Perceived Similarity to Gender Groups Scale: Validation in a Sample of Italian LGB + and Heterosexual Young Adults

Abstract

Introduction The present article describes two interrelated studies that examine gender typicality in young adulthood using a new dual-identity approach. Methods Participants were recruited online from March 2020 to February 2021 and reported their perceived similarity to own- and other-gender peers as a way to assess their gender typicality. In study 1, the authors conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test and validate the Perceived Similarity to Gender Groups Scale in a sample of Italian young adults (n = 571; Mage = 23.9; SD = 3.60). The authors documented the configural, metric, scalar measurement invariance, and validity. In study 2, the Perceived Similarity to Gender Groups Scale adopted in study 1 was used to assess the distribution of different typologies of gender typicality in another sample of Italian young adults who vary in gender and sexual orientation (n = 1126; Mage = 24.3; SD = 3.51). Results Results confirmed the structural validity of the Perceived Similarity to Gender Groups Scale, revealing the two-factor structure of the scale. Moreover, results of cluster analysis found different typologies of self-perceptions of gender typicality. Conclusion Both studies emphasize the relevance of studying gender typicality in young adulthood through a dual-identity approach, highlighting the relevance of gender and sexual orientations. Policy Implications The use of the dual-identity approach has significant social and clinical implications as it represents a more flexible and representative model of the complexity of gender typicality.

Gender Identification Beyond the Binary and Its Consequences for Social Well-Being

“…They estimated that 30% of children were Both-Gender Similar. Various studies have used Martin et al's (2017) gender similarity measure and largely replicated their results in Dutch, Italian, and US samples of young adults (Andrews et al, 2019;Baiocco et al, 2021;Endendijk et al, 2019). Similarly, Pauletti et al (2017) found relatively low correlations between own-gender typicality and other-gender typicality in children, further showing that these are two distinct concepts.…”

“…Moreover, in one study identification with "women," "men," "both," and "neither" was each measured using separate items (Joel et al, 2014). However, most other studies measured identification with "women," and with "men," and inferred which participants identified with both or neither from the data (e.g., those participants scoring low on identification with women and low on identification with men, were considered to identify with neither; Andrews et al, 2019;Baiocco et al, 2021;Endendijk et al, 2019;Kuyper & Wijsen, 2014;Martin et al, 2017;Pauletti et al, 2017;Van Caenegem et al, 2015). We argue that either method is valid for assessing identification with "both" and "neither" men and/nor women, however, we favor simplifying the participant's experience in answering questions where possible.…”

“…Lastly, in each study the participants shared a country of residence: the USA (Andrews et al, 2019;Martin et al, 2017;Pauletti et al, 2017), Israel (Joel et al, 2014), Italy (Baiocco et al, 2021) the Netherlands (Endendijk et al, 2019;Kuyper &Wijsen, 2014), andBelgium (Van Caenegem et al, 2015). The redefinition of gender as a non-binary construct is happening world-wide, and to compare whether participants in different studies experience their genders in similar ways, a multinational sample is necessary.…”

Biologizing Gender: The canalized reproductive axis of gender, not sex.

“…However, definitions and measurements of gender identity as self-awareness of which group one belongs to via gender cues, gender roles, gender stereotypes, and typical gender behavior all describe knowledge about gender rather than biological gender or sexuality. Of the proposed biological foundations of gender and available tools for assessing sex and gender alternatives as self-perception (for example, see Baiocco et al, 2021), there is no accepted biological marker of gender identity per se.…”