Claremont Colleges
Scholarship @ Claremont
+%**,!(%)+1!,!, +%**,-. !(-$)&+,$%*
Stressful Scriptures: Gender Role Ideology, Gender
Role Stress, and Christian Religiosity
Tess A. Lommers-Johnson
Scripps College
1%,*!(!,,!(%)+1!,%,%,+).#$--)/).")+"+!!( )*!(!,,/-$!+%**,-. !(-$)&+,$%*-$)&+,$%*&+!')(--$,!!(
!*-! ")+%(&.,%)(%(+%**,!(%)+1!,!,/(.-$)+%0! '%(%,-+-)+)"$)&+,$%*&+!')(-)+')+!%(")+'-%)(*&!,!)(--
,$)&+,$%*.&+!')(-! .
!)''!( ! %--%)(
)''!+,)$(,)(!,,-+!,,".&+%*-.+!,!( !+)&! !)&)#/!( !+)&!-+!,,( $+%,-%(!&%#%),%-/
Scripps Senior eses. *!+
$2*,$)&+,$%*&+!')(-! .,+%**,-$!,!,
! ! !
STRESSFUL SCRIPTURES: GENDER ROLE IDEOLOGY, GENDER ROLE
STRESS, AND RELIGIOSITY
by
TESS LOMMERS-JOHNSON
SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS
PROFESSOR JUDITH LeMASTER
PROFESSOR MICHAEL SPEZIO
DECEMBER 11, 2015
! !
"!
!
#$%&'()&!
!
*+,!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%!4('(/567!(%%,'&%!&+(&!5./585/9(2%!,:4,'5,.),!/5%&',%%!;+,.!&+,<!
)(..1&!1'!/1!.1&!;(.&!&1!258,!94!&1!&+,!'12,%!4',%)'5$,/!&1!&+,5'!6,./,'=!(./!&+5%!%&',%%!5%!
',2(&,/!&1!-,./,'!012,!>/,1216<?!@5&+5.!#7,'5)(.!A+'5%&5(.!)92&9',=!6,./,'!'12,%!(',!
%1)5(25B,/!(./!%+(4,/!())1'/5.6!&1!&'(/5&51.!(./!&+,!C 5$ 2,?!*1!5.8,%&56(&,!&+,!5.&,'%,)&51.!
1D!&+,%,!D()&1'%=!A+'5%&5(.!(/92&%!;522!',%41./!&1!E9,%&51..(5',%!($19&!&+,5'!-,./,'!012,!
>/,1216<=!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%=!(./!',25651%5&<?!356.5D5)(.&!41%5&58,!)1'',2(&51.(2!',2(&51.%+54%!
$,&;,,.!-,./,'!012,!>/,1216<!(./!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%=!$,&;,,.!',25651%5&<!(./!-,./,'!
012,!>/,1216<=!(./!$,&;,,.!',25651%5&<!(./!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%!(',!,:4,)&,/!D1'!$1&+!7,.!
(./!;17,.?!F1;,8,'=!-,./,'!012,!>/,1216<!5%!,:4,)&,/!&1!4('&5(22<!7,/5(&,!(.<!
',2(&51.%+54!D19./!$,&;,,.!',25651%5&<!(./!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%?!*+5%!;522!5742<!&+(&!D1'!
A+'5%&5(.!5./585/9(2%=!',25651%5&<!(./!A+'5%&5(.5&<!(',! ',2 (&,/!&1!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%!$9&!&+5%!
',2(&51.%+54!5%!/,4,./,.&!1.!(.!5./585/9(2G%!$,25,D%!($19&!6,./,'!'12,%?!>7425)(&51.%!(./!
D9'&+,'!/5',)&51.%!(',!/5%)9%%,/=!5.)29/5.6!%45'5&9(2!6,./,'!'12,! .,61& 5(&51.!(./!&+,!
%(.)&5D5)(&51.!4('(/567?!!
! !"#$%&'()!-,./,'!012,%=!A+'5%&5(.=!0,25651%5&<=!0,25651%5&<=!0,256519%!
H9./(7,.&(25%7=!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%=!-,./,'!012,!>/,1216<!
I!
!
Stressful Scriptures: Gender Role Ideology, Gender Role Stress, and Religiosity
Originating from the foundational text of the Bible, Christian theology has dictated
gender role norms and gender role performance in Christian adherents, to different degrees
(Mahalik & Lagan; 2001; Peek, Lowe, Williams, 1991). However, religion and religious doctrine
are among a number of factors, including culture and historical context, that impact an
individual’s conceptions of gender roles, (Bartkowski, 1999; Burn & Busso, 2005). With the rise
of egalitarian gender role beliefs as a result of second wave feminism, both men’s and women’s
gender roles have changed and consequently changed the literature on gender roles as well,
bringing up issues such as gender role conflict, gender role stress, and contributing factors
(O’Neil, 2008). For individuals who profess and internalize Christian religious beliefs, their
gender role ideologies are shaped in part by their theologies (Colaner & Warner, 2005; Peek,
Lowe, & Williams; 1991). Because of the impact that gender roles have on psychological health
(Hayes & Mahalik, 2000; Liu & Iwamoto, 2006), it is important for research to explore the
connections between Christian religiosity and gender ideologies. This leads to the question of
whether or not Christian religiosity is related to gender role ideology, gender role conflict, and
gender role stress.
Gender role theory began in the 1970s with Sandra Bem’s gender schema theory, which
argues that individuals are socialized to exhibit certain gendered characteristics according to their
sex (Bem, 1981). Individuals cognitively ascribe behaviors and traits to a particular gender, and
use these gender schemata to categorize and compare the traits and behaviors of themselves and
others (Bem, 1981). Gender roles, also referred to as sex roles, are a part of these schemata.
Individuals develop conceptions of acceptable behaviors and attributes for each gender and can
be externally and internally motivated to adhere to those gender role norms (Bem, 1981). The
J!
!
Bem Sex Role Inventory, based on Bem’s gender schema and gender role theories, measures
adherence to traditional sex-typed roles of masculine and feminine behaviors. According to
classifications from the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), individuals can be classified into four
categories of role endorsement and fulfillment: of the gender roles commonly associated with
their sex, of the gender roles associated with the other sex, of neither set of gender roles, or of
both sets of gender roles (Bem, 1977). In addition to Bem’s gender role model that measures
gender on a unifactorial polar scale, multifactorial gender models have been proposed,
acknowledging that gender may not be a singular developed trait but rather a combination of
factors that comprise “gender identity” (Spence, 1993). Gender may be classified by a polar scale
of masculinity or femininity, but could also be described by a more complex web of attitudes,
attributes, behaviors, and traits (Spence, 1993).
Regardless of the way that gender is categorized or described by a particular theory,
gendered socialization has real outcomes for individuals in the gender roles that it teaches
individuals. Masculinity and femininity are socialized from an early age and certain behaviors
are reinforced or punished to indicate appropriate masculine or feminine behaviors (Mahalik,
Cournoyer, DeFranc, Cherry, & Napolitano, 1998; O’Neil, 1981). Society socializes men and
boys to exhibit masculine behaviors and traits, including domination of others, homophobia, and
emotional restriction (Mahalik et al., 1998). Women and girls are socialized to exhibit feminine
behaviors and traits, including emotional expressiveness, submission, and nurturing of others
(Bem, 1977). The gender role socialization process not only teaches and encourages gendered
behaviors, it also discourages behaviors of the opposite gender role, contributing to a fear of
femininity in men and reluctance of women to engage in traditional masculine behaviors (Bem,
1977; Mahalik et al., 1998; O’Neil, 1981). Individuals are encouraged by external feedback and
K!
!
internalized gender roles to maintain their gender role behaviors and avoid other gender role
behaviors (Bem, 1977; Bem & Lenney, 1976; O’Neil, 1981). However, individuals do not
always adhere to the gender roles assigned to them based on their biological sex or gender
identification (Bem, 1974; Bem & Lemmey, 1976). The category of androgynous gender role
was theorized in response to the impact of Second Wave Feminism on the field of psychology
and the cognition of individuals, resulting in an androgynous gender role where individuals are
flexible with their gender role adherence depending on the situation (Bem & Lenney, 1976; Bem
& Lewis, 1975; Jones, Chernovetz, & Hansson, 1978). Although these categorizations of gender
have been questioned, evaluated, and transformed throughout the last half-century of gender
research, the psychological constructs of socialized gender and gender role dynamics have
persisted in new theories within gender research, including gender role conflict (Beaglaoich,
Sarma, & Morrison, 2013; Luyt 2015; O’Neil, 1981; Woo & Oei, 2006).
Gender Role Conflict
Gender Role Conflict occurs when a person is subject to gender roles that are
constraining, incompatible with the self, or harmful to the individual (O’Neil, 1981). Role
conflict can be conceptualized in the sense of potential harm and restriction, or relate to multiple
gender roles, as in the case of interrole conflict, where multiple roles place contradictory or
excessive demands on an individual (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). These conflicts can prevent
individuals from reaching their potential depending on the multiple or harmful roles they are
expected to fill and have been shown to result in negative psychological outcomes (Mahalik et
al., 1998; Stillson, O’Neil, & Owen, 1991). Adhering to a particular traditional gender role can
result in inadvertent harm; for example, when adherence to traditional masculine gender roles
includes a lack of self-care, internalization and suppression of emotions, and risk-taking
L!
!
behaviors. (Liu, Rochlen, & Mohr, 2005). Similarly, research has connected adherence to
feminine gender roles with negative outcomes due to the need to prioritizing others over self
(Richmond, Levant, Smalley & Cook, 2015; Zamarripa, Wampold, & Gregory, 2003).
O’Neil and Denke suggest that Gender Role Conflict occurs in different psychological
contexts: cognitive—thinking about gender roles, behavioral—acting in ways that uphold gender
roles but harm the self or others, emotional—negative affect resulting from fulfilling or failing to
exhibit gender role norms, and unconscious—actions and thoughts that are not consciously
expressed (2016). Gender Role Conflict patterns for masculine roles include “restrictive
emotionality”, “homophobia”, “control, power, competition”, “restricted sexual and affectionate
behavior”, “obsession with achievement and success”, and “healthcare problems” (O’Neil,
Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986). These patterns could occur in the different
psychological contexts; such as when restriction of emotion occurs in a behavioral sense by
internalization of emotions or in a cognitive sense through active cognitive denial of emotion
(O’Neil & Denke, 2016).
There is no comprehensive or definitive theory of feminine Gender Role Conflict
patterns. However, research has connected traditional feminine roles to harmful outcomes for the
self (Côté, 1986; Curtin, Ward, Merriwether, & Caruthers, 2010). Negative outcomes can result
from roles and feminine norms including objectification of the body, unassertiveness, deference
to men and submission to men, and prioritization of household labor, motherhood, and family
over self and career (Côté, 1986; Coyle, van Leer, Schroeder, & Fulcher; 2015; Zamarripa et al.,
2003). When confronted with role-atypical situations such as an occupation overseeing men, a
career, or infertility, women show negotiation and strategizing of their roles to manage the
resultant conflict between their expected gendered behaviors and their atypical needs or
M!
!
limitations (Allison, 1979, Coyle et al., 2015; Colaner & Warner, 2005). Though not always
expressed as Gender Role Conflict by the definition in O’Neil’s paradigm, gender research has
described many patterns of gender role conflict and ensuing predictors and outcomes as a result
of conflicting gender expectations or harmful gender expectations (2015).
Masculine Gender Role Conflict is positively correlated with psychological distress, such
that men high in gender role conflict are more likely to have higher psychological distress levels
(Liu, Rochlen, & Mohr, 2005). Gender roles vary by culture, and the stress resulting from gender
role conflict varies by culture as well (Levant, Richmond, Cook, House, & Aupont, 2007; Liu,
2002; Liu & Iwamoto, 2006). Men experiencing Masculine Gender Role Conflict display related
psychological defense mechanisms including turning against an object, when an individual
rejects someone or something in their life that threatens their masculinity, and projection, when
an individual denies a negative trait of their own by projecting it on another person (Mahalik et
al., 1998). Men exhibit these defense mechanisms in order to prevent feelings of insecurity or
inferiority that conflict with masculine norms of confidence and superiority (Mahalik et al.,
1998). Masculine Gender Role Conflict has been linked to violence, such that men high in
Masculine Gender Role Conflict are more likely to have a history of violence, which has been
explained through a masculine gender role norm of domination and victimization of others
(Amato, 2012).
Although feminine gender roles are included in the Gender Role Conflict paradigm,
research has focused on masculine Gender Role Conflict. In women, feminine gender role
conflict has been positively correlated with low self-esteem, depression, disordered eating,
shame, and anxiety (Efthim, Kenny, Mahalik, 2001; Richmond et al., 2015). Though the Gender
N!
!
Role Conflict paradigm primarily has been applied to men, its tenets also apply to the gender role
conflicts that women encounter in their lives (Fallon & Jome, 2007; Zamarripa et al., 2003).
Gender Role Strain
When gender roles result in trauma, danger, or are not fulfilled, ensuing psychological
distress occurring as a result of these Gender Role Conflicts is described as Gender Role Strain
(Garnets & Pleck, 1979; Liu et al., 2005). Also referred to as sex role strain or Gender Role
Stress, Gender Role Strain refers to the psychological distress related to gender roles as a
recognizable paradigm within gender theory (Garnets et al., 1979). It must be clarified that
Gender Role Strain and Gender Role Stress are often used interchangeably in the literature, but
Gender Role Strain originally refers to Pleck’s paradigm involving 10 aspects of gender role
norm fulfillment and failure whereas Gender Role Stress is the measured distress that results
from Gender Role Strains (Beaglaoich et al., 2013, Pleck, 1995). Research on Gender Role
Strain has primarily looked at Masculine Gender Role Strain, though it has been applied to
women as well (Barnett, 1986; Chusmir & Koberg, 1988; Enns, 2008; Zamarripa et al., 2003).
When individuals exhibit behaviors that are contradictory to the traditional gender role
they are expected to fulfill, they may experience Gender Role Strain as the result of internal
dissonance or as the result of devaluation and negative feedback from others (O’Neil, 1981;
O’Neil et al., 1986; Pleck, 1995). Gender Role Strain includes three types of strains or stresses
resulting from Gender Role Conflict. Discrepancy strain occurs when internalized gender role
norms are not fulfilled or when fulfillment is not possible (Pleck, 1995). Dysfunction strain
occurs when fulfillment of traditional gender roles causes harm (Pleck, 1995). Trauma strain
occurs when the socialization processes of gender roles themselves cause harm (Levant &
Richmond, 2016, Pleck, 1995). These types of Gender Role Strains can result in multiple
O!
!
negative psychological outcomes, including anxiety, anger, depression, and lowered self-esteem
in both genders and eating disorders in women (Barnett, 1986; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Eisler,
Skidmore, & Ward, 1988; Mahalik et al., 1998; O’Neil, 1981).
Gender Role Stress
Gender Role Stress, distress resulting from Gender Role Strains, has relationships with
many negative mental health outcomes, including anger, anxiety, depression, and substance
abuse, and disordered eating (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Eisler et al., 1988; Gillespie & Eisler,
1992; Thorton & Leo, 1992). Richmond, Levant, Smalley, and Cook found that Feminine
Gender Role Stress mediates the relationship between feminine ideology and anxiety, such that
feminine ideology itself does not predict anxiety, but that the presence of gender role stress
facilitates the connection between ideology and anxiety (2015). In addition to various mental
health outcomes, Gender Role Stress has been associated with behavioral outcomes, including
intimate partner violence and related affective patterns. Moore & Stuart found that when
confronted with vignettes of intimate relationship conflicts, men with higher Masculine Gender
Role Stress are more likely to respond with anger and verbal aggression (2004). In response to
theories connecting masculine gender roles with intimate partner violence, Masculine Gender
Role Stress was found to be a predictor of intimate partner violence, where higher masculine
discrepancy stress was positively correlated with reported previous engagement in physical,
sexual, and psychological intimate partner violence (Reidy, Berke, Gentile, & Zeichner, 2014).
Following the conceptualization of Gender Role Strain within the Gender Role Conflict
paradigm, scales were developed to measure Gender Role Stress and other aspects of Gender
Role Strain and Gender Role Conflict (Levant, 2011). The Gender Role Conflict Scale and the
Discrepancy Strain Inventory measure masculine discrepancy stress, when stress results from
PQ!
!
internalized gender norms that are not met (O’Neil et al., 1986; Rummell & Levant; 2014).
These scales have been used to further investigate aspects of the Gender Role Conflict paradigm.
In order to measure stress experienced as a result of situations involving gender roles,
two scales of Gender Role Stress were developed, the Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS)
scale and the Feminine Gender Role Stress (FGRS) scale (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Gillespie &
Eisler, 1992). The MGRS scale specifically measures stress related to “physical inadequacy”,
“emotional inexpressiveness”, “subordination to women”, “intellectual inferiority”, and
“performance failure”, whereas the FGRS scale measures stress related to fear of “unemotional
relationships”, “physical unattractiveness”, “victimization”, “behaving assertively”, and “not
being nurturant” (Eisler et al, 1987; Gillespie et al, 1992). Although these scales are often used
in research, they do not fully encompass all aspects of Pleck’s Gender Role Strain Paradigm,
including dysfunction strain and trauma strain (Levant, 1992; Levant, 2011).
Despite the FGRS scale, there is a lack of research on gender role strain and conflict in
women (Zamarripa et al., 2003). Women have been studied using a slight adaption of the Gender
Role Conflict Scale, which was created to measure Gender Role Conflict in men and to examine
masculine gender roles (O’Neil et al., 1986; Zamarripa et al, 2003). Although unconnected
research has been done on the gender role conflicts of women, it has not been integrated or
compared to the theoretical mass of research on men’s gender role conflicts and has not fully
been developed as a theoretically-based or definitive area of psychology (O’Neil, 2015).
In the existing research on Gender Role Conflict and Gender Role Strain, a number of
factors have been studied in relation to Gender Role Strain and Conflict, including gender
orientation categorizations, such as gender ideologies and gender role endorsement, and
demographic variables, such as religiosity, sexual orientation, and race. Gender ideologies are
PP!
!
the attitudes and constructed norms that differentiate masculine and feminine behaviors and traits
(Beaglaoich et al., 2013; Levant et al., 2007; Richmond et al., 2015).
Traditional Masculine Ideologies, also referred to as masculine gender ideologies, are an
inherent part of the Gender Role Strain Paradigm, because the paradigm assumes that there is a
spoken or unspoken distinction of the appropriate roles for particular genders, by which
behaviors and traits are assessed and deemed stressful (Levant & Richmond, 2016). Traditional
Masculine Ideology has found to have relationships with Gender Role Strain as well as various
behavioral outcomes and attitudes, including rape myth endorsement, drinking behaviors,
condom use, and negative attitudes towards women (Uy, Massoth, Gottdiener, 2014). Negative
attitudes towards women were found to mediate the relationship between Traditional Masculine
Ideologies and rape myth acceptance (Lutz-Zois, Moler, & Brown, 2015). In relation to
substance use, Traditional Masculine Ideologies predicted alcohol consumption, but this
relationship was mediated by the presence of Gender Role Conflict (Uy et al, 2014). High
Traditional Masculine Ideologies was associated with lower condom usage and lower help-
seeking tendencies (Shearer, Hosterman, Gillen, & Lefkowitz, 2005; Levant et al., 2007).
Although the Gender Role Strain Paradigm and gender ideologies contain theories about
the gendered behaviors and norms of both genders, research about gender ideologies is separated
by gender. Femininity Ideologies, also referred to as feminine gender ideologies, the set of norms
that constitute acceptable behavior and traits for women, have been studied in relation to some of
the same and similar factors studied in relation to Traditional Masculine Ideologies, depending
on the relevance of the factor to women and femininity (Tolman, Impett, Tracy, & Michael,
2006; Impett, Schooler, & Tolman, 2006). Femininity Ideologies have been connected with
lower sexual self-efficacy in adolescent women and lower assertiveness and condom use self-
P"!
!
efficacy in adult women (Curtin, Ward, Merriwether, & Caruthers, 2010; Impett et al, 2006). In
addition to predicting negative mental health outcomes such as anxiety through the mediator of
Feminine Gender Role Stress, the femininity ideology of body objectification predicted
depressive symptoms and lowered self-esteem in adolescent women (Tolman et al, 2006).
Specific femininity ideologies, including feminine deference and lowered assertiveness predicted
higher risk of sexual assault, but overall femininity ideology adherence did not affect assault risk
(Widgerson & Katz, 2015).
The above research demonstrates how Femininity Ideologies have significant impact on
women’s behaviors, sexual health, and mental health (Tolman et al., 2006; Widgerson & Katz,
2015). Therefore, Femininity Ideologies are an important factor to consider in clinical contexts
and when evaluating mental health outcomes. Considering that the Femininity Ideology Scale
was developed only recently and that the related Feminine Gender Role Stress Scale has been
underutilized, further research into the relationships between Femininity Ideologies and
Feminine Gender Role Stress needs to be done in order to identify other factors that impact both
of these phenomena. Although much more research has been done to relate Masculine Ideologies
to Masculine Gender Role Stress and Conflict, Femininity and Masculinity Ideologies are rarely
studied together, perhaps due to the lack of gender-neutral scales that can be used to investigate
these constructs and the overall lack of research on Femininity Ideologies and Feminine Gender
Role Stress.
Gender Roles and Christianity
Feminine and masculine gender roles and their corresponding Gender Role Ideologies are
socialized through internal and external feedback (Levant & Philpot, as cited in Levant et al.,
2007). For certain subcultures, including evangelical Christianity in the United States, gender is
PI!
!
socialized in particular ways that may differ from the norms socialized in other cultures (Francis,
2005). In terms of psychological gender orientation, religiosity has been linked to psychological
femininity in both genders and lower rigidity of traditional masculinity in men (Francis, 2005;
Mahalik & Lagan, 2001). Thompson and Remmes confirmed that psychological femininity is a
better predictor of men’s religiousness than masculine ideology (2002). These findings, however,
do not indicate a causal relationship where psychological gender orientation is caused by
religious socialization of gender norms (Francis, 2005; Mahalik et al, 2001).
Apart from these findings about religiosity and psychological femininity, research
supports other relationships between gender roles and religion. Within research on feminine
norms, findings indicate that certain aspects of religiosity are associated with endorsement of
specific feminine norms. For example, prayer, a component of internal religiosity, is positively
correlated with the feminine norms of childcare, romantic relationships, and domesticity
(Lyócsa, Bašistová, & Lyócsa, 2013). This, along with other research, indicates that there is a
relationship between religiosity and gender norms beyond psychological femininity (Lyócsa,
Bašistová, & Lyócsa, 2013).
Within Christian beliefs in the United States, there are two Christian gender role
ideologies—complementarianism, where men and women perform fundamentally different but
complementary roles in life, and egalitarianism, where men and women can fulfill any role
regardless of gender (Colaner & Giles, 2007). Studied in relation to career, home, and
motherhood goals of college-age women, positive correlations were found between
complementarian gender ideology and goals of motherhood, meaning that complementarian
beliefs were associated with the ambition to raise children, a traditional feminine norm (Colaner
& Giles, 2007). There were negative correlations between complementarian gender ideology and
PJ!
!
career aspirations, between egalitarian gender ideology and goals of motherhood, and between
goals of motherhood and career (Colaner & Giles, 2007). This indicates that the differing gender
ideologies dictate different behaviors for women, in line with or in opposition of traditional
feminine roles. The goals of motherhood and career were negatively correlated, suggesting a
conflict between these roles where women choose goal over the other (Colaner & Giles, 2007).
These findings suggest further connections between gender role ideology, gendered behavior,
and religion.
Aside from religious practices, fundamentalist Christian values could impact gender role
beliefs and gender role behaviors for women. Foss and Warnke suggest that with regard to
feminine gender roles, Fundamentalist Protestant Christian women are instilled with ideals of
male dominance and female submission in ways that may prevent self-protective behaviors in the
case of domestic violence (2003). This suggests that Christian beliefs about gender impact
women’s behavior in situations involving Gender Role Conflict, where the gender role of a
submissive woman conflicts with the necessity for a woman to protect herself from domestic
violence. Although not specifically referred to as Gender Role Conflict, the conflicting needs of
self-protection and fulfillment of the submissive female norm are an example of Feminine
Gender Role Conflict, here in a Christian religious context.
In addition to these relationships between feminine roles and Christian ideology, certain
masculine norms are related with particular facets of religiosity. The masculine gender norm of
homophobia is positively correlated with religious fundamentalism, extrinsic religiosity, and
intrinsic religiosity (Ward & Cook, 2011). Additionally, the norm of power over women is
positively correlated with religious fundamentalism (Ward & Cook, 2011). These findings
suggest that disdain for same-sex relationships and preference for traditional male-dominated
PK!
!
hierarchies are associated with religious fundamentalism, suggesting that there is a link between
fundamentalist religiosity and certain values of traditional masculinity (Ward & Cook, 2011).
Furthermore, men who are more religious do not feel the need to restrict their emotions as much
as men who are less religious, supporting the theory of a religion-related feminine psychological
orientation that does not require emotional restrictiveness (Ward & Cook, 2011). Along with
links to masculinity, internal and external religiosity and scriptural literalism have been
positively correlated with benevolent sexism, operationalized as the endorsement of beliefs that
women need male protection and should fulfill particular roles as the nurturing, gentle, fairer sex
(Burn & Busso, 2005). This study shows that scriptural literalism is connected to the traditional
gender roles dictated by benevolent sexism, as well as other traditional gender ideologies.
Despite these findings about gender role ideologies and religion, there is little research
on the relationships between religion and gender role conflict. The current research on gender
roles and religion may suggest gender role conflict or gender role stress, but the aspects of
religion that have been studied in relation to gender, such as religiosity and scriptural literalism,
have not been studied within the gender role conflict and gender role stress paradigms. Oates,
Hall, Anderson, and Willingham proposed that there are negative consequences from assuming
multiple roles for Protestant Christian women, which suggests gender role conflict because of the
gendered expectations for their roles that place women in double binds between traditional and
non-traditional roles (2008). Traditional conservative Evangelical gender role beliefs have been
found to be negatively correlated with career goals and positively correlated with goals of
motherhood, demonstrating the tension between personal aspirations and gender-ascribed roles
(Colaner & Giles, 2007). These studies show that there may be a relationship between religion
and gender role conflict that has yet to be investigated.
PL!
!
Regarding masculine gender roles and religion, several relationships have been found
between religiosity, masculine behavior, hypermasculine ideology, and homophobia (Gelfer,
2013; Gerber, 2014; Sumerau, 2012). Proposed as reactions to fears of femininity, Sumerau
frames hypermasculine behaviors as indicative of gender role pressures, in a case study at an
LGBT church, proposing that these “compensatory acts”, which include adherence to patriarchal
structures and emotional repression, occur to reaffirm an individual’s sense of masculinity
(2012). Within the Evangelical Protestant Church, patterns of hypermasculinity and Godly
masculinity have been proposed as reactions to the supposed feminization of Christian
institutions, including specialized men’s ministries that emphasize masculine ideologies and
include activities such as hunting and sports (Gelfer, 2013; Gerber, 2014). These findings,
although not placed within a framework of Gender Role Conflict, show elements of the Gender
Role Conflict Paradigm for men, including homophobia, restrictive emotionality, and desire for
control, power, and competition. In order to investigate whether or not these types of religiosity
are actually connected with Gender Role Conflict, further research must be done using the
Gender Role Conflict Paradigm to investigate the tensions between men who feel the need to
uphold a standard of masculinity and the perceived femininity of Christianity.
Sociological research has connected gender roles with religious ideology and resultant
conflict and negotiation. Decision-making within heterosexual, conservative Protestant married
couples shows negotiation between religious gender role ideology and actual behavior, showing
that there is dissonance between belief and action as a resolution of gender role conflict (Denton,
2004). Gender traditionalism has been positively correlated to theological conservatism in
women and strength of religious affiliation in men (Bartkowski & Hempel, 2009). In addition,
adherence to traditional women’s roles within the home has been correlated with conservative
PM!
!
Christian beliefs (Bartkowski, 1999). Although these findings suggest relationships between
conservative Christianity and traditional gender role behavior and could suggest gender role
conflict, these relationships have not been investigated within the framework of gender role
stress and psychological outcomes of gender role conflict.
One psychological study has investigated the relationship between Masculine Gender
Role Conflict and religious orientation, finding that certain aspects of external religious
orientation are related to specific elements of Masculine Gender Role Conflict including
orientation towards success, power, and competition, restricted affection between men, limited
emotional expression, and fear of intellectual inferiority (Mahalik & Lagan, 2001). Although this
study did associate religious orientation to Masculine Gender Role Conflict, it did not take into
account the degree of religiosity as a potential predictor of Masculine Gender Role Conflict.
Additionally, it only investigated Masculine Gender Role Conflict and did not take into account
the potential for relationships between a religious framework and Feminine Gender Role
Conflict, Gender Role Stress, or endorsement of a traditional Western gender role ideology
(Mahalik & Lagan, 2001).
Present Study
In order to address the lack of research examining the relationships between religiosity
and religious beliefs, Gender Role Conflict, Gender Role Stress, and Traditional Gender Role
Ideologies, this study investigates the potential correlations between these variables specifically
in Protestant Christian individuals. The focus on Protestant Christian individuals seeks to build
on the existing literature that details the relationship between Christian religious affiliation and
gender role beliefs (Allison, 1979; Colaner & Warner; 2005; Denton, 2004; Gerber, 2014;
Mahalik & Lagan, 2001). Research within the Gender Role Conflict Paradigm and has primarily
PN!
!
focused on Masculine Gender Role Conflict and Stress, rendering Feminine Gender Role
Conflict and Stress underexplored. Because of the lack of research on Feminine Gender Role
Conflict and the wealth of research that connects religious beliefs and Female Gender Role
Ideology and gendered behavior in women, the relationship between Female Gender Role
Ideology, Gender Role Conflict, and religiosity needs to be explored.
This study will investigate the relationships between religiosity and Masculine and
Female Gender Role Ideologies and religiosity and Gender Role Stress, through a correlational
design that employs the Gender Role Conflict paradigm to investigate the relationships between
religiosity, Male and Female Gender Role Ideologies, and Masculine and Feminine Gender Role
Stress. Under O’Neil’s Gender Role Conflict paradigm, Masculine and Feminine Gender Role
Stress will be investigated using scores on the Masculine and Feminine Gender Role Stress
scales (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Gillespie & Eisler, 1992). Gender Role Ideologies will be used
as a predictor to confirm a relationship with Gender Role Stress. An open-ended question about
gender roles will be used to investigate whether participants cite scriptures as part of their
conceptions of gender roles. Different facets of religiosity, including internal and external
religiosity as well as religious fundamentalism, will be investigated in relation to Gender Role
Ideologies and Gender Role Stress.
In confirmation of earlier findings, it is hypothesized that endorsement of Traditional
Gender Role Ideologies will be positively correlated with religious attendance and involvement,
scriptural literalism, and prayer for both men and women. Additionally, it is expected that
endorsement of Traditional Gender Role Ideologies will be positively correlated with Gender
Role Stress, as found in previous research. Religiosity will be positively correlated with Gender
Role Stress, such that individuals with higher internal or external religiosity and religious
PO!
!
fundamentalism will have higher levels of Gender Role Stress. However, it is hypothesized that
Endorsement of Traditional Gender Role Ideologies will partially mediate any relationships
found between religiosity and Gender Role Stress. In addition, it is hypothesized that individuals
who mention or quote scriptures will have higher religiosity and more traditional gender role
ideologies. All of these predicted relationships are expected to be present in both men and
women.
Method
Participants
A power analysis was conducted for 3-predictor multiple regression to determine the
desired sample size with an estimated effect size of f
2
= .30, based on conservative estimates of
previous research, α = .05, and power at .80, resulting in a desired sample size of at least 76
participants. Because participants identifying as men and women cannot be compared because of
the different scales that will be used for each gender, 76 participants of each gender will be
necessary, for a total of 134 participants, evenly split between the genders. The participants will
be individuals who are at least 18 years of age and who identify as Christian.
Due to the online nature of this study, individuals those who do not use the Internet will
be excluded from the study. Upon completion of the study, participants will be eligible to win
one of two $50 Amazon gift cards as a means of compensation. The participants will be recruited
online via Christian interest and church social media pages and flyers placed in local religious
organizations, such as churches and religious centers. Because of the intended population of
Christian individuals who identify as men or women, data from any individuals who do not
"Q!
!
identify as men or women or who do not identify as Christian will be removed from the final
analysis. However, they will still be eligible to win a gift card if they have completed the study.
Materials
Male Gender Role Ideology. The Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form, (MRNI-SF)
is a self-report scale that measures endorsement of traditional masculine gender norms such as
“men should be able to fix most things around the house,” with higher scores indicating more
traditional gender norms (Levant, Hall, & Rankin, 2012; Levant, Hall, Weigold, & McCurdy,
2015). It is an abbreviated version of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised, an updated
version of the original Male Role Norms Inventory that was improved to better measure beliefs
about the acceptable and unacceptable roles and behaviors for men. The MRNI-SF uses 21, 7-
point (0 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), items to measure seven subscales of traditional
male gender roles, including Restrictive Emotionality, Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills,
Negativity Towards Sexual Minorities, Avoidance of Femininity, Importance of Sex, Toughness,
and Dominance. It has a comparable reliability and validity to the Male Role Norms Inventory-
Revised, which was found to be internally consistent (Cronbach’s alphas from .73 to .96) and to
be reliable and valid across races and genders (Levant, Hall, Weigold, & McCurdy, 2015;
Levant, Smalley, Aupont, House, Richmond, & Noronha, 2007). The total scores for this scale
and the subscales can be calculated by taking the average of all the scores (Levant et al., 2007).
Female Gender Role Ideology. The Femininity Ideology Scale (FIS) contains 45 self-
report items that ask for the level of endorsement of norms relating to women’s roles and what it
means to be feminine, for example, “women should be gentle,” (Richmond et al., 2015).
Respondents are scored using a 5-point scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) on five
"P!
!
subscales measuring different factors: Stereotypic Image and Activities, Dependence/Deference,
Purity, Caretaking, and Emotionality (Levant et al., 2007). There is evidence for the validity and
reliability of the FIS, as well as internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas for the five subscales
ranged from .83 to .90) (Levant et al., 2007). It has no comparable relation to the MRNI scales,
because it measures fundamentally different gender roles, but was developed by the same
investigators. The subscale scores and overall scale scores can be averaged to find the total score
of the FIS (Richmond et al., 2015).
Feminine Gender Role Stress. The Feminine Gender Role Stress Scale (FGRSS) was
developed to assess the stress experienced in hypothetical situations that conflict with traditional
female gender role norms, such as “being perceived by others as overweight,” (Gillespie &
Eisler, 1992). Like the FIS, there are five subscales that reflect particular feminine norms that are
being violated in that situation, but these subscales are not directly related to the subscales in the
FIS. The FGRS subscales include Fear of Unemotional Relationships, Fear of Physical
Unattractiveness, Fear of Victimization, Fear of Behaving Assertively, and Fear of Not Being
Nurturant. There are 39 self-report Likert-type items on the FGRS Scale, from 0 = not at all
stressful to 5 = extremely stressful, which has be shown to have internal consistency with a total
Cronbach’s alpha of .93 and to have test-retest reliability of .82 for a two week retest, which is
relatively good (Gillespie & Eisler, 1992). Women score higher on the FGRS Scale than men
and the scores are correlated with anxiety and depression, showing that the scale measures
stressors and that those stressors are particular to women (Gillespie & Eisler, 1992, Richmond,
Levant, Smalley, & Cook, 2015).
Masculine Gender Role Stress. The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRSS)
contains 43 Likert-type items developed to measure perceived stress associated with situations
""!
!
that violate traditional masculine gender role norms (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). Respondents
state how stressful they would perceive a particular situation on a scale (0 = not at all stressful, 5
= extremely stressful) such as losing a competition to a woman. Men score significantly
differently than women on the measures, and the items are associated with emotional distress but
not with masculine identification (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). Five factors underlie the full scale,
and are grouped into subscales, including Physical Inadequacy, Emotional Inexpressiveness,
Subordination to Women, Intellectual Inferiority, and Performance Failure. The MRGS Scale is
reliable with Cronbach’s alphas in the lower .90s and two-week test-retest reliability (Eisler &
Skidmore, 1987; Eisler, Skimore, & Ward, 1988),
Religiosity. Religiosity will be measured through three scales, two of religious
orientation and one of religious fundamentalism. These measures will not be combined into one
composite measure of religiosity, but will be used separately to investigate any relationships
between these individual scales and gender role ideologies and gender role stress.
Religious Fundamentalism. The Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale, which
measures religious fundamentalism and Biblical literalism, is an abbreviated version of the
original Religious Fundamentalism Scale, which was restructured and revised to be shorter, to
have more construct validity, and to be more internally consistent (Altemeyer & Hunsberger,
2004). The shortened scale has similar reliability to the original scale (Cronbach’s alphas .91 and
.92) (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004). It contains 12 self-report, 9-point Likert-type items which
participants express their agreement or disagreement with (-4 = very strongly disagree, 0 =
exactly neutral, +4 = very strongly agree), such as “The fundamentals of God’s religion should
never be tampered with, or compromised with other’s beliefs” (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004).
"I!
!
Internal-External Religiosity. The Age-Universal Intrinsic-Extrinsic Scale-12 (Age-
Universal I-E Scale-12) is a revised version of the Religious Orientation Scale from Allport and
Ross (1967, Maltby, 1999). It measures the religiosity of individuals in two domains, intrinsic
and extrinsic religious orientations (I-E), where high scores indicate high religiosity. Intrinsic
orientation (I) refers to religiosity that stems from internal motivation from the religious tradition
itself and extrinsic orientation refers to external motivators of religion, including social pressures
and perceived personal well-being (Maltby, 2002). The Age Universal I-E Scale measures two
separate aspects of extrinsic orientation, Extrinsic Social (Es), including any social benefits that
come from religiousness, and Extrinsic Personal (Ep), including any comforts or benefits to the
individual that come from religiousness (Maltby, 2002). The 12 self-report items on the Age-
Universal I-E Scale-12 are measured on a 3-point scale with possible responses of yes, not
certain, and no to items such as “I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence.” (Maltby,
1999). The three factors on this scale, I, Es, and Ep, have been found to be distinctly different
from one another, showing construct validity (Maltby, 2002). The previous Age Universal Scale
had an overall alpha coefficient of .86, and the revised 12-item scale has further improved on
that, as it removed several measures that were unnecessary, making the scale more reliable and
applicable to non-religious individuals (Maltby, 1999; Maltby & Lewis, 1996).
Procedure
Following recruitment, participants will begin the study online, using the website Survey
Monkey, which hosts online questionnaires. Participants will first read through an informed
consent page and, after giving electronic voluntary consent, will be able to access and begin the
questionnaire.
"J!
!
Participants will then be asked to provide some demographic information about
themselves, including their age and gender. Their gender response will determine which scales
they will be completing, as the feminine and masculine gender role stress scales assess
experiences with gender roles that are different for men and women. Participants identifying as
men will complete the Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF) and the Masculine
Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRSS). Participants who identify as women will complete the
Feminine Ideology Scale (FIS) and the Feminine Gender Role Stress Scale (FGRSS). The order
of items for both sets of scales will be randomized. Then, participants of both genders will be
asked to provide their beliefs about men, women, wives, and husbands, by responding to the
question of “What should _______ (wives, husbands, women, or men) be like? Please comment
on what they should do and be like.”
Following those measures, all participants will complete the religiosity measures. Then,
participants will be asked for their religious affiliation, which will be coded by “Evangelical
Protestant”, “Mainline Protestant”, “Historically Black Protestant”, “Catholic”, “LDS”, “Other”
or “None”. Following this, participants will be thanked and compensated and directed to a
debriefing page, which will inform them again about the purposes of the study, thank them for
their participation, and provide them with contact information for the investigator.
Ethics
This study will proceed with a method intended to ensure that the study will maintain the
dignity and safety of each participant. The population of individuals who will be recruited is not
a protected category, but the well-being of participants is still being carefully considered in the
execution of this study. When an individual decides to participate in the study, they will be
"K!
!
informed that there are no risks, that their participation is voluntary in that they are not required
to participate and can withdraw at any time, and that there are no known direct benefits of the
study. These principles will be communicated through an informed consent form, which will be
given to the participants. The method of this study does not pose any risks above the level of
minimal risk to participants, because participation will not expose individuals to any risks that
are greater or more likely to occur than other situations in their lives. All questions asked are
similar to those that they would be asked in every day life. The final page of the study will
provide a link to a separate online form where they can provide their email address to be entered
into a raffle for the Amazon gift cards, to ensure that no personal information can be connected
with their responses. This form for the raffle will be completely separate and unconnected to the
survey, to ensure the anonymity of the participant’s answers. In addition, participants will not be
asked to offer any sensitive information about themselves or others, will not be asked about any
topics that could reasonably cause discomfort, and will not be deceived in any way about the
study, its purpose, or the reason for their participation. Following their participation in the study,
participants will be thanked for their help and informed of the proposed benefits to the field of
psychology and the world.
The findings of this study have the potential to inform mental healthcare providers of the
impact that a client’s religion and religiosity can have on their chosen gender roles and any
related stresses. It could assist those providers in efforts to be culturally sensitive to the different
desires and concerns of Protestant Christian individuals, in regards to any issues surrounding
their gender and gender roles. In addition, for religious groups concerned about the health of
their members, the results could assist them in efforts to prevent gender role stress in their
members and to understand the potential impacts of their doctrines. This research is important
"L!
!
because of the significant contributions it can make to the under-investigated Gender Role
Conflict paradigm, and because there are no risks of this research and the cost to the participants
does not outweigh the benefits of understanding the relationships between Gender Role Stress
and Religiosity.
Proposed Results
Of the respondents, approximately 133 participants will identify as women with a mean
age of 22.3 years and 114 identified as men with a mean age of 23.2 years (N = 247). In addition,
34 respondents will report no religious identification and their data were excluded from all
analyses. Participants will identify with the following religious identities: 89 men and 98 women
as Evangelical Protestant, 9 men and 12 women as Mainline Protestant, 1 man and 2 women as
Historically Black Protestant, 12 men and 21 women as Catholic, based on data from the Pew
Research Center (2015). For women, the average Religiosity-Internal/External (Religiosity-I/E)
will be M = x.xx, SD = x.xx and the average Religiosity-Fundamentalism (Religiosity-F) will be
M = x.xx, SD = x.xx. For men, the average Religiosity-I/E will be M = x.xx, SD = x.xx and the
score will be M = x.xx, SD = x.xx and the average Female Gender Role Ideology score will be M
= x.xx, SD = x.xx. The average Masculine Gender Role Stress score will be M = x.xx, SD = x.xx
and the average Male Gender Role Ideology score will be M = x.xx, SD = x.xx.
It must be noted that the groups of men and women cannot be compared for variables
other than Religiosity-I/E and Religiosity-F because the variables of Masculine and Feminine
Gender Role Stress and Male and Female Gender Role Ideology are operationally different. In
addition, although the study contains an open-ended question to assess whether or not
"M!
!
participants would quote or reference Biblical scriptures when describing gender roles of men,
husbands, women, and wives, of participants of both genders (N = 247), very few are likely to
cite or quote Christian scriptures. Even with a large effect size, which is unlikely, there will not
enough participants in the group that cited scripture to test the hypotheses that those who cite
scripture will have greater religiosity and more traditional gender role beliefs than those who do
not.
For the confirmatory hypothesis that religiosity would be significantly positively
correlated with Gender Role Ideology, a multiple regression analysis will be conducted for the
relationships between Gender Role Ideology and both Religiosity-I/E and Religiosity-F,
separately for men and women, while controlling for age as a possible predictor. For the
relationship between Male Gender Role Ideology and Religiosity-I/E, there will be a significant
main effect of Religiosity-I/E Male Gender Role Ideology, β = .XX, p < .05. This indicates that
for men, those who reported higher Religiosity-I/E would be significantly more likely to also
report higher Gender Role Ideologies. For the relationship between Male Gender Role Ideology
and Religiosity-F, there will be a significant main effect of Religiosity-F on Male Gender Role
Ideology, β = .XX, p < .05. This indicates that for men, those who reported higher Religiosity-F
would be significantly more likely to also report higher Gender Role Ideologies. For the
relationship between Female Gender Role Ideology and Religiosity-I/E, there will be a
significant main effect of Religiosity-F on Female Gender Role Ideology, β = .XX, p < .05. This
indicates that for women, those who reported higher Religiosity-I/E would be significantly more
likely to also report higher Gender Role Ideologies. For the relationship between Female Gender
Role Ideology and Religiosity-F, there will be a significant main effect of Religiosity-F on
Female Gender Role Ideology, β = .XX, p < .05. This indicates that for women, those who
"N!
!
reported higher Religiosity-F would be significantly more likely to also report higher Gender
Role Ideologies. For these multiple regression analyses, age will have no significant main effects
on any of the dependent variables of Male and Female Gender Role Ideology. The rationale for
these expected results stems from previous research that has found the patterns of high religiosity
and more traditional gender role ideology.
For the confirmatory hypothesis that Gender Role Ideology would be significantly
positively correlated with Gender Role Stress, a main effect multiple regression analysis will be
performed to investigate the relationships between Gender Role Ideology and Gender Role
Stress, separately for men and women, while controlling for the potential effects of age. For the
relationship between Male Gender Role Ideology and Masculine Gender Role Stress, there will
be a significant main effect of Male Gender Role Ideology on Masculine Gender Role Stress, β =
.XX, p < .05. This indicates that for men, those who reported higher Gender Role Stress would
be significantly more likely to also report higher Gender Role Ideologies. For the relationship
between Female Gender Role Ideology and Feminine Gender Role Stress, there will be a
significant main effect of Female Gender Role Ideology on Feminine Gender Role Stress, β =
.XX, p < .05. This indicates that for women, those who reported higher Gender Role Stress
would be significantly more likely to also report higher Gender Role Ideologies. For these
multiple regression analyses, age will have no significant main effects on any of the dependent
variables of Masculine and Feminine Gender Role Stress. As with the above findings on
religiosity, the relationships between gender role ideology and gender roles stress are expected
because of previous research documenting positive correlations between these two variables.
For the hypotheses that Religiosity-F would be positively significantly correlated with
Gender Role Stress and for the hypothesis that Religiosity-I/E would be positively significantly
"O!
!
correlated with Gender Role Stress, four separate multiple regression analyses will be done for
each of these relationships while controlling for age, for the groups of respondents who
identified as men and women and for the for the two religiosity variables. For the relationship
between Masculine Gender Role Stress and Religiosity-I/E, there will be a significant main
effect of Religiosity-I/E on Masculine Gender Role Stress, β = .XX, p < .05. This indicates that
for men, those who reported higher Gender Role Stress would be significantly more likely to also
report higher Religiosity-I/E. For the relationship between Masculine Gender Role Stress and
Religiosity-F, there will be a main effect of Religiosity-F on Masculine Gender Role Stress, β =
.XX, p < .05. This indicates that for men, those who reported higher Gender Role Stress would
be significantly more likely to also report higher fundamentalist religiosity. For the relationship
between Feminine Gender Role Stress and Religiosity-I/E, there will be a significant main effect
women, those who reported higher Gender Role Stress would also be significantly more likely to
also report higher Religiosity-I/E. For the relationship between Feminine Gender Role Stress and
Religiosity-F, there will be a main effect of Religiosity-F on Feminine Gender Role Stress, β =
.XX, p < .05. This indicates that for women, those who reported higher Gender Role Stress
would be significantly more likely to also report higher fundamentalist religiosity. Age will not
have any significant main effects on Masculine or Feminine Gender Role Stress.
In order to investigate Gender Role Ideology as a potential mediator of the relationship
expected between Religiosity (I/E or F) and Gender Role Stress, a Baron and Kenny mediation
test will be conducted (1986). Significant correlational relationships are expected between both
types of religiosity and both Masculine and Feminine Gender Role Stress. In addition, the
predictors of Religiosity-I/E and Religiosity-F and the potential mediators of Female and Male
IQ!
!
Gender Role Ideology will have significant relationships, as reported above. The mediators
Female and Male Gender Role Ideology also will have significant correlational relationships
with Feminine and Masculine Gender Role Stress, respectively. Therefore, to assess mediation of
the relationship between Religiosity-I/E and Feminine Gender Role Stress, a multiple regression
analysis will be run to test whether Female Gender Role Ideology mediated the relationship
between Religiosity-I/E and Feminine Gender Role Stress while controlling for age. Figure 1
will illustrate the relationships found, where the standardized regression coefficients between
Religiosity-I/E and Female Role Ideology and between Female Gender Role Ideology and
Feminine Gender Role Stress will be statistically significant. However, the standardized
regression coefficient for the main effect of Religiosity-I/E on Feminine Gender Role Stress will
no longer be significant in this model, although it will still be present, indicating that Female
Gender Role Ideology partially mediates this relationship.
To assess mediation of the relationship between Religiosity-F and Feminine Gender Role
Stress, another multiple regression analysis will be run to test whether Female Gender Role
Ideology mediates the relationship between Religiosity-F and Feminine Gender Role Stress,
while controlling for age. Figure 1 will illustrate the relationships found, where the standardized
regression coefficients between Religiosity-F and Female Role Ideology and between Female
Gender Role Ideology and Feminine Gender Role Stress will be statistically significant.
However, the standardized regression coefficient for the main effect of Religiosity-F on
present, indicating that Female Gender Role Ideology partially mediates this relationship.
IP!
!
To test the same hypotheses in the group of participants identifying as men, another
multiple regression analysis will be run to test whether Male Gender Role Ideology mediates the
relationship between Religiosity-I/E and Masculine Gender Role Stress. Figure 2 will illustrate
the relationships found, where the regression coefficients between Religiosity-I/E and Male Role
Ideology and between Male Gender Role Ideology and Masculine Gender Role Stress will be
statistically significant. However, the regression coefficient for the main effect of Religiosity-I/E
on Masculine Gender Role Stress will no longer be significant in this model, although it will still
be present, indicating that Male Gender Role Ideology partially mediates this relationship.
To assess mediation of the relationship between Religiosity-F and Masculine Gender
Role Stress, yet another multiple regression analysis will be run to test whether Female Gender
Role Ideology mediates the relationship between Religiosity-F and Masculine Gender Role
Stress, while controlling for age. Figure 1 will illustrate the relationships found, where the
standardized regression coefficients between Religiosity-F and Male Role Ideology and between
Male Gender Role Ideology and Masculine Gender Role Stress will be statistically significant.
However, the standardized regression coefficient for the main effect of Religiosity-F on
*+,-&"./0!0,6',%%51.!)1,DD5)5,.&%!D1'!&+,!',2(&51.%+54%!$,&;,,.!0,25651%5&<R>ST !(./!H,75.5.,!
-,./,'!012,!3&',%%!(./!$,&;,,.!0,25651%5&<RH!(./!H,75.5.,!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%=!;+5)+!(',!
4('&5(22<!7,/5(&,/!$<!H,7(2,!-,./,'!012,!>/,1216<!;+,.!)1.&'1225.6!D1'!(6,?!U!!1!V!?QK!
0,25651%5&<R
H!
H,75.5.,!
-,./,'!
012,!3&',%%!
H,7(2,!
-,./,'!
012,!
>/,1216<!
?::U!
?::U!
?::!
0,25651%5&<R
>ST!
H,75.5.,!
-,./,'!
012,!3&',%%!
H,7(2,!
-,./,'!
012,!
>/,1216<!
?::U!
?::U!
?::!
I"!
!
Masculine Gender Role Stress will no longer be significant in this model, although it will still be
present, indicating that Male Gender Role Ideology partially mediates this relationship.
The rationale for the findings of Gender Role Ideology as a mediator comes from the
theory that one’s religion would have an impact on the gender role beliefs that a person holds
and that those beliefs would affect the stress they experience as a result of their religion and
religiosity. The degree of endorsement of those beliefs about gender, in this case, Gender Role
Ideology, will determine the amount of stress that they would experience as a result of
internalized gender role norms. Other potential reasons for this expected relationship, including
the sanctification paradigm, are discussed below.
Discussion
Because of the relationships found between religiosity and gender role ideology, the
above findings suggest that religion either instills or attracts those with traditional gender role
beliefs. The Christian adults studied showed that their religiosity was related to their gender role
ideologies, but this could indicate either that their religiosity and ideologies follow a related
pattern of traditionalism or that one causes the other. Because of the ways that areas of Christian
*+,-&".20!0,6',%%51.!)1,DD5)5,.&%!D1'!&+,!',2(&51.%+54%!$,&;,,.!0,25651%5&<R>ST !(./!W(%)925.,!
-,./,'!012,!3&',%%!(./!$,&;,,.!0,25651%5&<RH!(./!W(%)925.,!-,./,'!012,!3&',%%=!;+5)+!(',!
4('&5(22<!7,/5(&,/!$<!W(2,!-,./,'!012,!>/,1216<!;+,.!)1.&'1225.6!D1'!(6,?!U!!1!V!?QK!
0,25651%5&<R
H!
W(%)925.,!
-,./,'!012,!
3&',%%!
W(2,!
-,./,'!
012,!
>/,1216<!
?::U!
?::U!
?::!
0,25651%5&<R
>ST!
W(%)925.,!
-,./,'!012,!
3&',%%!
W(2,!
-,./,'!
012,!
>/,1216<!
?::U!
?::U!
?::!
II!
!
culture in the United States socialize and uphold traditional gender roles, these findings make
sense (Miller & Hoffmann, 1995, Colaner & Warner, 2005). Future research into these
relationships needs to account for other potential confounding variables such as socioeconomic
status, as well as investigate the particular facets of religiosity that could be more related to these
ideologies than others. In this study, Internal and External Religiosity and Religious
Fundamentalism were explored as potential factors, but those overarching categories of
religiosity do not fully explain the particulars of these relationships. Research must be done to
examine which aspects of religiosity are more related to gender than others.
Although no conclusions could be made about the differences in religiosities or level of
Gender Role Ideology between participants who cited or quoted scripture and those who did not,
the fact that some participants did quote scripture (n = 24), indicates that there are relationships
between Christian texts and gender role beliefs. However, that single measure does not allow
conclusions about Christianity and gender role beliefs, since quoting Christian scriptures does
not definitively indicate a familiarity with the Bible or with Christianity, rather just a knowledge
of what is in the text. The underlying reasons for a person’s association between Christian
scripture and gender roles is unknown, but should be examined, as it could inform
understandings of the relationships found between religiosity and Gender Role Ideology and the
role of religion in the socialization process of gender roles.
The findings of Gender Role Ideology as a mediator between religiosity and Gender Role
Stress point to a possible relationship where religiosity acts as a proxy for a religion-based
personal belief system. Such a belief system could determine how individuals evaluate the self,
which could include beliefs about gender roles and stress resulting from self-evaluation. Personal
religious belief systems can influence behaviors and the perceived nature of those behaviors—as
IJ!
!
positive, negative, feminine, masculine, godly, or ungodly. It may be that the relationship
between religiosity and gender role stress stems from religious beliefs and behavioral standards
that result in distress when not met. The sanctification paradigm, which asserts that individuals
place a greater importance on and more effort into upholding roles that they view as having a
spiritual or divine significance, supports this explanation as well (Mahoney et al., 2005; Oates,
Hall, & Anderson, 2005). For individuals who view their lives and behaviors as having spiritual
significance, their gender roles included, they may put more effort into maintaining these
prescribed roles and experience more distress when they cannot maintain those roles. Research
has demonstrated that not meeting behavioral religious standards such as church attendance and
scripture reading is correlated with higher levels of psychological distress, which could be
similar for unmet gender standards related to religion (Mannheimer & Hill, 2015).
However, because this study was purely correlational, these conclusions about the
particular causes of these relationships cannot be determined. Additionally, these findings may
be flawed because they rely on self-report variables, which are biased and can be unreliable (Fan
et al, 2006). Further research in the form of measuring physiological responses as measures of
distress could add reliability to the findings on these relationships. Furthermore, more qualitative
research on individual understandings and cognitive negotiation of gender roles could lead to
understandings of how Gender Role Conflict and Stress are experienced by people.
Another limitation of this research is the construct of gender itself. Because of the
differing facets of male and female gender roles, the data from men and from women cannot be
compared. Additional research could develop gender-neutral scales to use to investigate the
differences between the genders in regards to Gender Role Stress. This study is dependent on the
gender binary and the existence of gender roles. As time goes on, the changing content of gender
IK!
!
roles will change these relationships and influence the nature of these relationships. For non-
binary identified individuals, these relationships between religiosity and gender role ideologies
and stress may not exist or may be more pronounced.
These findings of the relatedness of religiosity, Gender Role Ideologies, and Gender Role
Ideologies fit into the larger area of Gender Role Stress research. In particular, the findings of
Gender Role Stress in women extend the very limited body of research that extends the Gender
Role Stress paradigm to women as well as men. In regards to Christian communities that could
potentially influence or encourage traditional conceptions of gender roles, the relationship
between these religious-related gender roles and stress implores these communities to care for
the religious members of their communities that may be experiencing difficult emotions as a
result of these defined gender roles. Religion has been suggested as a cause for mental health
issues due to the restricted gender roles in dominant Judeo-Christian religions in the United
States (Bridges & Spilka, 1992). With further supporting research, these findings can contribute
to clinical applications for clients who are Christian or who may be experiencing excessive stress
as a result of the Christianity-related gender roles that they ascribe to. For clinical psychologists
who may need to address Gender Role Stress related issues, the religiosity of the client may be a
factor that they need to consider.
IL!
!
References
Allison, J. R. (1979). Roles and role conflict of women in infertile couples. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 4(1), 97-113. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1979.tb00701.x
Allport, G. W. & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5(1), 432-433.
Altemeyer, B. & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale: The short
and sweet of it. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 47-54.
Amato, F. J. (2012). The relationship of violence to gender role conflict and conformity to
masculine norms in a forensic sample. The Journal of Men's Studies, 20(3), 187-208.
doi:10.3149/jms.2003.187
Barnett, L. R. (1986). Bulimarexia as symptom of sex-role strain in professional
women. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 23(2), 311-315.
doi:10.1037/h0085615
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bartkowski, J.P. (1999). "One step forward, one step back: ‘Progressive traditionalism’ and the
negotiation of domestic labor within evangelical families." Gender Issues, 17(4), 40-64.
Bartkowski, J. P., & Hempel, L. M. (2009). Sex and gender traditionalism among conservative
Protestants: Does the difference make a difference?. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 48(4), 805-816. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01487.x
Beaglaoich, C. Ó., Sarma, K. M., & Morrison, T. G. (2013) New directions in gender role
conflict research. Masculinities in a Global Era, 4, 17-51.
IM!
!
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. doi:10.1037/h0036215
Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological
androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(2), 196-205.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological
Review, 88(4), 354-364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Bem, S. L., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological
androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 634-643.
doi:10.1037/h0077098
Bem, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex Typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 48-54. doi:10.1037/h0078640
Burn, S.M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 412-418.
Chusmir, L. H., & Koberg, C. S. (1988). Gender identity and sex role conflict among working
women and men. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 122(6), 567-
575. doi:10.1080/00223980.1988.9915531
Colaner, C. W., & Warner, S. C. (2005). The effect of egalitarian and complementarian gender
role attitudes on career aspirations in Evangelical female undergraduate college
students. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33(3), 224-229.
Colaner, C. W., & Giles, S. M. (2008). The baby blanket or the briefcase: The impact of
evangelical gender role ideologies on career and mothering aspirations of female
IN!
!
evangelical college students. Sex Roles, 58(7-8), 526-534. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9352-
8
Côté, J. E. (1986). Traditionalism and feminism: A typology of strategies used by university
women to manage career-family conflicts. Social Behavior and Personality, 14(2), 133-
143. doi:10.2224/sbp.1986.14.2.133
Coyle, E. F., Van Leer, E., Schroeder, K. M., & Fulcher, M. (2015). Planning to have it all:
Emerging adults’ expectations of future work-family conflict. Sex Roles, 72(11-12), 547-
557. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0492-y
Curtin, N., Ward, L. M., Merriwether, A., & Caruthers, A. (2011). Femininity ideology and
sexual health in young women: A focus on sexual knowledge, embodiment, and
agency. International Journal of Sexual Health, 23(1), 48-62.
doi:10.1080/19317611.2010.524694
Denton, M. L. (2004). Gender and marital decision making: Negotiating religious ideology and
practice. Social Forces, 82(3), 1151-1180.
Efthim, P. W., Kenny, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2001). Gender role stress in relation to shame,
guilt, and externalization. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79430-438.
Enns, C. Z. (2008). Toward a complexity paradigm for understanding gender role conflict. The
Counseling Psychologist, 36(3), 446-454. doi: 10.1177/0011000007310974
Fan, X., Miller, B. C., Park, K., Winward, B. W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., & Tai, R.
H. (2006). An exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent self-report
surveys. Field Methods, 18(3), 223-244. doi:10.1177/152822X06289161
IO!
!
Foss, L. L., & Warnke, M. A. (2003). Fundamentalist Protestant Christian women: Recognizing
cultural and gender influences on domestic violence. Counseling and Values, 48(1), 14-
23. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2003.tb00271.x
Francis, L. J. (2005). Gender role orientation and attitude toward Christianity: A study among
older men and women in the United Kingdom. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 33(3), 179-186.
Garnets, L., & Pleck, J. H. (1979). Sex role identity, androgyny and sex role transcendence: A
sex role strain analysis. Psychology of Women, 3(3), 270–283.
Gelfer, J. (2013). Meat and masculinity in men's ministries. The Journal of Men's Studies, 21(1),
78-91. doi:10.3149/jms.2101.78
Gerber, L. (2014). Grit, guts, and vanilla beans: Godly masculinity in the ex-gay movement.
Gender & Society, 29(1), 26-50.
Gillespie, B. L., & Eisler, R. M. (1992). Development of the feminine gender role stress scale: A
cognitive-behavioral measure of stress, appraisal, and coping for women. Behavior
Modification, 16(3), 426-438. doi:10.1177/01454455920163008
Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale development and
component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11(2),
123-136. doi:10.1177/01454455870112001
Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-role stress: Predictor of
anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 133-
141. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_12
JQ!
!
Fallon, M. A., & Jome, L. M. (2007). An exploration of gender-role expectations and conflict
among women rugby players. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(3), 311-321.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00374.x
Hayes, J. A., & Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Gender role conflict and psychological distress in male
counseling center clients. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1(2), 116-128. doi:
10.1037//1524-9220.1.2.H6
Impett, E. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2006). To be seen and not heard: Femininity
ideology and adolescent girls' sexual health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(2), 131-144.
doi:10.1007/s10508-005-9016-0
Jurkovic, D., & Walker, G. A. (2006). Examining masculine gender-role conflict and stress in
relation to religious orientation and spiritual well-being in Australian men. The Journal of
Men's Studies, 14(1), 27-46. doi:10.3149/jms.1401.27
Larsen, R. J., & Seidman, E. (1986). Gender schema theory and sex role inventories: Some
conceptual and psychometric considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50(1), 205-211. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.205
Levant, R. F. (1992). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Journal of Family
Psychology, 5(3-4), 379-402. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.379
Levant, R. F. (2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role
strain paradigm as a framework. American Psychologist, 66(8), 765-776.
doi:10.1037/a0025034
Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., & Rankin. T. J. (2012). Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form
(MRNI-SF): Development, confirmatory factor analytic investigation of structure, and
measurement invariance across gender. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 228-238.
JP!
!
Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., Weigold, I. K., & McCurdy, E. R. (2015). Construct distinctiveness
and variance composition of multi-dimensional instruments: Three short-form
masculinity measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 488-502.
doi:10.1037/cou0000092
Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Williams, C. M., Hasan, N. T., & Smalley, K. B. (2010). Evaluation
of the factor structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms
Inventory—Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(1), 25-37.
doi:10.1037/a0017637
Levant, R. F., Smalley, K. B., Aupont, M., House, A. T., Richmond, K., & Noronha, D. (2007).
Initial validation of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). The Journal of
Men’s Studies, 15(1), 83-100.
Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2016). The gender role strain paradigm and masculinity
ideologies. In Y. J. Wong, S. R. Wester, Y. J. Wong, S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook
of men and masculinities (pp. 23-49). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/14594-002
Levant, R., Richmond, K., Cook, S., House, A. T., & Aupont, M. (2007). The Femininity
Ideology Scale: Factor structure, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and
social contextual variation. Sex Roles, 57(5-6), 373-383. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9258-5
Liu, W. M. (2002). Exploring the lives of Asian American men: Racial identity, male role norms,
gender role conflict, and prejudicial attitudes. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3(2),
107-118. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.107
J"!
!
Liu, W. M., & Iwamoto, D. K. (2006). Asian American men's gender role conflict: The role of
Asian values, self-esteem, and psychological distress. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 7(3), 153-164. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.7.3.153
Liu, W. M., Rochlen, A., & Mohr, J. J. (2005). Real and ideal gender-role conflict: Exploring
psychological distress among men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(2), 137-148.
DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.6.2.137
Lutz-Zois, C. J., Moler, K. A., & Brown, M. J. (2015). Mechanisms for the relationship between
traditional masculine ideologies and rape myth acceptance among college men. Journal
of Agression, Maltreatment & Trauma 24(1), 84-101. DOI:
10.1080/10926771.2015.996311
Luyt, R. (2015) Beyond traditional understanding of gender measurement: the gender
(re)presentation approach. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(2), 207-226, doi:
10.1080/09589236.2013.824378
Lyócsa, I., Bašistová, A., & Lyócsa, S. (2013). Conformity to feminine norms and religiousness:
A study of helping professionals in Slovakia. British Journal of Social Work, 45(4),
1172-1189.
Mahalik, J. R., Cournoyer, R. J., DeFranc, W., Cherry, M., & Napolitano, J. M. (1998). Men's
gender role conflict and use of psychological defenses. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45(3), 247-255. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.45.3.247
Mahalik, J. R., & Lagan, H. D. (2001). Examining masculine gender role conflict and stress in
relation to religious orientation and spiritual well-being. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 2(1), 24-33. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.2.1.24
JI!
!
Mahoney, A., Carels, R. A., Pargament, K. I., Wachholtz, A., Edwards Leeper, L., Kaplar, M., &
Frutchey, R. (2005) The sanctification of the body and behavioral health patterns of
college students. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(3), 221-238.
doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1503_3
Maltby, J. (1999). The internal structure of a derived, revised, and amended measure of the
religious orientation scale: The Age Universal I-E Scale-12. Social Behaviour and
Personality, 27(1), 407-412.
Maltby, J. (2002). The Age Universal I-E Scale-12 and orientation toward religion: Confirmatory
factor analysis. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 136(5), 555-
560. doi:10.1080/00223980209605550
Maltby, J., & Lewis, C. A. (1996). Measuring intrinsic and extrinsic orientation toward religion:
Amendments for its use among religious and non-religious samples. Personality and
Individual Differences, 21(6), 937-946. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00154-7
Mannheimer, A. H., & Hill, T. D. (2015). Deviating from religious norms and the mental health
of conservative Protestants. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(5), 1826-1838.
doi:10.1007/s10943-014-9951-y
Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2004). Effects of masculine gender role stress on men's
cognitive, affective, physiological, and aggressive responses to intimate conflict
situations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(2), 132-142. doi:10.1037/1524-
9220.5.2.132
Oates, K. M., Hall, M. L., & Anderson, T. L. (2005). Calling and conflict: A qualitative
exploration of interrole conflict and the sanctification of work in Christian mothers in
academia. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33(3), 210-223.
JJ!
!
Oates, K. M., Hall, M. L., Anderson, T. L., & Willingham, M. M. (2008). Pursuing multiple
callings: The implications of balancing career and motherhood for women and the
church. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27(3), 227-237.
O'Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in
men's lives. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 60(4), 203-210. doi:10.1002/j.2164-
4918.1981.tb00282.x
O’Neil, J.M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the
gender role conflict scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications. The
Counseling Psychologist, 36(3), 358-445. doi: 10.1177/0011000008317057
O'Neil, J. M. (2015). Scale development and measurement in the Gender Role Conflict Research
Program. In Men's gender role conflict: Psychological costs, consequences, and an
agenda for change (pp. 79-93). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/14501-005
O’Neil, J. M., & Denke, R. (2016). An empirical review of gender role conflict research: New
conceptual models and research paradigms. In Y. J. Wong, S. R. Wester, Y. J. Wong, S.
R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 51-79). Washington, DC,
US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14594-003
O'Neil, J.M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender-role
conflict scale: College men's fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14(5), 335-350.
Peek, C. W., Lowe G. D., & Williams, S. (1991). Gender and God’s word: Another look at
religious fundamentalism and sexism. Social Forces, 69(4), 1205–21.
JK!
!
Pew Research Center, (2015). America’s Changing Religious Landscape. Retrieved from Pew
Research Center: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-
landscape/
Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant, W. S. Pollack,
R. F. Levant, W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11-32). New York, NY,
US: Basic Books.
Reidy, D. E., Berke, D. S., Gentile, B. & Zeichner, A. (2014). Man enough? Masculine
discrepancy stress and intimate partner violence. Personality and Individual Differences,
68, 160-164. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.021
Richmond, K., Levant, R., Smalley, B., & Cook, S. (2015). The Femininity Ideology Scale (FIS):
Dimensions and its relationship to anxiety and feminine gender role stress. Women &
Health, 55(3), 263-279. doi:10.1080/03630242.2014.996723
Rummell, C. M., & Levant, R. F. (2014). Masculine gender role discrepancy strain and self-
esteem. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(4), 419-426. doi:10.1037/a0035304
Shearer, C. L., Hosterman, S. J., Gillen, M. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2005). Are traditional gender
role attitudes associated with risky sexual behavior and condom-related beliefs?. Sex
Roles, 52(5-6), 311-324. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-2675-4
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624-635. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.64.4.624
Stillson, R. W., O'Neil, J. M., & Owen, S. V. (1991). Predictors of adult men's gender-role
conflict: Race, class, unemployment, age, instrumentality-expressiveness, and personal
JL!
!
strain. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(4), 458-464. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.38.4.458
Sumerau, J. E. (2012). “That’s what a man is supposed to do”: Compensatory manhood acts in
an LGBT Christian church. Gender & Society, 26(3), 461-487. doi:
10.1177/0891243212439748
Thompson, E. J., & Remmes, K. R. (2002). Does masculinity thwart being religious? An
examination of older men's religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 41(3), 521-532. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00135
Tolman, D. L., Impett, E. A., Tracy, A. J., & Michael, A. (2006). Looking good, sounding good:
Femininity ideology and adolescent girls' mental health. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30(1), 85-95. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00265.x
Uy, P. J., Massoth, N. A., & Gottdiener, W. H. (2014). Rethinking male drinking: Traditional
masculine ideologies, gender-role conflict, and drinking motives. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 15(2), 121-128. doi:10.1037/a0032239
Ward, A. Z., & Cook, S. W. (2011). The complex associations between conforming to masculine
norms and religiousness in men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 12(1), 42-54.
Wigderson, S., & Katz, J. (2015). Feminine ideology and sexual assault: Are more traditional
college women at greater risk?. Violence Against Women, 21(5), 616-631.
doi:10.1177/1077801215573333
Woo, M., & Oei, T. S. (2006). The MMPI-2 Gender-Masculine and Gender-Feminine scales:
Gender roles as predictors of psychological health in clinical patients. International
Journal of Psychology, 41(5), 413-422. doi:10.1080/00207590500412185
JM!
!
Zamarripa, M. X., Wampold, B. E., & Gregory, E. (2003). Male gender role conflict, depression,
and anxiety: Clarification and generalizability to women. Journal of Counseling
Psychology,50(3), 333-338. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.3.333
