definition and gender self-acceptance, two factors that de-
scribe gender self-confidence, as assessed by the HGS. Spe-
cifically, I hypothesized certain relationships between
womens levels of gender self-definition and statuses of femi-
nist identity development, as measured by the FIDS and
womanist identity development, as measured by the WAIS.
Likewise, I hypothesized additional relationships between
womens levels of gender self-acceptance and statuses of
both feminist and womanist identity development. Down-
ing and Roushs (1985) Feminist Identity Development
Model, upon which the FIDS is based, Helmss (see Ossana et
al., 1992) Womanist Identity Development Model, Marcias
(1966, 1980) ego identity statuses, and Phinneys (1993,
1996a) parallel model of ethnic identity development all
contributed to the framework for my formulation of hypoth-
eses regarding these relationships as well as to the formation
of a womens identity development model in process that
consists of four statuses: Unexamined Female Identity, Cri-
sis, Moratorium/Exploration, and Achieved Female Identity
(Hoffman, 2006). Recognizing the lack of research concern-
ing intersections of ethnic identity development and womens
identity development, I further sought to investigate these
relationships, as well as the relationship of ethnic identity
development to gender self-definition and gender self-
acceptance. Finally, I wanted to obtain additional psycho-
metric data related to the HGS.
The expected positive significant correlations between gen-
der self-definition and the Revelation, Embeddedness-
Emanation, and Active Commitment statuses of the Femi-
nist Identity Model and the Immersion-Emersion status of
the Womanist Identity Development Model, although rela-
tively low, ranging from .20 for Revelation (low-to-medium
effect size of 2.0) to .32 (medium effect size of 3.2) for
Embeddedness-Emanation, suggest that gender self-defini-
tion is related to those female identity development statuses
that reflect a struggle to construct a positive female identity
as well as to the status perhaps best characterized by a com-
mitment to an antisexist society. The correlation with the
Revelation status of feminist identity development also par-
tially supports a relationship between a crisis period in fe-
male identity development and gender self-definition. As
noted, however, the predicted correlation between gender
self-definition and the parallel status of womanist identity
development (Encounter) was not found. A possible expla-
nation for this finding is the relatively low internal consis-
tency of the WIAS Encounter subscale (.43), although an-
other predicted correlation with this subscale was supported.
Gender Self-Acceptance and
The predicted significant but also low positive correlations
between gender self-acceptance and the Synthesis and Active
Commitment statuses of feminist identity development and
the Internalization status of womanist identity development,
ranging from .16 for Active Commitment (somewhat low effect
size of 1.6) to .22 for both Synthesis and Internalization (low-
to-medium effect size of 2.2), supported the idea that womens
contentment with their womanhood is related to Achieved
Female Identity status. Conversely, as expected, gender self-
acceptance was negatively correlated with the Encounter
(.33, medium effect size of 3.3) and Immersion-Emersion
(.15, somewhat low effect size of 1.5) statuses of womanist
identity development, supporting the premise that women who
were actively engaged in a crisis or search regarding their fe-
male status were not likely to experience comfort in relation to
being women. A comparison of the strength of these last two
correlations suggests that the Crisis status is particularly unset-
tling in terms of womens gender self-acceptance and that per-
haps by the time a woman engages in Immersion-Emersion
status activities, she has begun to come to terms with her iden-
tity. The predicted negative relationship between gender self-
acceptance and the Revelation and Embeddedness-Emanation
statuses of feminist identity development was not supported. It
may be that the second and third statuses of feminist identity
development are qualitatively different from those of womanist
identity development. A more plausible explanation may be
that the items included on these parallel subscales assess differ-
ent facets of the status being assessed. It also is likely, as Moradi
and Subich (2002) suggested, that an undesirable alpha reli-
ability for the FIDS Revelation subscale may result in
underprediction of the relationship between this status and
other variables being investigated.
Ethnic Identity
The significant positive correlation of gender self-acceptance
with ethnic identity (.23, low-to-medium effect size of 2.3)
suggested a somewhat parallel process of identity develop-
ment for women with respect to gender and ethnicity; that is,
women with an achieved female identity also frequently pos-
sess an achieved ethnic identity. (Recall that gender self-
acceptance was positively correlated with the three achieved

Summer 2006

Volume 84 367
female identity statuses: the Synthesis and Active Commit-
ment statuses of feminist identity development and the Inter-
nalization status of womanist identity.) Thus, women who were
comfortable with their ethnic identity appeared to be com-
fortable with their identity as women and vice versa.
The meaning of the significant positive correlation of gender
self-definition with ethnic identity (.30, medium effect size of
3.0) was less clear in that gender self-definition was less associ-
ated with an achieved female identity than was gender self-ac-
ceptance. To clarify, whereas gender self-definitions association
with ethnic identity and the Active Commitment achieved fe-
male identity status may provide some additional support for a
parallel process as described above, gender self-definition was
not related to two of the three achieved female identity develop-
ment statuses (i.e., the Synthesis status of feminist identity devel-
opment and the Internalization status of womanist identity de-
velopment), nor was it expected to be. However, the correlation
between gender self-definition and ethnic identity, in conjunc-
tion with the correlations already discussed (i.e., between gender
self-definition and the Revelation, Embeddedness-Emanation,
and Active Commitment feminist identity development statuses
and the Immersion-Emersion womanist identity development
status), may suggest that the achieved ethnic identity possessed
by many women experiencing the Crisis and Moratorium sta-
tuses of female identity development may be an asset to them as
they wrestle with another aspect of their total identity. In other
words, they already have experienced this growth process in rela-
tion to their ethnicity, which may make it easier to go through
the process again in relation to their gender. This may be espe-
cially true for women of color. As noted by Parks et al. (1996),
Black womens struggle to achieve an internalized female iden-
tity follows the same pattern as their struggle to achieve an inter-
nalized racial identity; in both cases, they are members of a
nondominant group. Parks et al. found no significant relation-
ship between White womens racial and female identity develop-
ment, however, and logically interpreted this finding as related
to the opposing contexts of societal power in which White womens
racial identity development and female identity development
occur. Findings of the current study, however, further revealed
significant positive correlations between ethnic identity and the
Revelation (.27, medium effect size of 2.7), Embeddedness-Ema-
nation (.24, low-to-medium effect size of 2.4), and Active Com-
mitment (.27, medium effect size of 2.7) feminist identity devel-
opment statuses and the Immersion-Emersion (.18, low-to-me-
dium effect size of 1.8) womanist identity development status for
women across ethnicities. All of these statuses were also posi-
tively correlated with gender self-definition. Thus, further ex-
ploration of the relationships between ethnic identity and vari-
ous aspects of female identity and its development is warranted.
HGS
Psychometric data. Results of this study provide additional
support for the HGS factor structure and internal consis-
tency of the two factors (i.e., Gender Self-Definition and Gen-
der Self-Acceptance). All items loaded as expected, with factor
loadings ranging from .66 (Item 8) to .83 (Item 11) for the
Gender Self-Acceptance subscale (M = .75). For the Gender
Self-Definition subscale, there was one loading at the cutoff
(.35, Item 4); however, all other loadings were .52 and above,
with two items loading at .90 (Item 6) and .92 (Item 7, M = .66).
In all known research conducted using the HGS, the factor struc-
ture thus has been consistent.
Internal consistency remained high, with alphas of .90 for
the Gender Self-Definition subscale and .87 for the Gender
Self-Acceptance subscale. Testretest data were adequate, with
correlations of .53 for the Gender Self-Definition subscale and
.47 for the Gender Self-Acceptance subscale, both significant
at the .01 level. However, given that aspects of gender self-
concept are thought to be context specific rather than static
(Smith, Noll, & Bryant, 1999) and that gender salience may
fluctuate (Hansen, 2002), testretest reliability may not be as
critical a concern for the HGS as for instruments measuring
other types of constructs.
Results of this study provide further support for convergent
validity of the HGSfour of the five predicted correlations
between Gender Self-Definition subscale scores and FIDS or
WIAS subscale scores were significant. The significance of
five of the seven predicted correlations between Gender Self-
Acceptance subscale scores and FIDS or WIAS subscale scores
similarly contributes to HGS convergent validity.
Finally, significantly lower BIDR scores for women in
this study compared with normative data for the BIDR indi-
cate that social desirability was not related to gender self-
definition and suggested a minimal relationship between
social desirability and gender self-acceptance.
Age and ethnicity. Consistent with earlier data
(Hoffman et al., 2000), neither gender self-definition nor
gender self-acceptance differed according to age of re-
spondent. In addition, in this study, there was no differ-
ence in gender self-acceptance across ethnic groups. Pre-
vious data (Hoffman et al., 2000) had indicated stronger
gender self-acceptance among ethnic minorities compared
with White people and no difference in gender self-definition;
however, data for ethnic minorities were combined, ren-
dering limited interpretation. The results of the current
study indicate one significant difference in gender self-
definition, suggesting stronger gender self-definition
among Asian women than among White women. Although
this finding suggests that being a woman generally may
have been a more salient component of Asian womens
identities than of White womens identities, caution must
be exercised to acknowledge the wide variation among
individuals within any one group. Further research in this
regard is recommended.
FIDS, WIAS, and Implications for Future Research
As noted, one of the five predicted correlations between
gender self-definition and subscales of the FIDS and WIAS

Summer 2006

Volume 84 368
Hoffman
was not supported (i.e., WIAS 2). Although the low alpha for
the WIAS 2 subscale (.43) may help to explain this finding,
the inconsistent factor structures across studies using the
WIAS suggest that subscale items frequently fail to assess the
intended status (Ashton, 1999; Moradi, Yoder, Berendsen,
Holston, & Junius, 2001). Thus, a possible relationship be-
tween gender self-definition and the Encounter status of
womanist identity development may be obscured by the psy-
chometric problems associated with the WIAS.
Similarly, two of the seven predicted relationships between
gender self-acceptance and subscales of the FIDS and WIAS
were not found. In this case, both subscales were from the
FIDS: FIDS 2 and FIDS 3. Although the psychometrics of the
FIDS are stronger than the WIAS (Ashton, 1999), Fischer et al.
(2000) suggested that many of the FIDS items do not contrib-
ute reliably to the measurement of feminist identity develop-
ment (p. 19). Using the FIDS and the FIS, Fischer et al. derived
and tested the Feminist Identity Composite (FIC) as a newer
measure of feminist identity development that reflected the
five statuses of Downing and Roushs (1985) model. Their
research was published after the current study was conducted.
Whereas the FIC emerged as a more psychometrically sound
instrument than the FIDS or FIS, Fischer et al. noted deficien-
cies with the Embeddedness-Emanation subscale and articu-
lated a need for continued research that would result in mea-
sures that are adequate assessments of the various statuses of
womens development. Similarly, in a comparative study of
feminist identity measures, Moradi and Subich (2002) found
that the FICs internal consistency reliability and structural
validity surpassed that of the FID and the FIDS; however, they
also noted inadequacies in its assessment of Embeddedness-
Emanation. Problems assessing this status may be exacer-
bated by the fact that it actually encompasses two different
sets of characteristics and experiences: Embeddedness, dur-
ing which a woman emphasizes connection and connected-
ness with other women, and Emanation, during which she
becomes willing once again to interact, albeit somewhat cau-
tiously, with men. The challenge to researchers to construct
more sophisticated feminist identity development measures
is intensified by the general acknowledgment that progres-
sion through developmental statuses is nonlinear (Downing
& Roush, 1985; Fischer et al., 2000; Parham, 1989) and the
concomitant need to refrain from imposing a discrete struc-
ture on a fluid process (Fischer et al., 2000, p. 27), while
attempting to ensure that all key facets of each status are
adequately represented in each subscale.
An even larger issue pertains to the applicability of Down-
ing and Roushs (1985) Feminist Identity Development Model
to all types of feminism (e.g., liberal, radical, socialist, cul-
tural, womanist; see Henley et al., 1998, for a description of
these types). Whereas Frieze and McHugh (1998) suggested
that the FIDS, as representative of Downing and Roushs model,
presumably would apply to all types of feminists, Bargad and
Hyde (1991) themselves described the model as liberal femi-
nist and heterocentered (p. 197) and saw this as a limitation
in their development of the FIDS. Subsequently, Liss, Hoffner,
and Crawford (2000) explored the meaning of a typical
feminist and found that cultural feminism, which emphasizes
differences between women and men, was not only the least
strongly endorsed feminist ideology but that it also singu-
larly failed to distinguish feminists from nonfeminists. Fischer
et al. (2000) further presented specific examples of how some
feminisms were inconsistent with Downing and Roushs
conceptualization of statuses.
Thus, although some of the results of this study tended to
support several specific relationships (a) between gender self-
definition and different feminist and womanist identity de-
velopmental statuses, (b) between gender self-acceptance and
these statuses, and (c) among ethnic identity and womens
identity developmental statuses, conclusions drawn regard-
ing these relationships are best viewed as tentative. Future
research with improved measures of feminist and womanist
identity may yield additional information regarding these
relationships. Hansen (2002) cautioned that psychometric
problems with the FIDS, particularly the Synthesis subscale,
should not be interpreted to suggest that the Downing and
Roush (1985) model itself is flawed. Her point is well-taken,
although improved measures of womens identity develop-
ment may also be constructed to correspond to newer models
that focus on womens or female, rather than specifically femi-
nist, identity development, such as the model proposed in
this article. Finally, the need for research that focuses on inter-
sections of other aspects of identity in addition to gender and
ethnicity (e.g., sexual orientation, disabilities, socioeconomic
class) is critical.
Implications for Counseling
Gender self-definition and gender self-acceptance. Gender
self-definition and gender self-acceptance, conceptualized
as aspects of gender self-confidence, are distinct yet related
constructs. Women who score high on the Gender Self-
Definition subscale attribute a great deal of importance to
femaleness as a part of their identity. Women who score high
on the Gender Self-Acceptance scale may be able to be more
relaxed about themselves as females, accepting themselves
as such without necessarily strongly defining themselves in
terms of their notions of femininity/femaleness. Thus, one
might be comfortable with ones gender (gender self-accep-
tance), one might define oneself in terms of ones gender
(gender self-definition), both, or neither. Assessment of gen-
der self-definition and gender self-acceptance will provide
counselors with an enhanced understanding of their clients
gender-related self-perceptions.
HGS items or the instrument as a whole may also be used as
a catalyst for discussion in counseling sessions with both
female and male clients. For example, the counselor may en-
courage the client to explore whether she meets personal stan-
dards for self-defined femininity/femaleness (HGS Item 3).

Summer 2006

Volume 84 369
Such an approach may be particularly useful with clients who
have an eating disorder, although this topic has relevance to a
much wider population. This item is representative of gender
self-acceptance, which has been positively correlated with sub-
jective well-being in both women and men (Hoffman, in press).
In contrast, the counselor may also wish to ask clients to
respond to the statement Being a female is a critical part of
how I view myself (Item 9) included on the HGS Self-
Definition subscale. This may help women who are strug-
gling with various aspects of their identities to identify which
are most salient to them. For example, the client may either
confirm that this is true or reject this statement and clarify a
focus on her ethnicity. Similarly, presentation of the other
HGS items may assist the counselor in learning more about
her or his clients integrated identities.
Identity development statuses. For women of all
ethnicities, levels of gender self-definition and gender self-
acceptance may vary in relation to various statuses of their
development as females. Listening to female clients sto-
ries will allow counselors to assess which feminist and/or
womanist status(es) are reflected in their experiences.
Counselors may also wish to use the model introduced in this
article to conceptualize female identity development in terms
of Unexamined Female Identity, Crisis, Moratorium/Explora-
tion, and Achieved Female Identity statuses. For example, a
client in the Passive Acceptance, Pre-Encounter, Identity Dif-
fusion, or Unexamined Female Identity status (see Figure 1)
may make a statement such as Women who arent successful
only have themselves to blame. If that client enters the Rev-
elation, Encounter, or Crisis status, she is likely to become
angry and confused about what she has begun to identify as
mistreatment due to her gender.
Moradi and Subich (2002) found that attitudes asso-
ciated with the Passive Acceptance status were related
to higher levels of psychological distress and suggested
that counselors working with clients in this stage assist
them in a process of decision making about their values
by examining the possible costs and benefits of such
attitudes. Moradi et al. (2002) conjectured that the du-
alistic thinking about women and men that is reflected
by women in the Revelation status may lead to interper-
sonal problems and suggested cognitive interventions
to challenge such thinking. At the same time, Moradi
and her colleagues noted the importance of recognizing
the potential danger of a counselor imposing her or his
values by being too quick to facilitate a clients devel-
opment through the statuses. Hyde (2002), a codeveloper
of the FIDS, cautioned practitioners to consider that it
may not always be appropriate to conceptualize a
higher stage of feminist identity development as more
advanced than a previous one. Moradi et al. further em-
phasized the importance of addressing clients multiple
identities (e.g., gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation)
rather than focusing on one aspect in isolation. At dif-
ferent points in a clients overall development, any one
of these identity areas may become more salient than oth-
ers. For example, when a client enters counseling to work
on her ethnic identity development, it would be inappropri-
ate to attach more importance to her identity as a woman and
vice versa.
Understanding some of the possible associations among
gender self-definition, gender self-acceptance, female identity
statuses, and ethnic identity may contribute to the counselors
ability to more fully comprehend the complexity of each
womans experience and to make more informed decisions re-
garding appropriate counseling interventions. Although not
the specific focus of this research, counseling practitioners are
further encouraged to expand their conceptualizations of cli-
ents experiences to incorporate an enhanced and integrated
understanding of other aspects of clients total identities. (See
Hoffman, 2001, for an in-depth discussion of other counseling
interventions related to gender.)
Summary and Conclusion
Significant strides in the study of womens identity development
have occurred since the 1980s; nonetheless, researchers knowl-
edge of this area, as well as the availability of adequate measures,
remains somewhat limited. Most researchers of womens identity
development appear to focus on feminist identity. With the ex-
ception of womanist identity, which is sometimes included un-
der the feminist umbrella (Liss et al., 2000), womens identity
development has been conceptualized independently of
ethnicity or race. Rarely have gender identity development and
ethnic/racial identity development been studied in conjunction
with one another, and when they have, ethnic/racial develop-
ment has focused on Blacks or African Americans.
This study served as an attempt to begin to integrate as
well as extend previous research on gender identity and
ethnic identity in women. In addition to exploring relation-
ships between feminist/womanist statuses and ethnic iden-
tity, it examined associations between these concepts and
two more recently identified gender identity constructs:
gender self-definition and gender self-acceptance.
The results of this study provide some support for a posi-
tive relationship between gender self-definition and the Cri-
sis, Moratorium/Exploration, and Achieved Female Identity
statuses, as conceptualized and presented in this article, and
between gender self-acceptance and the Achieved Female
Identity status. An inverse relationship between gender self-
acceptance and the Crisis and Moratorium/Exploration fe-
male identity statuses was partially supported. Gender self-
definition and gender self-acceptance were also both found
to be positively associated with a strong ethnic identity.
Positive relationships between ethnic identity and mora-
torium female identity statuses were found. A positive rela-
tionship between ethnic identity and Crisis and Achieved
Female Identity statuses was also partially supported.

Summer 2006

Volume 84 370
Hoffman
This study also examined the HGS, which was developed
to assess gender self-confidence. Although the main pur-
pose of the study was to explore the relationships among the
two HGS factors (i.e., Gender Self-Definition and Gender
Self-Acceptance), ethnic identity, and feminist/womanist
statuses, a secondary purpose was to conduct additional
analyses in relation to the HGS factor structure, internal con-
sistency, testretest reliability, and social desirability. In
addition to supporting the convergent validity of the HGS,
results of the study upheld the HGS factor structure and high
internal consistency and provided adequate testretest reli-
ability and social desirability data. Thus, psychometric sup-
port for the use of the HGS as a measure of gender self-
definition and gender self-acceptance and, hence, of gender
self-confidence, is further strengthened.
The ethnic diversity among participants in this study, with
fewer than half (44%) identifying as White/Caucasian/Anglo/
European American, is a strength and addresses a primary con-
cern expressed by other researchers of womens identity develop-
ment. Yet, additional studies of this nature need to incorporate
even greater diversity in samples with regard to ethnicity as well
as in regard to other important demographic variables, for ex-
ample, age, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.
Finally, future research is needed aimed at improved mea-
surement of female identity development statuses before more
definitive relationships between those statuses and gender
self-acceptance, gender self-definition, and ethnic identity
can be articulated. Such research will involve a reexamina-
tion of current female identity development models and the
creation and expansion of alternative paradigms, including
the model proposed in this article. Such research will entail
the evolution of some of the more promising existing instru-
ments, such as the FIC (Fischer et al., 2000), as well as the
development of other sophisticated measures.
References
Ashton, K. (1999, April). Female identity development: Feminist
vs. womanist models. Poster session presented at the American
Psychological Association Great Lakes Regional Conference,
Columbus, OH.
Athenstaedt, U. (2003). On the content and structure of the gender
role self-concept: Including gender-stereotypical behaviors in
addition to traits. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 309318.
Bargad, A., & Hyde, J. S. (1991). Womens studies: A study of
feminist identity development in women. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 15, 181201.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psycho-
analysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Conarton, S., & Kreger-Silverman, L. (1988). Feminist development
through the life cycle. In M. A. Dutton-Couglas & L. E. Walker
(Eds.), Feminist psychotherapies: Integration of therapeutic and
feminist systems (pp. 3767). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1971). Negro-to-Black conversion experience:
Toward a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 20,
1327.
Cross, W. E., Jr., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and
measurement: Introducing the Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS).
In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. M. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander
(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 371
393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downing, N. E., & Roush, K. L. (1985). From passive-acceptance to
active commitment: A model of feminist identity development for
women. The Counseling Psychologist, 13, 695709.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York:
Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York:
Norton.
Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., Mergl, M. M., Good, G. E., Hill, M.
S., & Blum, S. A. (2000). Assessing womens identity develop-
ment: Studies of convergent, discriminant, and structural valid-
ity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 1529.
Frieze, I. H., & McHugh, M. C. (1998). Measuring feminism
and gender role attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
22, 349352.
Gilbert, L. A., & Rader, J. (2002). The missing discourse of gender?
The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 567574.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and
womens development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Green, R. (1974). Sexual identity conflict in children and adults.
New York: Basic Books.
Hansen, N. D. (2002). Reflections on feminist identity development:
Implications for theory, measurement, and research. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 30, 8795.
Helms, J. E. (1995a). An update of Helms White and people of color
racial identity models. In J. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki,
& C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counsel-
ing (pp. 181198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Helms, J. E. (1995b). Womanist Identity Attitudes Scale. Unpub-
lished instrument.
Henley, N. M., Meng, K., OBrien, D., McCarthy, W. J., & Sockloskie,
R. J. (1998). Developing a scale to measure feminist attitudes.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 317348.
Hoffman, R. M. (1996). Beyond the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A
reconceptualization of the constructs of masculinity and femi-
ninity and a re-examination of their measurement. (Doctoral
dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro,
1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(05), 3449B.
(UMI No. 9315947)
Hoffman, R. M. (2001). The measurement of masculinity and femi-
ninity: Historical perspective and implications for counseling.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 472485.
Hoffman, R. M. (2006). From unexamined to achieved: A frame-
work for conceptualizing female identity development. Manu-
script in preparation.

Summer 2006

Volume 84 371
Hoffman, R. M. (in press). How is gender self-confidence related
to subjective well-being. Journal of Humanistic Counseling,
Education and Development.
Hoffman, R. M., Borders, L. D., & Hattie, J. A. (2000).
Reconceptualizing femininity and masculinity: From gender roles
to gender self-confidence. Journal of Social Behavior and Per-
sonality, 15, 475503.
Hoffman, R. M., Hattie, J. A., & Borders, L. D. (2005). Personal
definitions of masculinity and femininity as an aspect of gender
self-concept. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and
Development, 44, 6883.
Hyde, J. S. (2002). Feminist identity development: The current state
of theory, research, and practice. The Counseling Psychologist,
30, 105110.
Josselson, R. (1973). Psychodynamic aspects of identity forma-
tion in college women. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2,
352.
Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity develop-
ment in women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Josselson, R. (1994). The theory of identity development and the
question of intervention: An introduction. In S. L. Archer (Ed.),
Interventions for adolescent identity development (pp. 1225).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in
human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Kimmel, M. S. (2000). Epilogue: A degendered society? In M. S.
Kimmel (Ed.), The gendered society (pp. 264268). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lewin, M. (1984). Psychology measures femininity and masculin-
ity, 2: From 13 gay men to the instrumental-expressive dis-
tinction. In M. Lewin (Ed.), In the shadow of the past: Psychol-
ogy portrays the sexes (pp. 179204). New York: Columbia
University Press.
Liss, M., Hoffner, C., & Crawford, M. (2000). What do femi-
nists believe? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 279284.
Lontz, M. Q. (2000). The male gender and gender role conflict in
relationship to well-being in retired older adult men. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at
Greensboro.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego iden-
tity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3,
551558.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson
(Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159187).
New York: Wiley.
Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity status in
college women. Journal of Personality, 38, 249263.
Money, J. (1994). The concept of gender identity disorder in child-
hood and adolescence after 39 years. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 20, 163177.
Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2002). Feminist identity development
measures: Comparing the psychometrics of three instruments.
The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 6686.
Moradi, B., Subich, L. M., Phillips, J. C. (2002). Beyond revisiting:
Moving feminist identity development ahead. The Counseling
Psychologist, 30, 111117.
Moradi, B., Yoder, J. D., Berendsen, L. L., Holston, R., & Junius,
M. (2001, January). Psychometric properties of the Womanist
Identity Attitudes Scale. Poster session presented at the second
Multicultural Conference and Summit, Santa Barbara, CA.
Ng, S. H., Dunne, M., & Cataldo, M. (1995). Feminist identities
and preferred strategies for advancing womens positive self-
concept. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 561572.
Ossana, S. M., Helms, J. E., & Leonard, M. M. (1992). Do
womanist identity attitudes influence college womens self-
esteem and perceptions of environmental bias? Journal of Coun-
seling & Development, 70, 402408.
Parham, T. A. (1989). Cycles of psychological nigrescence. The
Counseling Psychologist, 17, 187226.
Parks, E. E., Carter, R. T., & Gushue, G. V. (1996). At the cross-
roads: Racial and womanist identity development in Black
and White women. Journal of Counseling & Development,
74, 624631.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
598609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Scoring key for BIDR Version 6Form 40A.
Unpublished data.
Phinney, J. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new
scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Re-
search, 7, 156176.
Phinney, J. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity devel-
opment. In M. Bernal & G. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity:
Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other
minorities (pp. 6179). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Phinney, J. (1996a). Understanding ethnic diversity: The role of ethnic
identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 143152.
Phinney, J. (1996b). When we talk about American ethnic
groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51,
918927.
Rebecca, M., Hefner, R., & Oleshansky, B. (1976). A model
of sex-role transcendence. Journal of Social Issues, 32,
197206.
Rickard, K. M. (1990). The effect of feminist identity level on gen-
der prejudice toward artists illustrations. Journal of Research in
Personality, 24, 145162.
Smith, C. J., Noll, J. A., & Bryant, J. B. (1999). The effect of social
context on gender self-concept. Sex Roles, 40, 499512.
Snyder, R., & Hasbrouck, L. (1996). Feminist identity, gender traits,
and symptoms of disturbed eating among college women. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 20, 593598.
Spence, J. T. (1985). Gender identity and its implications for
the concepts of masculinity and femininity. In T. B.
Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation:
Psychology of gender (pp. 5996). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.

Summer 2006

Volume 84 372
Hoffman
Journal of
Counseling
&
Development
Editorial Board Call for Applicants
A. Scott McGowan, editor of the Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD),
is seeking applicants for 3-year appointments to the JCD Editorial Board.
Counselors with editorial experience and a record of scholarship relevant to the
domain of JCD are encouraged to apply. Publications in refereed journals are re-
quired. Given the broad scope of the journal, we are seeking applications from people
who represent all the various specialty areas of counseling. We are also looking to
increase ethnic and racial diversity and to achieve a geographic balance on the
board. Although not required in the letter of application, sharing such information
relative to these characteristics is appreciated. Applicants must be ACA members and
must agree to provide high-quality reviews on a timely basis. Applicants interested
in reviewing quantitative research manuscripts should identify their areas of exper-
tise in terms of research design and statistics. Reviewers for qualitative research are
also needed. Applications must be made electronically, but hard copies must also be
sent. Because JCD is moving to a complete electronic manuscript submission and
review process, prospective reviewers must have an e-mail address and must be pre-
pared to forward reviews electronically.
To apply, send the following materials electronically as attachments to jcd@liu.edu:
a letter of application describing qualifications and areas of expertise
a vita and a list of publications
In addition, send hard copies, along with a recent representative publication of an
article the applicant had successfully published in a refereed journal, via regular
mail, to
A. Scott McGowan, Editor, JCD
Department of Counseling & Development
Long Island University/C.W. Post Campus
720 Northern Boulevard
Brookville, NY 11548
Incomplete applications will not be considered.
Spence, J. T. (1999). Thirty years of gender research: A personal
chronicle. In W. B. Swann, J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.),
Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of
Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 255289). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity:
Defining the undefinable. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody
(Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relation-
ships (pp. 105138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (2000). Instrumental and expressive
traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: What do they sig-
nify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 4462.
Williams, J. (1977). Psychology of women: Behavior in a biosocial
context. New York: Norton.
Worthington, R. L., & Dillon, F. R. (2003). The Theoretical
Orientation Profile ScaleRevised: A validation study. Mea-
surement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
36, 95105.

Gender Self-Definition and Gender Self-Acceptance in Women

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender Self-Definition and Gender Self-Acceptance in Women

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Counseling & Development

Journal of Counseling & Development

You might also like