Quality & Quantity

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 2553–2568 | Cite as

Gender fluidity across the world: a Multilevel Item Response Theory approach



The concept of gender identity refers to the intrinsic self-identification of personal femaleness and maleness. Starting from 1970s, in the framework of gender studies, a theoretical and conceptual demarcation between sex and gender has been proposed. The term “gender” starts being referred to social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities, not to the state of being male or female. Recent studies on gender identity suggest that the binary notion of gender identity is changing, recognizing that there are different views on how gender may be performed or experienced. The purpose of our research is to provide accounts of gender code transformation around the world and identify differences in feelings, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors associated with gender across different identity profiles. Using a web-based survey, 1,600 respondents were recruited by a snowball sampling procedure. Based on the intersections of the responses given by participants on three basic dimensions (biological sex, gender self-identification and sexual orientation) the individuals have been categorized into nine groups. To comply with the aims of this study, a two-parameter Multilevel Item Response Theory model has been employed as an appropriate statistical tool for considering both person and item effects on the response data and assessing the effect of group membership on the overall variability.


Gender identities Gender stereotyping Intimate relations MLIRT models 


  1. Adams, R.J., Wilson, M., Wu, M.: Multilevel item response models: an approach to errors in variables regression. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 22(1), 47–76 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, J.M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., Gladue, B.A.: Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66(6), 1081–1093 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z.: Liquid Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z.: Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Polity Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  5. Beretvas, S.N., Kamata, A.: The multilevel measurement model: introduction to the special issue. J. Appl. Meas. 6(3), 247–254 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, A.S., Demian, : Relationship characteristics of american gay and lesbian couples: findings from a national survey. J. Gay Lesbian Soc. Serv. 1(2), 101–117 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullough, V.L., Bullough, B.: Cross Dressing, Sex and Gender. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia (1993)Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J.: Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, London (1990)Google Scholar
  9. Chen, M.H., Shao, G.M.: Monte Carlo estimation of Bayesian credible and HPD intervals. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 8(1), 69–92 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. Cole, S.T.: Comparing mail and web-based survey distribution methods: results of surveys to leisure travel retailers. J. Travel Res. 43(4), 422–430 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connell, R.W.: Gender. Polity Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  12. de Ayala, R.J.: The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. Guilford Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  13. Davis, N.Z.: “Women’s History” in transition: the European case. Fem. Stud. 3(3/4), 83–103 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deutsch, F.M.: Undoing gender. Gender Soc. 21(1), 106–127 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekins, R., King, D.: The Transgender Phenomenon. SAGE Publications, London (2006)Google Scholar
  16. Fox, J.P.: Multilevel IRT modeling in practice with the package MLIRT. J. Stat. Softw. 20(5), 1–16 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Fox, J.P.: Bayesian Item Response Modeling: Theory and Applications. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, J.P., Glas, C.A.W.: Bayesian estimation of a multilevel IRT model using Gibbs sampling. Psychometrika 66(2), 271–288 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garfinkel, H.: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1967)Google Scholar
  20. Giddens, A.: Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  21. Giddens, A.: The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Polity Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  22. Hickson, F.C.I., Davies, P.M., Hunt, A.J., Weatherburn, P., McManus, T.J., Coxon, A.P.M.: Maintenance of open gay relationships: some strategies for protection against HIV. AIDS Care 4(4), 409–419 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jagose, A.: Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York University Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  24. Kamata, A.: Item analysis by the hierarchical generalized linear model. J. Educ. Meas. 38(1), 79–93 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kessler, S.J., McKenna, W.: Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Population and Development Series. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1978)Google Scholar
  26. Kurdek, L.A.: Correlates of relationship satisfaction in cohabiting Gay and Lesbian couples: integration of contextual, investment, and problem-solving models. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61(6), 910–922 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Henry, N.W.: Latent Structure Analysis. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1968)Google Scholar
  28. Maier, K.S.: A Rasch hierarchical measurement model. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 26(3), 307–330 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McKenna, W., Kessler, S.: Transgendering: blurring the boundaries of gender. In: Davis, K., Evans, M., Lorber, J. (eds.) Handbook of Gender and Women’s Studies, pp. 342–356. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McWhirter, D.P., Mattison, A.M.: The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  31. Nestle, J., Howell, C., Wilchins, R.A.: GenderQueer: Voices from Beyond the Sexual Binary. Alyson Books, Los Angeles (2002)Google Scholar
  32. Nicholson, J.L.: Feminism/Postmodernism. Routledge, London (1990)Google Scholar
  33. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H.: The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1957)Google Scholar
  34. Peplau, L.A., Fingerhut, A.W.: The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58(1), 405–424 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peplau, L.A., Cochran, S.D., Mays, V.M.: A national survey of the intimate relationships of African American lesbians and gay men: a look at commitment, satisfaction, sexual behavior, and HIV disease. Psychol. Perspect. Lesbian Gay Issues 3, 11–38 (1997)Google Scholar
  36. Reise, S.P.: Using multilevel logistic regression to evaluate person-fit in IRT models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 35(4), 543–568 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rubin, G., Reiter, R.R.: The traffic in women: notes on the “political economy” of sex. In: Reiter, R.R. (ed.) Toward an Anthropology of Women, pp. 157–210. Monthly Review Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  38. Samejima, F.: Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom. Monogr. Suppl. 34(17), 100–114 (1969)Google Scholar
  39. Samejima, F.: The graded response model. In: Van der Linden, W.J., Hambleton, R.K. (eds.) Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. Springer-Verlag, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  40. Schleyer, T.K., Forrest, J.L.: Methods for the design and administration of web-based surveys. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 7(4), 416–425 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scott, J.W.: Gender and the Politics of History. Columbia University Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  42. van Selm, M., Jankowski, N.W.: Conducting online surveys. Qual. Quant. 40(3), 435–456 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shively, M.G., De Cecco, J.P.: Components of sexual identity. J. Homosex. 2(1), 41–48 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shively, M.G., Jones, C., De Cecco, J.P.: Research on sexual orientation: definitions and methods. J. Homosex. 9(2–3), 127–136 (1983–1984)Google Scholar
  45. Stryker, S., Whittle, S.: The Transgender Studies Reader. Routledge, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  46. West, C., Zimmerman, D.H.: Doing gender. Gender Soc. 1(2), 125–151 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams, J.E., Best, D.L.: Measuring Sex Stereotypes: a Thirty-Nation Study. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills (1982)Google Scholar
  48. Williams, J.E., Best, D.L.: Measuring Sex Stereotypes: a Multination Study. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills (1990)Google Scholar
  49. Williams, J.E., Satterwhite, R.C., Best, D.L.: Pancultural gender stereotypes revisited: the five factor model. Sex Roles 40(7–8), 513–525 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity D’AnnunzioPescaraItaly
  2. 2.Department of Legal and Social SciencesUniversity D’AnnunzioChietiItaly

Personalised recommendations