Abstract
The stereotype that male nurses are less masculine has existed for generations and spans all age groups. Several studies have investigated masculinity and femininity in nurses using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, but the results are conflicting and inconclusive. Therefore, a nationwide survey was conducted across the United States that examined the sex-role identity of individuals who chose nursing as a career path. Twenty-eight males and 81 females from 37 states completed the survey. The males and females in the study both had higher mean scores on masculinity and femininity scales when compared with previous studies. The greatest percentage of participants were classified as androgynous, as opposed to masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated, with half of the males and nearly half of the females falling into this category.
Men who enter the nursing profession experience negative attitudes from those around them, particularly as being less masculine than other men (Laroche & Livneh, 1983; Tillman & Machtmes, 2008). The stereotype that male nurses are less masculine spans all age groups, is reinforced by television and movies (Kelly & Shoemaker, 1996), and has existed for generations. In the late 1960s, 17- to 19-year-old males considered nursing to be a profession of lower masculinity than other professions (Vaz, 1968), a view held even by 5- and 6-year-old children in 1979 (Cordua, McGaw, & Drabman, 1979). This view was largely the same among high school students in 1992 (Barkley & Kohler, 1992). Research conducted by Jinks and Bradley (2004) found evidence that the stereotype of male nurses as feminine has been growing stronger, not weaker. In their research, students from 2002 agreed more strongly with the statement “male nurses are effeminate” than students from 1992.
Male nurses have anxiety and tension about participating in a profession that is viewed to be feminine and maternal (Laroche & Livneh, 1983; Segal, 1962; Tillman & Machtmes, 2008). Qualitative studies have found that male nurses feel regarded as both an inferior man and an inferior nurse (Harding, 2005). Male nurses feel they have to work harder on the job to develop a trusting relationship with patients (Harding, 2005). Even men who brave going into the woman-dominated profession of nursing tend to shift toward specialties within the nursing profession that have a higher prevalence of men (Muldoon & Reily, 2003; Okrainec, 1994). This is unfortunate since evidence suggests that the optimal effectiveness of health care requires both genders in equal numbers (Berthold, Gouni-Berthold, Bestehorn, Böhm, & Krone, 2008; Hall et al., 1990; Nicolai & Demmel, 2007.
Although there are no systematic studies on the prevalence of the different sexual preferences among nurses, anecdotal reports (GLBTQ, 2009) suggest there is historically a higher prevalence of gays and lesbians in nursing than in the general population. The feminine man attitude leads to problems in recruiting heterosexual men into nursing (Barkely & Kohler, 2007; Vaz, 1968) and also devalues and marginalizes gay men in nursing. Given the evidence and beliefs, two critical questions must be answered: Are men who choose nursing as a career similar to female nurses regarding masculinity and femininity? Are men who choose nursing as a career more feminine and less masculine than men who choose other professions? Aside from the issue of whether or not discrimination against feminine men is justified, it is necessary to first define masculinity and femininity and then settle whether male nurses generally are more feminine or not.
Masculinity and femininity are abstract concepts based on gender, with the expectation that males will be masculine and females will be feminine (Cook, 1985). Examples of stereotypical masculine attributes include independence, aggression, strength, and competitiveness. Stereotypical feminine attributes include nurturing, caring, passivity, and subordination. Bem (1974) proposed a widely accepted psychological theory termed androgyny, which treats masculinity and femininity as two separate entities integrated within each individual. The opposite of androgyny is undifferentiated, which is applied to those with few stereotypical masculine or feminine traits (Bem, 1974). Bem developed a questionnaire (known as the Bem Sex-Role Inventory [BSRI]) to assess masculinity and femininity scores on a sample of college students. The BSRI has been widely used; a search of the pubmed.gov database listed 209 studies that have used the instrument since 1976.
Numerous studies have shown that the BSRI has a predictive value for many gender-related qualities. The BSRI displayed lower masculinity scores in gay males (Zoccali et al., 2008), higher masculinity scores in women with physical traits that indicate higher levels of prenatal exposure to testosterone (Csathó et al., 2003), higher masculinity scores for women in risk-taking sports (Cazenave, Le Scanff, & Woodman, 2007), and higher femininity scores in gays and lesbians with eating disorders (Meyer, Blissett, & Oldfield, 2001). In a recent review on the usefulness of the BSRI, Oswald (2004) emphasized the measurement validity and established usefulness.
Several studies have investigated how nurses were classified using the BSRI, but the results are conflicting and inconclusive. Culkin, Tricarico, and Cohen (1987) examined the sex-role orientation of 68 nursing students, and Pontin (1988) examined 23 nurses (both studies included males and females). They determined that males and females associated with the nursing profession were equally androgynous. McCutcheon (1996) determined that experienced male nurses were no more feminine than inexperienced male nurses. This led McCutcheon to conclude that the nursing profession does not feminize the male nurse. Fisher (1999) studied 98 nurses of both genders and found no significant difference in masculine and femininity scores between male and female nurses or sex-type categories. However, when male nurses from his study were compared with a reference sample of college students (Bem, 1978), Fisher (1999) found more male nursing students to be categorized as feminine. Loughrey (2008) concluded that a sample of male nurses adhered to female norms more so than male norms. The above-mentioned five studies have conflicting conclusions; the more recent studies by Loughrey and Fisher concluding that male nurses are effeminate whereas the earlier studies by Culkin, Pontin, and McCutcheon concluded that they are not. The purpose of the present study was to resolve this question by conducting the largest study on sex-role orientation of nurses to date, over the widest geographic area, using the same established instrument as previous studies.
Two research hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1: Male nursing students are as feminine as female nursing students.
Hypothesis 2: Male nursing students are significantly more feminine than males of other professions.
Method
Sample Design
Nursing students were studied, rather than practicing nurses, for two reasons. The first was that students made the decision to enter nursing most recently, so the findings are as up-to-date as possible. The second was because it ruled out that possibility that any differences found in sex-role identity were because of the effects of prolonged work as a nurse. The confounding effect of work experiences as a nurse is consequently excluded.
The sample frame consisted of members of the National Student Nurses Association (NSNA). The NSNA reports it has slightly more than 50,000 members in all 50 states of the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. All NSNA members were invited to take an online survey for this study by email. It is unknown how many members viewed the emails, how many ignored it, or how many never encountered it due to antispam software on their systems. Nevertheless, this was the most feasible mechanism for reaching nursing students scattered across the country. One hundred and nine nursing student from 37 States, all of whom met the criteria for inclusion, completed the survey. To participate, individuals had to be students with a major in nursing and be pursuing a diploma, associates, bachelors, or a graduate degree. The volunteer nature of the survey meant that this was a convenience sample with low external validity. The important question of whether the sample of participants was representative of nursing students nationally on the basis of their demographics is addressed in the first part of the results section and in the discussion section.
Survey and Instrument
A web-based survey was implemented for a standardized psychoanalytic instrument, the short-form BSRI. The short form of the BSRI was recommended over the long form for male participants by Chung (1995). The first page of the online survey consisted of an informed consent letter to the participants explaining the nature of the research and assuring their privacy. The second part of the survey consisted of a section on demographic information. The demographic items were age, ethnicity, location of school, area raised, type of nursing degree being pursued, marital status, and parental status. Ages were grouped in 10-year ranges (except teens, who were in the 17-19 years range). Seven ethnic categories were included in the survey: American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Native Hawaii/Pacific Islander, and other. The nursing degree options were diploma/LPN, associate degree, bachelor’s degree, or other. Marital status options were married, single, or divorced. A simple yes or no was required for the item on children. The United States was divided into six major regions of West, Southwest, Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, and Other.
The third and last part of the survey consisted of 30 personality characteristic questions (BSRI). Ten questions were stereotypically feminine, 10 were stereotypically masculine, and 10 were neutral control questions that had no bearing on participant scores. When taking the BSRI, participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert-type scale how well each of the 30 characteristics described themselves, such as affectionate, willing to take stand, gentle, and others. The Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (Never or almost never true) to 7 (Always or almost always true). The average score for the stereotypic masculine and stereotypic feminine items was calculated for each participant and then participants were classified into one of four groups depending on their scores: feminine, masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated as recommended by Bem (1978). Specifically, if a participant’s mean scores were above the standard median on one scale and below the standard median on the other scale, then the participant was sex typed according to the scales that are above the median. If the mean scores of a participant were above the median on both the masculine and femininity scales, then the participant was classified as androgynous. If the mean scores were both below the median, then the participant was classified as undifferentiated.
Measurement Validity and Reliability
The BSRI is a refined instrument that has been widely used and tested over a period of more than three decades. Bem (1974) first showed that the BSRI demonstrated good external (test–retest) reliability (r > .75 for both scales) in university students using an interval of 4 weeks, a result that was confirmed for both heterosexual and homosexual men and women recruited from the community (Chung, 1995; Fisher, 1999; Ishida, 1994; Lippa, 1991; Locke, 2000; Sugihara & Katsurada, 2006). The measurement validity has been established by a number of independent methods. Construct validity was shown by comparison to the Lifestyle Questionnaire on sexual orientation (Chung, 1995) and others (Ishida, 1994); however, there is evidence that the construct validity can break down under certain circumstances (Hogan, 1977) that do not apply to the present study. Content validity was shown by prediction of extreme masculine and feminine profiles by selected groups of university students (Hinrichsen & Stone, 1978). Convergent and divergent validity were shown by a comparison to the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (Locke, 2000).
Internal reliability was also assessed in the present study and found to be relatively high. Cronbach’s α value for the masculinity scale was .85, and the α value for the femininity scale was .87. Based on all evidence, the measurement quality in this study was concluded to be between medium and high.
Procedure
The current study was approved by East Tennessee State University Institutional Review Board. Legal rights to use the BSRI were purchased from Mind Garden, Inc., Menlo Park, CA. An invitation to take the survey was purchased as an advertisement in the biannual NSNA Update e-blasts newsletter. The invitation was e-mailed by NSNA to all of its members in April 2009, asking members to help determine “if gender matters within the nursing profession.” The wording was designed to catch the eye and appeal to males, whose participation was needed, but are a small minority in the nursing profession. An online link was provided for direct access to the web survey. Data were collected from April 24 through May 22, 2009. The end time was when the number of surveys per week trickled to less than one. The collected data were downloaded from the survey website and imported into SPSS version 16 for bivariate analysis.
Data Analysis
Likert scores were separated by category (masculine, feminine, and control) for each participant, summed and divided by 10 to obtain mean masculinity and femininity scores. Mean scores fell between 1 and 7, with a score close to 7 on the masculinity scale corresponding to a high degree of masculinity. Likewise, a score close to 7 on the femininity scale corresponded to a high degree of femininity. Following procedures recommended by Bem (1978), feminine minus masculinity scores (F − M difference) were calculated for each participant as the difference in mean scores on the two scales. The independent samples t test compared the mean scores of two groups on a given variable. The effect size for the scores used r as the measure of effect size and was computed from t values by r = t(t2 + N − 2)−½ or from χ2 values by r = (χ2/(χ2 + n))½, and then the absolute value of r was multiplied by 100 to express effect size as a percentage.
The findings in the present study were statistically compared with the data from National League for Nursing [NLN] (2009), Bem (1974), Fisher (1999), and Loughrey (2008). In particular, the one-sample t test compared the current sample and a reference group of university students reported by Bem (1974). Differences in sex-role category data (multinomial) were tested by Pearson’s chi-squared test. The one-sample t test compared the mean score of a sample to a known value. A one-way analysis of variance was used to check for differences in masculinity and femininity scores by demographic variables. The effect size was computed from F values by r = (dfnF/(dfnF + dfd))½, where the subscripts n and d refer to the numerator (rows) and denominator (columns). The standard reference group (Bem, 1978) was not a random community sample but consisted of 817 university students aged between 16 and 21 years. Because of the narrow demographics and geographic distribution of the reference population, particularly with respect to age and education level, this population was not considered as normative in the present study. Consequently, the present study deviated from the practice recommended in the BSRI manual in that the scores were not standardized according to the reference group but rather compared with the mean raw scores (ranged from 1 to 7) for the reference population.
Results
Sample Characteristics
Twenty-eight males and 81 females completed the survey for a total sample size of 109 nursing students (Table 1). Fifty-eight percent of the respondents were less than 30 years of age, 85% were White, 61% were pursuing bachelor’s degrees, and 49% were single. The majority of the participants had no children (68%). The sample represented 37 of the 50 states of the United States. As expected, the more populated states had a greater number of participants; California had the greatest number with 11, and the less populated states (i.e., Idaho, Rhode Island, and Montana) had no participants.
Demographic Characteristics of Sample
Sample representativeness
To determine how representative the present sample was of nursing students across the United States, the age, gender, and ethnicity of the present sample was compared with that of national reports from the NLN (2009) conducted during the 2006-2007 academic year. The NLN data were based on a convenience sample but were assumed to represent the national statistics on nursing students for the purposes of the present study. The degree of comparability of the present participants to the national sample was moderate. One third (39%) of the participants were in an associates degree program compared with one half (54%) nationally, one seventh (15%) were racial or ethnic minorities compared with one fourth (24%) nationally, one half (58%) were older than 29 years of age compared with more than one third (34%) nationally, and one quarter (26%) were male compared with one eighth (12%) nationally. Based on the above comparison, the sample obtained for the current study is neither distinctly representative nor distinctly unrepresentative of the national demographics, but lies somewhere in between. Note that the announcements were designed to appeal to males, and this likely explains the higher proportion of males in the present sample. Therefore, the findings of this study cannot be assumed to apply to students who did not participate in the study, but should be considered to be limited to the present sample, unless future studies prove otherwise. The only exception is that the findings may apply to populations that have similar demographics to the present one.
Gender differences
When analyzing the participants’ responses based on gender, the mean masculinity scores for all male participants (on a scale of 1 to 7 with 7 being the highest degree of masculinity possible) was 5.3 ± 0.75 (Figure 1). The mean femininity score for all male participants (with 7 being the highest degree of femininity possible) was 5.50 ± 0.87. This can be contrasted with the scores for the female participants. The mean masculinity scores for the female participants was 5.18 ± 0.79. The mean femininity score for all female participants was 5.86 ± 0.72. Table 2 compares the mean values for the current study with values of previous studies. The males and females in the current study had higher mean scores on both the masculinity and femininity scales when compared with previous studies.
Comparison of the masculinity and femininity scores for male and female nursing majors in the present sample with those of a standard reference group of students (Bem, 1978), most of which were not nursing majors
Comparison of the Masculinity and Femininity Scores Across Four Studies
Female nursing students scored significantly higher than males on the femininity scale with an effect size (100 times r) of 16% (p = .043). However, male nursing students did not score significantly higher than female nursing students on the masculinity scale (effect size <1%, p = .51). The key question is whether the group is more feminine or more masculine on balance. This is addressed by the difference between the femininity score and the masculinity score (F − M difference score). A significant difference between the male and females was found (effect size of 16%, p = .046), with males showing a lower F − M difference score (Figure 1; Table 2). Since there was a significant difference between male and female nursing students on the F − M difference scale, Hypothesis 1, that male nursing students are as feminine on balance as female nursing students, is rejected.
Figure 1 also shows that male nursing students from the current study scored significantly higher on the masculinity scale than males in the reference population (effect size of 21%, p = .012). On this basis, Hypothesis 2, that male nursing students are significantly more feminine than males of other professions, is also rejected.
Female nursing students in the present study had higher femininity scores than those in the reference population (Bem, 1974, 1978). In fact, the female nursing students scored significantly higher on both the feminine (effect size of 26%, p = .003) and masculinity scales than females in the reference population (effect size of 34%, p = < .001). The strongest effect size found in this study was the greater masculinity of female nursing students over that of the general students in the reference population.
These findings are consistent with findings in the original, and most often used, standardized reference group for the BSRI findings (Bem, 1974, 1978), which consisted primarily of students in majors other than nursing. That is, Bem (1978) found no significant difference on the masculinity scores but a significant difference on both the femininity and the F − M difference score for the standardized reference group of college students in all majors. This supports the idea that there are no substantive differences between male nursing majors and males in other majors with regard to relative masculinity and feminity between genders.
Nursing males were, however, significantly different from males of other majors in regard to distribution across sex-role categories (χ2 = 15.318, effect size = 16%, p = .0016), as shown in Table 3. The same was true for the females (χ2 = 15.244, effect size = 18%, p = .0017). The essential difference between this study and previous studies was that nursing students scored higher on both the masculinity and femininity scales, which indicates that nursing students of both genders are more androgynous than their standard reference counterparts. The greatest percentage of participants was classified as androgynous, with half of the males and nearly half of the females falling into this category (Table 3). This contrasts with that of the general reference group, where the predominant category was masculine for males and feminine for women. The percentage of males and females in the androgynous category was about twice as great for nursing as for general students. The percentage of both genders that were classified as undifferentiated was also markedly lower for nursing students. The greatest difference between nursing students and general students, however, was there were more males in the androgynous category for nursing and more males in the masculine category for general. The main findings can be summed up as follows: Nursing students of both genders are characterized by the flexibility of expressing characteristics of both stereotypical males and stereotypical females (androgenous) but with both genders of nursing students showing more masculinity than their general counterparts.
Number and Percentage of Students Classified Into Four Groups According to Masculine and Feminine Characteristics a
The nursing sample consists of the participants in the present study; the general sample is the reference group of Bem (1978). Males: χ2 = 15.318, effect size = 16%, p = .0016; females: χ2 = 15.244, effect size = 18%, p = .0017.
Other Findings
Age, region of school attended, type of degree pursued, marital status, ethnicity, or presence of children had no detectable influence on masculinity, femininity, or F − M difference scores (Table 4). None was statistically significant at the p < .05 level.
Effect of Demographic Characteristics on Masculinity and Femininity Scores (n = 109) a
Effect size is the absolute value of r, calculated from F, expressed as a percentage.
Discussion
The findings in the present study suggest that both male and female students with a nursing major have slightly higher masculinity and femininity scores than male students with a general major. The masculinity–femininity difference scores showed that male nursing students were significantly more masculine on balance than female nursing students and showed a nonsignificant trend toward more masculinity when compared with male students who were not nursing majors. The same was true of female nursing students when compared with females of other majors. The findings boil down to one thing: Nursing students in the present study are more androgynous than general students studied previously. The implications and possible explanation for this key finding is explained below.
Relation to Previous Findings
Five studies were previously conducted using nursing students or practitioners using the same BSRI instrument used in the present study. The results of this study converge with those of Culkin et al. (1987), Pontin (1988), and McCutcheon (1996), who found that male nurses are not effeminate, and diverge with the findings of Fisher (1999) and Loughrey (2008), who found that male nurses are effeminate. To resolve the disagreement, a comparison of the results of the present study and that of Fisher and Loughrey are shown in Tables 2 and 5. First, note that several measurements in the present study agree with that of Loughrey and Fisher. The feminine scores for males match that of Loughrey and Fisher. The main area where the studies differ pertains to other scores and the interpretation of measurements. The findings of the present study contradict that of Fisher (1999) in relation to male–female differences. Fisher found no significant difference between his Australian males and females on any of the three scales (Table 5). In the present study, females had higher femininity scores than males, and males were more masculine on balance (F − M difference scores) than females. Table 5 shows the effect sizes of the present study and that of Fisher’s. The present study had a slightly greater effect size and slightly greater overall sample size, which caused the p value to cross the line from .09 in Fisher’s study to .043 in the present study, and so the present studies finding are statistically significant and Fisher’s are not, even though they show similar effect sizes. There is a clear trend in Fisher’s data for males to have lower femininity and consequently a more masculine F − M difference score. Based on a lack of statistical significance between males and females, Fisher drew the conclusion that “a significant proportion of male nurses see themselves having the personal attributes synonymous with the feminine sex role.” The effect sizes and p values in Table 5 show this conclusion is faulty because of a Type II error. Fisher’s findings are based on the lack of statistical significance when in fact there was a substantial difference between genders that bordered on statistical significance (e.g., p = .09 in Table D). To sum up, the present measurements are consistent with those of Fisher’s; however, our conclusions are different because of Type II error in Fisher’s conclusion.
Statistical Significance of Differences in Masculinity and Femininity Scores Between Males and Females in the Present Study and the Study of Fisher (1999)
Note. Effect size is the absolute value of r calculated from t, expressed as a percentage.
The conclusion of Loughrey (2008) is also based on incorrect logic. Loughrey correctly points out that male’s feminine scores are higher than their masculine scores in her sample. On this basis, she incorrectly concludes, “Overall, the sample can therefore be regarded as more feminine than masculine,” and “Men in nursing occupy the female gender role.” This conclusion is incorrect because of a nuance in the BSRI instrument. Males of all professions have a higher feminine score than masculine score, including the original, standard reference group of general students (Table 5; Bem, 1978). If this is an argument for male nurses being feminine, then by the same logic, men in general are more feminine than women. Given that this statement would be illogical, the conclusion of Loughrey (2008) is rejected.
On the basis of the data from the current study (Table 2), and the faulty arguments of Fisher and Loughrey, the conclusion that men who choose nursing as a profession are more feminine than men who chose other professions, regardless of whether they are in Ireland, Australia, or the United States, should be rejected.
Androgynous Nurses
The similarity and high proportion of both males and females that are classified as androgynous in all studies on nursing students or practitioners is noteworthy. In fact, using an independent method from that used in the present study, Okrainec (1994) made a similar finding: Male nursing students considered male and female nurses to have similar personality characteristics. Evidence that psychological androgyny is beneficial comes from observations that it is associated with lower levels of eating disorders (Hepp, Spindler, & Milos, 2005), use of less invasive and expensive treatments on patients by practitioners (Yarnold, Nightingale, Curry, & Martin, 1990), higher levels of marital adjustment in newlyweds (Isaac & Shah, 2004), and higher ratings of overall mental health (Lefkowitz & Zeldow, 2006). Researchers have previously reported that androgyny is the desirable sex-role identity for the work of nursing rather than having the work sex-typed as feminine; they hypothesized that androgynous participants are better equipped to do nursing work based on the theory that androgynous participants can adapt in their sex-role depending on the situation (Pontin 1988; Sprouse, 1987). According to Bem (1981),
The concept of psychological androgyny implies . . . that an individual may even blend these complementary modalities in a single act, such as the ability to fire an employee, if the circumstances warrant it, but with sensitivity for the human emotion that such an act inevitably produces. (p. 2)
The idea is that stereotypical feminine attributes used in the BSRI such as being sympathetic and sensitive to the needs of others can be attributes of a man without necessarily indicating a deficiency of masculinity. Androgyny is a different kind of strength with the characteristics of flexibility and maturity.
Limitations
All studies have strengths and weaknesses; this study has a weak external validity and strong internal validity. With regard to external validity, it is unknown whether the present findings can be assumed to apply to all male and female nursing students in the United States. First, like most studies, a convenience sample was used, and a convenience sample can contain selection bias. Selection bias occurs when the participants themselves determine whether to participate in a study or not. For example, participants who felt strongly about their sex-role orientation might be more compelled to complete the survey. Second, the match of the demographics of the participants in the present study was close but not exact to that of a national convenience sample by the NLN. Caution must be exercised in extrapolating the findings to nursing students in the United States as a whole.
With regard to internal validity, there are several elements to consider. First, the measurement validity is threatened by the Hawthorne effect, which occurs when participants act differently while being studied. The participants’ answers could have been influenced by what they deemed to be sociably acceptable, and they may not have answered the questions truthfully. Furthermore, in the long version of the BSRI, Bem (1974) built a check into the BSRI that determined whether participants respond in ways that they think is socially desirable. The initial studies by Bem and a recent study by Sugihara and Katsurada (2006) did not find a strong social desirability aspect; however, other studies (Liberman & Gaa, 1980) have found such an effect for members of the androgynous class. Although the Hawthorne effect is a potential threat to internal validity, the previous studies on measurement validity cited in the Methods section support the idea that the scores still have substantial validity.
Second, this is nonexperimental, correlational study. Internal validity can be threatened if the direction of causation cannot be determined between the key variables. This was not a factor in the present study since the key independent variable in this study is gender. That is, it is possible that gender can cause differences in masculinity and femininity scores, but it is not possible that masculinity and femininity scores can cause changes in gender. In addition, by studying students rather than experienced nurses, the present study eliminates any confounding effects of prolonged work experience as a nurse on sex-role identity in this study. Therefore, the direction of causation is not an issue, which is why this study has a high internal validity.
Conclusion
The present sample of male and female nursing students differs markedly in their sex-role orientation, with males showing slightly higher levels of masculinity than students in general. Previous studies that indicated a high degree of femininity in male nurses and nursing students are shown to be in error. The nursing profession is attracting males who hold a high degree of masculinity. Efforts should be made to counteract the prevailing belief that male nurses are effeminate, especially when it comes to recruiting high school and college students into such an important profession.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Joy Wachs, Debi T. Pfortmiller, Foster Levy, and Carol Fetters Andersen for their help.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This study was supported by a grant from East Tennessee State University (Grant No. c08-201d).