Gender is one of the most powerful predictors of criminal behavior in criminological research — men commit crime at substantially higher rates than women across virtually every crime type, every culture, and every historical period for which data exist — and yet the sociology of gender and crime remains one of the most contested and most rapidly developing areas of the discipline. The gender gap in offending — with men accounting for approximately 75–80% of all arrests and substantially higher proportions of serious violent crime — requires explanation rather than assumption: the consistent cross-cultural and historical character of the gap establishes that it is not merely an artifact of differential enforcement, but its magnitude varies substantially across cultural contexts and historical periods in ways that rule out simple biological determinism and demand sociological analysis of how the social construction of gender shapes criminal behavior.
Sociology and Criminology treats gender and crime through the frameworks that feminist criminology, gender studies, and mainstream quantitative criminology have developed — frameworks that disagree about how to explain the gender gap while converging on the sociological rather than biological character of its primary determinants. Understanding both the gender gap in offending (why men commit more crime than women) and the specific pathways into crime for women (which differ substantially from the pathways that male-dominated mainstream criminology has documented) requires engaging with feminist criminology’s critique of mainstream approaches alongside the quantitative sociology that has established the gap’s empirical dimensions.
Introduction
The gender gap in crime operates at multiple levels simultaneously that require distinct analytical approaches. At the individual level, it reflects the differential socialization of boys and girls into the attitudes, behavioral dispositions, and social relationships that predict criminal involvement or its absence. At the institutional level, it reflects the differential treatment of boys and girls in the family, school, and peer group contexts that shape behavioral development. At the structural level, it reflects the differential distribution of legitimate and illegitimate opportunity across gendered social positions. And at the cultural level, it reflects the specific content of masculinity and femininity norms that prescribe very different behavioral repertoires for men and women in ways that have direct consequences for criminal involvement.
The feminist criminology tradition — beginning with Heidensohn’s critique in 1968 and developing through the work of Chesney-Lind, Miller, Daly, and Steffensmeier — has made three primary contributions to understanding gender and crime. First, it documented the gender gap empirically with the rigor that criminological measurement requires. Second, it criticized mainstream criminological theories for ignoring gender or treating the male pattern as universal, producing accounts of criminal motivation that are inadequate for understanding women’s pathways into crime. Third, it developed alternative theoretical accounts — feminist pathways theory, power-control theory, the gendered life course — that specifically address the gendered dimensions of criminal behavior that gender-blind mainstream accounts cannot capture.
Theoretical Frameworks
Masculinity and Crime
James Messerschmidt’s structured action theory — the most influential theoretical account of the masculinity-crime relationship — proposes that crime functions as a resource for “doing masculinity”: for demonstrating the toughness, dominance, risk tolerance, and willingness to use violence that hegemonic masculinity prescribes in contexts where legitimate masculinity performance through economic success, educational achievement, and institutional recognition is unavailable or insufficient. The theory explains the gender gap in crime not through fixed biological sex differences but through the social construction of masculinity in ways that prescribe risk-taking, aggression, and dominance-seeking as demonstrations of masculine identity.
Research testing structured action theory has found consistent evidence that masculine identity concerns — the need to demonstrate masculinity through risk and aggression — predict criminal behavior among men above and beyond other individual-level risk factors. Research on gang masculinity has documented how the street code’s prescriptions about toughness, reputation, and violent response to disrespect are specifically masculine prescriptions that operate differently for male and female gang members — with men under substantially stronger obligations to perform toughness through violence and women finding alternative normative frameworks for navigating the same structural conditions. Research on violence in masculinity contexts — bars, sports events, street disputes — has documented how the specific interactional scripts of masculine honor produce violence through escalation dynamics that are distinctively gendered.
Power-Control Theory
John Hagan, John Simpson, and A. R. Gillis’s power-control theory — developed in the 1980s as a structural theory of gender and delinquency — proposes that the gender gap in delinquency varies across family types as a function of the patriarchal arrangements that reproduce gendered social control. In patriarchal families (where the father is employed in authority positions and the mother is not, or not employed), daughters face substantially more supervision and control than sons — who are socialized into risk-taking and independence that delinquency requires. In more egalitarian families (where both parents occupy similar positions in the occupational structure), gender differences in supervision and risk socialization are smaller, and the gender gap in delinquency is correspondingly smaller.
Research testing power-control theory has found partial support: the theory’s prediction that the gender gap in delinquency is smaller in egalitarian families has been confirmed across multiple studies and countries. But the theory has been criticized for its focus on family structure to the exclusion of other sources of gender socialization, its empirical predictions about working mothers and daughter delinquency (which have not been consistently confirmed), and its failure to account for the pathway differences in female delinquency that feminist pathways research has documented as essential for understanding women’s criminal involvement.
Table 1. Theoretical Frameworks for Gender and Crime
| Theory | Primary Mechanism | Gender Gap Explanation | Feminist Critique | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structured action (Messerschmidt) | Crime as masculine performance | Men do masculinity through crime when legitimate means unavailable | Useful for understanding men; less developed for women | Supported by masculinity and crime research |
| Power-control (Hagan et al.) | Patriarchal family structures differentially socialize girls and boys | More patriarchal families show larger gender gaps in delinquency | Ignores pathways; reduces gender to family structure | Partially supported |
| Feminist pathways (Chesney-Lind) | Women’s pathways into crime run through victimization, survival | Women’s crime reflects survival of abuse and victimization | Central framework for women’s criminology | Strong qualitative and longitudinal support |
| Social learning (Akers) | Gender differences in exposure to criminal definitions and associations | Men more exposed to pro-criminal definitions and associations through peer groups | Gender treated as variable, not as constitutive | Moderate empirical support |
| Social bond (Hirschi) | Women have stronger social bonds to conventional society | Stronger female bonds produce lower delinquency | Ignores how bonds are gendered; doesn’t explain pathways | Moderate empirical support |
The Age-Crime Curve and Gender
The age-crime curve — the near-universal finding that criminal behavior peaks in late adolescence and early adulthood and declines through the life course — shows important gender differences in both its shape and its theoretical explanation. Research by Sweeten, Piquero, and Steinberg has documented that the age-crime curve’s peak is earlier and more pronounced for males than for females, and that the factors predicting the curve’s shape differ across genders: the peer delinquency effects that produce the peak for males are less powerful for females, whose criminal career trajectories track more closely with family and intimate relationship factors. This gender difference in the age-crime curve’s determinants provides empirical support for feminist criminology’s insistence that women’s criminal careers require distinct theoretical accounts rather than the application of male-pattern theories.
Research on desistance from crime has found important gender differences in the turning points and mechanisms through which individuals reduce and terminate criminal behavior. While the social bond turning points of employment and marriage that Sampson and Laub identified predict desistance for men, women’s desistance more commonly involves the turning point of motherhood — the development of the maternal identity and parenting responsibilities that reorganize daily life and social relationships in ways that make criminal involvement incompatible with the role identity women are constructing. Research by Giordano and colleagues’ cognitive transformation model has been particularly important for documenting how women’s desistance involves the development of prosocial identities that make continued criminal involvement inconsistent with self-conception — a mechanism that operates through the relational and identity dimensions that feminist pathways theory emphasizes.
Feminist Pathways Theory
Women’s Pathways into Crime
Meda Chesney-Lind’s feminist pathways theory — developed through research on girls in the juvenile justice system and extended through subsequent longitudinal research — proposed that women’s pathways into crime are fundamentally different from men’s, and that criminological theories developed primarily around male criminal careers cannot adequately account for women’s criminal involvement. The primary pathway that feminist research documented is one that runs through victimization: physical and sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence — which occurs at substantially higher rates for girls who subsequently enter the criminal justice system than for comparable boys — produces the runaways, the survival strategies (theft, prostitution, drug use), and the criminal network connections that initiate and sustain women’s criminal careers.
Research by Chesney-Lind and Shelden on girls in the juvenile justice system, by Daly on women in the criminal justice system, and by Simpson and Elis on gender and crime has consistently documented this victimization-pathway: women in the criminal justice system show substantially higher rates of childhood abuse, intimate partner violence victimization, and trauma than comparable non-justice-involved women, and substantially higher rates than male offenders with comparable criminal histories. This documentation established that understanding women’s crime requires understanding women’s victimization — that the sociology of gender and crime must engage with the sociology of gender and victimization simultaneously rather than treating crime and victimization as separate phenomena studied by separate literatures.
Gender-Responsive Programming
The feminist pathways research has had important applied consequences through the development of gender-responsive programming — correctional and prevention programs specifically designed for women that address the specific pathways into crime that feminist research has documented. Research on gender-responsive programming has found that programs that specifically address trauma, domestic violence, substance use, and the specific economic marginalization of women in poverty — rather than applying male-oriented programs to female populations — produce better recidivism outcomes than gender-neutral programming.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s gender-responsive strategy and the federal Bureau of Prison’s gender-responsive programs represent the institutional translation of feminist pathways research into correctional practice, with outcomes research finding modest but consistent improvements in recidivism and well-being outcomes compared to standard programming. The theoretical coherence between feminist pathways theory and the specific program components that gender-responsive programming provides — trauma-informed care, relationships and parenting, economic empowerment alongside substance use treatment — is among the clearest examples available in criminology of theory-driven program development whose outcomes research validates both the program and the theoretical account it implements.
Gender, Race, and Intersectional Processing
Research on the intersection of gender and race in criminal justice processing has found that the processing advantages associated with female gender are substantially moderated by race — that Black and Latina women receive substantially less favorable treatment than white women at comparable stages of criminal justice processing. Research by Spohn and Holleran on sentencing found that white women receive the greatest sentencing leniency, that Black women receive substantially less, and that Black men receive the harshest sentences — establishing a gendered-racial hierarchy of criminal justice treatment that neither single-axis gender nor race analysis can fully capture.
Research on the “evil woman” hypothesis — the proposition that women who violate not only criminal law but conventional gender norms (by committing violent crimes, by acting without feminine passivity or deference) receive harsher treatment than women whose criminal behavior is more consistent with gendered expectations — has found partial support: research consistently finds that women charged with violent offenses receive less favorable departures from gender-typical leniency than those charged with property or drug offenses. This hypothesis connects criminal justice processing to the broader sociology of gender expectations, establishing that the criminal justice system’s treatment of women reflects not only formal legal factors but the gendered normative expectations that shape how legal actors perceive and respond to women’s conduct.
Gender and Criminal Justice Processing
The Chivalry Hypothesis and Its Evidence
Research on gender differences in criminal justice processing has engaged the “chivalry hypothesis” — the proposition that women receive more lenient treatment than comparably situated men at arrest, prosecution, and sentencing stages — with findings that consistently support the existence of gender gaps in sentencing while disputing their characterization as pure chivalry. Research on federal sentencing using the same regression approach that has documented racial disparities has found that women receive sentences approximately 50–60% shorter than men for comparable offenses — a gap substantially larger than racial sentencing disparities and less adequately explained by legally relevant factors.
Research on the mechanisms producing the gender sentencing gap has found that prosecutors are less likely to charge women with the most serious available charges, judges are more likely to impose non-incarcerative sentences, and both prosecutors and judges apply different assessments of culpability and dangerousness to women than to comparably situated men. The “substantial assistance” provision — which reduces sentences in exchange for cooperation with prosecution — is disproportionately used by women and may explain a portion of the gender sentencing gap through differential cooperation rates rather than differential judicial discretion.
The Double Standard: Women’s Criminalization
Girls in the Juvenile Justice System
Research on girls in the juvenile justice system has documented a distinctive pattern of status offense processing that reflects the gendered character of juvenile justice as well as the specifically gendered pathways that bring girls into justice contact. Status offenses — truancy, curfew violation, running away, ungovernability — are behaviors that would not be criminal if committed by adults, and their criminalization in the juvenile justice context disproportionately affects girls whose running away is typically a response to abuse at home. Research by Chesney-Lind and others documented the “bootstrapping” phenomenon: girls who run away from abusive homes are charged with status offenses, violate the resulting court orders when they run again to escape abuse, and are then detained for the violation — entering the juvenile justice system through the specific gendered pathway of abusive home situations that official records document as status offenses rather than as abuse responses.
The specific architecture of juvenile justice that criminalizes survival responses to abuse — rather than addressing the abuse itself — represents one of the clearest examples of how the criminal justice system’s formal gender neutrality produces substantively gendered outcomes. The girls most at risk of juvenile justice involvement are those facing the most severe abuse, least adequate family support, and most limited legitimate alternatives — a compound vulnerability that gender-neutral juvenile justice processing addresses through detention rather than through the trauma-informed, family-intervention, and community-support responses that feminist pathways research establishes as appropriate.
Research on how women are specifically criminalized — the specific behaviors for which women are disproportionately targeted by criminal justice enforcement — reveals a pattern of selective criminalization that reproduces gender inequality through the criminal law. Drug offenses, prostitution, and status offenses (for juveniles) account for a substantially larger proportion of women’s criminal justice involvement than men’s, and these offense categories reflect specifically gendered survival strategies (drug use as coping for trauma; sex work as economic survival) rather than the predatory criminal behavior that criminal law most vigorously targets.
Research on the criminalization of pregnancy — including prosecutions of women for drug use during pregnancy, for miscarriage and stillbirth following drug use, and for failure to protect fetuses from domestic violence — documents a specific form of gendered criminalization that punishes women for behaviors related to reproduction and that disproportionately affects poor women and women of color whose pregnancies occur in contexts of the greatest social disadvantage. Research documenting the racial concentration of pregnancy criminalization — with Black and Native American women prosecuted at substantially higher rates than comparable white women — establishes the intersection of gender, race, and class in this specific criminalization pattern.
LGBTQ+ Individuals and Crime
Research on LGBTQ+ individuals’ experiences with crime — both as perpetrators and as victims — has documented distinctive patterns that neither the gender-gap literature (which focuses on the male-female binary) nor the victimization literature (which often excludes or inadequately represents non-heterosexual and non-cisgender populations) fully addresses. Research on lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals’ experiences with intimate partner violence has found prevalence rates comparable to or higher than those for heterosexual individuals, challenging the heteronormative framework that characterizes most intimate partner violence research and requiring the extension of feminist power analysis beyond the male perpetrator-female victim paradigm that Stark’s coercive control theory addresses.
Research on transgender individuals’ experiences with criminal justice contact has documented extraordinarily high rates of police harassment, violence, and incarceration among transgender women of color — produced by the intersection of gender identity stigma, racial stigma, and the economic marginalization that discrimination produces. Research by the National Center for Transgender Equality’s surveys has found that transgender individuals report extremely high rates of police harassment and misconduct, and that avoidance of police contact to prevent harassment substantially reduces their ability to access protection from violence victimization. This research establishes the gendered and intersectional dimensions of criminal justice contact that binary gender analysis cannot capture and that the discipline must engage to produce adequately inclusive accounts of gender and crime.
Intimate Partner Violence and Gender
The Symmetry Debate
Research on the prevalence of intimate partner violence using the Conflict Tactics Scale — which asks both men and women about their use of specific aggressive behaviors against intimate partners — has produced the controversial finding that women perpetrate as much partner violence as men, generating the “symmetry debate” between researchers who argue that intimate partner violence is gender-symmetric in perpetration and feminist researchers who argue that the CTS measure misrepresents the gendered character of intimate partner violence by equating slapping in self-defense with sustained coercive violence.
Research by feminist scholars including Johnson, Stark, and Dobash has documented that the aggregate gender symmetry in CTS-measured violence conceals fundamental asymmetries in the nature, consequences, and contexts of men’s and women’s partner violence: men’s partner violence is more likely to involve sustained patterns of coercive control, to produce serious injury, to be motivated by the desire for dominance rather than self-defense, and to be accompanied by the other controlling behaviors that coercive control theory identifies. Women’s partner violence is more likely to be responsive to men’s violence, less likely to produce serious injury, and less likely to occur in the context of sustained domination. The aggregate symmetry of individual violent acts conceals these fundamental asymmetries in the meaning and consequence of men’s and women’s partner violence.
Gender and Cybercrime
Research on gender and cybercrime has documented distinctive gender patterns in both victimization and perpetration that partially replicate and partially depart from offline gender crime patterns. Online harassment, cyberstalking, and intimate image abuse (“revenge porn”) are experienced at substantially higher rates by women than men, consistent with the extension of gendered power relations into digital environments. Cybercrime perpetration shows a more complex gender pattern: while men substantially predominate in most cybercrime categories, women show higher rates of some financially motivated cybercrimes (credit card fraud, identity theft) than of comparable offline crimes, suggesting that the online environment’s removal of physical threat may equalize some crime types across gender while preserving or amplifying gender differences in others.
Research on gender and the dark web — documenting that women participate in dark web drug markets primarily as consumers and support providers rather than as primary distribution actors, in a gendered division of criminal labor that replicates the gendered division of labor in offline drug markets — establishes that the gender dynamics of organized crime and criminal markets are reproduced in digital environments rather than transformed by their gender-equalizing potential. This finding suggests that addressing the gendered dimensions of crime requires addressing the gendered social structures that organize criminal opportunities as much as the specifically criminal contexts in which gender inequality expresses itself.
Gender and Desistance: Comparative Pathways
Research comparing men’s and women’s desistance processes has found that while both involve the social bond turning points and identity transformation mechanisms that Sampson and Laub and Giordano and colleagues identified, the specific content of turning points and identity transformations differs across gender lines in ways that require gender-specific intervention design. Research by Giordano and colleagues found that motherhood functions as a turning point for women’s desistance in ways that fatherhood rarely does for men — reflecting the different social expectations placed on mothers and fathers — and that women’s desistance involves the construction of a prosocial maternal identity that makes criminal involvement incompatible with who the woman is becoming.
Research on the barriers to women’s desistance has documented specific gendered obstacles: the domestic violence relationships that continue to provide both economic support and criminal involvement opportunities; the child custody concerns that make conventional employment and social service engagement risky for women whose criminal histories trigger mandatory reporting; and the gender-specific stigma of criminal conviction for women, who face not only the generic stigma of criminal records but the specific judgment that criminal involvement represents a violation of femininity that makes women more severely stigmatized than comparable male offenders. Programs that specifically address these gendered desistance barriers — through domestic violence advocacy, custody support, and the gender-responsive programming that the correctional evidence supports — produce better outcomes than gender-neutral alternatives.
Conclusion
Feminist criminology has transformed the sociology of crime over the past five decades — not by adding women to an existing framework but by revealing that the framework itself was gendered in ways that its male architects did not recognize. The questions that feminist criminology generated — why do women commit crime at lower rates than men? through what specific pathways do women enter crime? how does the criminal justice system treat women? what specific criminalizations affect women disproportionately? — have produced a research literature that is simultaneously more adequate to women’s experiences and more illuminating of the gendered social structures that produce crime for everyone. The foundational questions of criminological theory — why do people commit crime? what prevents crime? how do criminal careers develop? — have different answers for women than for men, and those answers reveal dimensions of the social construction of gender, the gendered allocation of legitimate and illegitimate opportunity, and the specific gendered forms of victimization, survival, and social control that gender-neutral analysis systematically misses.
Gender and crime are connected through sociological mechanisms whose analysis requires both the quantitative sociology that has established the gender gap’s empirical dimensions and the feminist criminology that has revealed the gendered pathways, the gendered processing, and the gendered criminalization that mainstream quantitative approaches alone cannot capture. The gender gap in offending reflects the social construction of masculinity in ways that prescribe risk, dominance, and aggression as demonstrations of gender identity; the gender differences in criminal pathways reflect the specific gendered forms of victimization, survival, and economic marginalization that women’s criminal careers reflect; and the gender differences in criminal justice processing reflect both the selective leniency and the selective harshness that a gendered criminal justice system applies to different categories of gendered behavior.
The policy implications of gender sociology for criminal justice are extensive: gender-responsive programming that specifically addresses women’s pathways through victimization-trauma-survival strategies; intimate partner violence intervention that addresses the coercive control dynamics that feminist research has established as the central feature of the most dangerous relationships; and the reform of the specific criminalizations — drug offenses, sex work, pregnancy — through which the criminal law enforces gender inequality rather than addressing genuine harm. A criminology that takes gender seriously as a constitutive dimension of social life rather than a control variable in equations designed for male subjects is more adequate to the full complexity of crime and criminal justice than the gender-blind mainstream tradition has produced. The integration of feminist criminology’s qualitative pathways research with mainstream criminology’s quantitative methods — which has characterized the most productive recent developments in gender and crime research — represents the methodological future of a field that requires both the depth of insight that qualitative engagement with gendered experience produces and the breadth and rigor of quantitative evidence that policy-relevant criminology demands. The criminological synthesis that the field now requires — integrating feminist pathways research, masculinity theory, quantitative analysis of gender gaps, and intersectional analysis of how gender interacts with race and class — is more complete than either feminist or mainstream criminology has achieved alone, and its continued development will produce the comprehensive gender sociology of crime that the discipline’s empirical findings and policy obligations demand. The ongoing development of gender-responsive corrections, trauma-informed juvenile justice, and the specific policy reforms that feminist criminology’s evidence motivates — from intimate partner violence law to pregnancy criminalization reform to sex work decriminalization — demonstrates that the sociology of gender and crime has practical consequences as well as theoretical importance, and that the communities most affected by gendered criminal justice deserve the policy reforms that the evidence consistently supports.
References
- Belknap, J. (2015). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (4th ed.). Cengage.
- Brennan, T., Breitenbach, M., Dieterich, W., Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2012). Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centered analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), 1481–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812456777
- Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2013). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime (3rd ed.). SAGE.
- Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2014). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice (4th ed.). Wiley.
- Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. Yale University Press.
- DeHart, D., Lynch, S., Belknap, J., Dass-Brailsford, P., & Green, B. (2014). Life history models of female offending: The roles of serious mental illness and trauma in women’s pathways to jail. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313494357
- Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064. https://doi.org/10.1086/343191
- Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure of gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of common delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90(6), 1151–1178. https://doi.org/10.1086/228206
- Heidensohn, F. (1968). The deviance of women: A critique and an enquiry. British Journal of Sociology, 19(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.2307/588692
- Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Northeastern University Press.
- Kruttschnitt, C. (2013). Gender and crime. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145605
- Mallicott, S. L. (2019). Women and crime: A text/reader (3rd ed.). SAGE.
- Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
- Miller, J. (2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York University Press.
- Richie, B. E. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered Black women. Routledge.
- Sharpe, G. (2015). Precarious identities: “Young” motherhood, desistance and the ethics of care. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 15(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895814543982
- Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.
- Starr, S. B. (2015). Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. American Law and Economics Review, 17(1), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahu010
- Steffensmeier, D., & Haynie, D. (2000). Gender, structural disadvantage, and urban crime. Criminology, 38(2), 403–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00895.x
- Sweeten, G., Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(6), 921–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9926-4
- Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357442
- Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453