. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: Arch Sex Behav. 2015 Oct 23;45(5):1039–1050. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0616-z

Table 4.

Masculinity class profile groups compared on proportion of members from each racial/ethnic category

		Class group
Racial/ethnic category	Full sample (n=555)	Normative (n=197) Proportion	Norm/male activities (n=293)	Misogynistic (n=44)	Sex focused (n=21)	Omnibus χ² (df=3)
African American	.20	.19	.20	.22	.29	1.07
Asian American	.19	.15^a,b	.20^d,e	.43^a,c,d	.01^b,c,e	67.25^***
Latino	.22	.24^a	.23^b	.08^a,b	.19	10.22^*
White	.21	.21	.22	.11	.24	4.60
Multiracial/“other”	.18	.22	.16	.16	.28	2.51

Where the omnibus test is significant, means in the same row that share the same superscript are significantly different between class groups based on sequential Holm–Bonferroni-corrected pairwise tests (corrected p<.05). Column percents do not always add to 1.00 due to rounding

^***

p<.001;

** p<.01;

p<.05