Structural Validity of Turkish Versions of the Gender Role Conflict Scale and Male Role Norms Scale Suzanne H. Lease University of Memphis Ays ¸e C ¸ iftc ¸i Purdue University Ayhan Demir Middle East Technical University Gu ¨ler Boyraz Tennessee State University Masculinity ideologies are expected to vary by culture, yet the scales frequently used to measure masculinity and the related construct of gender role conflict were developed and normed in the United States and have not been validated for use in Middle Eastern cultures. This set of two studies examined the construct equivalence of translated and adapted versions of the Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS) and the Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS) with Turkish individuals. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test previously established structural models of both scales. CFA indicated that the translated versions of both scales had acceptable structural validity. Item means, item-total scale correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were also examined to provide evidence of equivalence. Correlations between the GRCS and measures of work and personal relationships and multivar- iate analysis of gender differences on the MRNS further supported the construct validity of the translated versions. Overall, Turkish women endorsed a less tradi- tional view of masculinity, and gender role conflict was related to poorer relations with classmates and intimate partners. Keywords: construct validity of Male Role Norms Scale, construct validity of Gender Role Conflict Scale, masculinity ideology, cultural differences in masculinity Increasingly, scholars of masculinity (Levant, 1996; Mahalik, 2000; Mahalik et al., 2003; Pleck, 1995) propose that gender role norms guiding masculine behavior are learned within a social context. This social construc- tionist view of masculinity holds that different social groups may conceptualize masculinity from their own group’s or culture’s perspectives of gender. Cultural factors such as characteris- tics of economy, the political environment, and a nation’s founding and development affect what are considered appropriate masculine be- haviors within that given culture (Mahalik, Locke, Theodore, Cournoyer, & Lloyd, 2001). The resultant masculinity ideologies, defined as internalized cultural beliefs about masculinity, define the socialized norms for gender roles and lay the foundation for gender role conflict that may result from deviating from or failing to meet the masculinity ideology norms (O’Neil, 2008). Results of cross-cultural studies (e.g., Abreu, Goodyear, Campos, & Newcomb, 2000; Harris, Torres, & Allender, 1994; Hofstede, 1980; Levant et al., 2003) provide support for the supposition that masculinity ideologies vary across cultures. Although cultural differences in masculinity ideologies are expected, the com- monly used measures of masculinity ideology and gender role conflict were developed and normed on men and women in the United States. The validity of these measures for indi- viduals outside the United States needs to be assessed. The current article examines the equivalence and validity of translated versions of the Gender Role Conflict Scale (O’Neil, Suzanne H. Lease, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee; Ays ¸e C ¸ iftc ¸i, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana; Ayhan Demir, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey; and Gu ¨ler Boyraz, Tennessee State Uni- versity, Nashville. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Suzanne H. Lease, 100 Ball Hall, The University of Mem- phis, Memphis, TN 38152. E-mail: slease@memphis.edu Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 10, No. 4, 273–287 1524-9220/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017044 273 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.