Gender role conflict as a mediator between social sensitivity and depression in a sample of gay men.
(Beliefs, opinions and attitudes)
Gay men (Psychological aspects)
Gay men (Behavior)
Work and family (Psychological aspects)
Sex role (Analysis)
Depression, Mental (Demographic aspects)
Depression, Mental (Risk factors)
Depression, Mental (Social aspects)
Blashill, Aaron J.
Wal, Jillon S. Vander
|Publication:||Name: International Journal of Men's Health Publisher: Men's Studies Press Audience: Academic; Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2010 Men's Studies Press ISSN: 1532-6306|
|Issue:||Date: Spring, 2010 Source Volume: 9 Source Issue: 1|
|Topic:||Event Code: 290 Public affairs|
|Geographic:||Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States|
The current study examined the mediational impact of gender role
conflict on the relationship between social sensitivity and depression
in a sample of gay men. Participants' were 162 self-identified gay
men who responded to a collection of online questionnaires. Findings
revealed that the combined effect of the subscales from the Gender Role
Conflict Scale mediated the relationship between social sensitivity and
depression. Specifically, the subscales of Restrictive Emotionality and
Conflict Between Work and Family Relations were found to uniquely
mediate this relationship. Results suggest that concerns gay men have in
maintaining a masculine image may play an important role through which
social sensitivity acts on the prediction of depression.
Keywords: gender role conflict, social sensitivity, depression, gay men, mediation
Depression disproportionably affects gay men compared to heterosexual men (e.g., Cochran & Mays, 2000; Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; Sandfort, de Graaf, Bijl, & Schnabel, 2001). For example, in a national comorbidity survey, Gilman et al. (2001) reported 12-month prevalence rates of major depressive disorder for heterosexual men at 7.2%, compared to 10.3% for gay men. Similarly, in a longitudinal study that followed participants over 21 years, Fergusson, Horwood, and Beautrais (1999), reported lifetime prevalence rates of major depressive disorder at 71.4% for gay, lesbian, or bisexual participants, whereas heterosexual participants possessed a prevalence rate of 38.2%. These results indicate that gay men are an at-risk group for developing depressive disorders. Extant research (cf. Meyer, 2003) suggests that minority stress (e.g., stigma, prejudice, internalized homophobia, hiding/concealing one's identity, and expectations of rejection due to one's sexuality) plays a large role in higher rates of depression found in gay male populations; however, little research has focused on individual difference variables which may make some gay men more susceptible to experiencing depression than others.
In addition to disproportionate rates of depression, gay men are also at an increased risk for social anxiety disorder (SAD; Gilman et al., 2001; Sandfort et al., 2001). For example, Sandfort et al. (2001) reported 12-month and lifetime prevalence rates of SAD to be 3% and 5.5% in heterosexual men versus 7.3% and 14.6% in gay men respectively. Perhaps these figures are not surprising, considering that gay men often expect that they will be rejected by others (Meyer, 2003). As noted in cognitive-behavioral models, perceived negative evaluation is a core component of SAD (e.g., Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). However, fear of negative evaluation relates to the sense of fright with being critiqued unfavorably in social situations, whereas SAD is related to the emotional responses to these social situations (Weeks et al., 2005). Indeed, fear of negative evaluation and SAD have been found to be empirically distinct (Miller, 1995) yet related constructs (Weeks et al., 2005). Thus, fear of negative evaluation, or social sensitivity to which it is referred, is an important component of SAD that may clarify the paths by which SAD is associated with depression.
In a recent study, Pachankis and Goldfried (2006) compared gay and heterosexual men on several measures of social anxiety. Results from this study indicated that gay men reported higher levels of fear of negative evaluation and social interaction anxiety compared to heterosexual men. An interesting component of this study is that the authors included specific situations in which participants rated their expected levels of anxiety. Findings from these analyses revealed that seemingly innocuous situations for heterosexual men were rather anxiety provoking for gay men. For example, gay men indicated higher levels of expected anxiety in the following situations: undressing in a gym locker room, talking with men about sex with women, conversing with family members at Thanksgiving dinner, watching the Super Bowl with men, and donating blood. As discussed by Pachankis and Goldfried (2006), it is plausible that gay men responded negatively to these situations due to the possibility that their sexual orientation would be revealed and that this information would be perceived negatively. Indeed, additional analyses from Pachankis and Goldfried (2006) revealed that 75% of gay male participants reported changing their behaviors in social situations in hopes of concealing their sexual orientation. Participants reported using several strategies to conceal their identity, including avoidance of being seen with other gay men, monitoring the content of their speech, and attempting to appear more masculine. Given past research which has found that individuals tend to perceive feminine men as being gay (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Martin, 1990), it follows that gay men may attempt to alter their behavior to appear more masculine in attempts to conceal their sexual orientation. In sum, the findings from Pachankis and Goldfried (2006), in concert with past work, demonstrate that gay men are a particularly at-risk group for the development of SAD.
Social Anxiety and Depression
Gay men possess higher rates of both depression and SAD, which have a high comorbidy rate in the general population (e.g., 31.1%; Wittchen, Stein, & Kessler, 1999). Regarding causality, SAD is frequently found to precede the development of depression (e.g., Stein & Chavira, 1998; Stein et al., 2001). Although unique symptoms and phenomenology are associated with SAD and depression, it has been hypothesized that both disorders share a common psychological factor: low positive affect (Clark & Watson, 1991). Building upon this notion, Grant, Beck, Farrow, and Davila (2007) investigated the role of interpersonal features in the development of SAD and depression. In this prospective study, the authors examined avoidance of emotional expression, lack of assertion, and interpersonal dependency in the prediction of SAD and depression. Results indicated that SAD was associated with all three interpersonal attributes. Further, only one of the interpersonal attributes (i.e., avoidance of emotional expression) predicted depression longitudinally. The authors suggest that these findings indicate that individuals with SAD may develop depression through the mechanism of withholding expression of their emotions from those close to them.
Gender Role Conflict
The concept of avoidance of emotional expression is related to the construct of restrictive emotionality, which is a component of gender role conflict (O'Neil, 1981). Gender role conflict (GRC) is defined as: "A psychological state in which gender roles have negative consequences or impact on the individual or others" (O'Neil, 1990, p.25). In other words, GRC develops through the male socialization process, in which men are exposed to contrasting and inaccessible norms concerning appropriate behaviors to enact, which can then result in intrapersonal conflict (Sharpe & Heppner, 1991). Although GRC has been applied to females, this construct typically has been studied with males. Similarly, GRC was initially hypothesized to explain heterosexual men's gender role concerns; thus, application of this construct to gay men may be limited. However, despite this concern, Wester, Pionke, & Vogel (2005) conducted a confirmatory factor analyses of the Gender Role Conflict Scale with a sample of gay men, and results indicated that the original four-factor structure could be retained, suggesting that GRC is a valid construct among gay men. Furthermore, O'Neil (2008) indicated that GRC can result from numerous scenarios, including situations in which a male deviates from traditional masculine gender roles. Thus, GRC can be a result of overly adhering to restrictive traditional masculine roles, or failing to do so. O'Neil (1981) initially hypothesized that GRC was comprised of six patterns; however, through factor analytic techniques, four empirically derived patters of GRC were found (O'Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986). These four components of GRC are Restrictive Emotionality, Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men (i.e., Restrictive Affection), Success/Power/Competition (i.e., Success Concerns), and Conflict Between Work and Family Relations (Work Concerns).
Restrictive Emotionality is defined as reservation and fear regarding the expression of feelings, as well as a restriction in finding the words to accurately express emotions to others. Restrictive Affection is similar in that it describes a hesitation and concern with expressing emotions and thoughts with other men. The component of Success Concerns describes attitudes toward pursuing success through the means of competition and power. Finally, Work Concerns reflects stress, health problems, and overwork resulting from difficulty balancing work, time with family, and school (O'Neil, 2008).
Not all men experience similar levels of GRC; rather, men who have greater levels of social sensitivity may be more acutely concerned. In support of this hypothesis, Grant et al. (2007) revealed restriction of emotions, a component of GRC, to be a mediator in the relationship between SAD and depression among heterosexual men. Another study, conducted among prisoners of unknown sexual orientation, showed that aggressive, histrionic, dependent, and narcissistic personality traits were predictive of GRC (Schwartz, Buboltz, Seeman, & Flye, 2004). The extent to which SAD is predictive of GRC among gay men has yet to be investigated.
In addition, the deleterious impact of GRC on psychological well-being has been frequently reported (cf. O'Neil, 2008 for a review). Specifically, GRC has been linked to depression in numerous studies examining heterosexual (e.g., Good & Mintz, 1990; Magovecviv & Addis, 2005; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991; Shepard, 2002), and gay men (Blashill & Vander Wal, 2009; Simonsen, Blazina, & Watkins, 2000). Although much attention has focused on the outcomes of GRC, significantly fewer studies have examined the antecedents thereof. Therefore, a model of mediation is proposed in which social sensitivity predicts depression through the mechanisms of GRC.
The Current Study
Although a clear link between SAD and depression has been made in the general population, a gap in the literature exists in regard to the mechanisms through which SAD predicts depression in gay men. The current study aims at exploring possible mediators in the relationship between a core component of SAD--social sensitivity--and depression in a sample of gay men. GRC is frequently found to predict depression (in gay and heterosexual samples). Further, there is theoretical and empirical evidence to expect that characterological traits predict GRC. Thus, it is hypothesized that GRC will mediate the relationship between social sensitivity and depression in a sample of gay men.
Participants were 162 gay men (as determined by the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, described below in more detail) who were mostly Caucasian (n = 123,76%; Multiethnic n = 15, 9%; Hispanic/Latino n = 10, 6%; Asian/Asian American n = 10, 6%; African American/Black n = 3, 2%; and Middle Eastern/Persian n = 1, < 1%. Participants' average age was 32.26 years (SD = 13.01; range 18-75).
Gender Role Conflict. Each participant completed the Gender Role Conflict Scale, a measure of reactions to the gender role expectations men face in society (O'Neil et al., 1986). On this measure, participants rated their agreement with items on a 6-point scale, with responses ranging from 1 "strongly agree" to 6 "strongly disagree." The Gender Role Conflict Scale consists of 37 items that comprise four subscales: Success/Power/Competition (i.e., Success Concerns); Restrictive Emotionality; Restrictive Affectionate Behavior between Men (i.e., Restrictive Affection); and Conflict between Work and Family Relations (i.e., Work Concerns). In addition, internal consistency for the GRCS ranges from .78 to .88 (Good & Mintz, 1990). In a study utilizing a sample of gay men, the authors found alpha coefficients that ranged from .80 (Restrictive Affection) to .91 (Work Concern; Weste et al., 2005). For the current sample, the following alpha coefficients were found: Work Concerns ([alpha] = .85); Restrictive Affection ([alpha] = .79); Restrictive Emotionality ([alpha] = .90); Success Concerns ([alpha] = .88); and Gender Role Conflict Scale Total ([alpha] = .92).
Social Sensitivity. Each participant completed the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale (BFNE; Leary, 1983). The BFNE is a 12-item self-report instrument which measures concerns about receiving criticism and disapproval from others. Participants responded to items via a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 "Not at all characteristic of me" to 5 "Extremely characteristic of me." Leary (1983) found an alpha coefficient of .90. Similarly, Pachankis, Goldfried, and Ramrattan (2008) found an alpha coefficient of .90 in a sample of gay men. For the current sample, [alpha] = .92.
Depression. Each participant completed The Center for Epidemiological Study--Depression Scale (CESD; Radoff, 1977), a 20-item measure of depressed mood. Responses are coded on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 "Rarely or none of the time" to 4 "Most or all of the time" over the previous 2 weeks. In the general population, the CESD has good internal consistency ([alpha] = .90). For the current sample, [alpha] = .94.
Demographics. Participants completed a brief demographic form on which they indicated their sex, ethnicity, and age. Additionally, participants indicated their sexual orientation by responding to an adaptation of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985). For the purpose of this study, only the variable of Present Self-Identification was used. Participants rated their present self-identification (with respect to sexual orientation) on a 7-point scale, ranging from 0 "heterosexual only" to 6 "homosexual only." Participants were included in the analyses if they scored a 6 (i.e., "homosexual only").
Descriptions of the study were posted on various gay-related Internet-based discussion boards and listserves (cf. Blashill & Vander Wal, 2009 for more details). After reading the recruitment statement (which was located on the first page of the web page), participants advanced to the survey if they wished to participate. The authors' Institutional Review Board approved this study.
A total of 297 respondents logged onto the Internet address where the survey was located. Of those respondents, 135 (45%) were eliminated: 76 (26%) because they indicated their sexual orientation was not exclusively gay; 58 (20%) because they did not complete the entire survey; and 1 (<1%) because the respondent indicated sex as "other." The remaining 162 participants indicated they were gay men and completed all sections of the survey.
Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the study sample and to ensure that the variables met the assumptions of multivariate statistical techniques (see Table 1). To determine if demographic variables were significantly associated with study outcomes, correlational analyses were conducted. Correlations among study measures are also presented in Table 1. Simultaneous multiple mediation (SMM) was conducted according to the bootstrapping strategy recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). SMM allows one to determine not only whether an individual variable meets criteria for mediation conditionally on the presence of other variables in the model, but also whether the combination of two or more variables meets criteria for mediation. One can also determine the relative magnitude of the indirect effects, in essence, comparing mediator variables' unique ability to mediate, above and beyond other mediators in the model (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Bootstrapping is a non-parametric statistical approach in which cases from the original data set are randomly re-sampled with replacement, to re-estimate the sampling distribution. Bootstrapping is generally preferred over traditional methods of studying mediation (i.e., the Causal Steps Approach and the Product-of-Coefficients Approach; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In the widely known Causal Steps Approach (Baron & Kenny, 1986), multiple regression analyses are conducted, testing the various paths of the mediational model; however, this approach does not directly test the indirect effect. Rather, determination of mediation is based on the presence of a significant total effect, and a drop, or non-significance in the direct effect. Additionally, this approach requires unnecessary power to conduct separate tests on the paths to and from the mediator (Lundgren, Dahl, & Hayes, 2008). The Product-of-Coefficients Approach (Sobel, 1982) directly tests the indirect effect. Although this approach more directly tests the existence of mediation, with one simple comparison, assumptions of the test (i.e., normal distribution) are rarely met for small to moderate sample sizes (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Thus, preference is given to bootstrapping when conducting mediation with samples sizes that are small to moderate, because assumptions of normality are not required.
Demographic variables were examined to determine if they significantly covaried with the outcome measure. Results from these correlational analyses revealed that the only demographic characteristic which was significantly correlated to depression was age (r = -.24, p < .01), suggesting that younger gay men endorsed higher levels of depression compared to older gay men. Because age significantly correlated with depression, it was controlled in the mediational analyses.
Next, non-parametric bootstrapping procedures were conducted to determine the influence that the components of GRC had on the relationship between social sensitivity and depression. If the combination of all four components of GRC mediated the relationship between social sensitivity and depression, zero would not be contained between the upper and lower bias corrected confidence intervals. Results indicated that the total indirect effect, in addition to the specific indirect effects of Restrictive Emotionality and Work Concerns, mediated the relationship between social sensitivity and depression (see Table 2). Additionally, contrasts between the components of GRC were conducted to assess the relative uniqueness of one mediating variable compared to another. Results revealed that the indirect effects of Restrictive Emotionality, Restrictive Affection, and Work Concerns' were stronger than that of Success Concerns. However, no significant differences were found between the indirect effects of Restrictive Emotionality, Restrictive Affection, or Work Concerns, suggesting their indirect effects could not be distinguished in terms of magnitudes (see Table 3).
The aim of the current study was to investigate the mediational impact of gender role conflict on the relationship between social sensitivity and depression in a sample of gay men. Although associations between social sensitivity and depression are commonly found (e.g., Stein & Chavira, 1998; Stein et al., 2001), this relationship has yet to be investigated in a sample of gay men. Additionally, the current study explored the impact of gender role conflict as a proposed mediator in this relationship. Results from the simultaneous multiple mediation analyses revealed that the combined effects of the components of GRC mediated the relationship between social sensitivity and depression. Furthermore, two elements of GRC proved to be unique mediators in this relationship (i.e., Restrictive Emotionality and Work Concerns).
Preliminary results indicated that younger gay men endorsed higher levels of depression than older gay men. In general, younger age is not related to higher rates of depression compared to older age; however, Kessler et al. (2003) found that the relationship between prevalence of depression and age is markedly different for individuals in the 18-29 year old versus older cohorts. Additionally, Kessler, Berglund, Delmer, Jin, and Waiters (2005) found that the 18-29 year old cohort has a higher projected lifetime risk of depression. In other words, young people today may be at a greater risk for depression than previous cohorts.
Although there is a lack of empirical data on the topic of age and depression in gay men, theoretically perhaps this finding is not surprising. Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, and Stiratt (in press) suggested that older gay men have had more time to establish social networks, and become connected with gay communities, compared to younger gay men. Although Ketzner et al. (in press) tailed to find a significant difference between these groups on a measure of depression, they did reveal that younger gay men reported less social well-being than older gay men.
The component of Success Concerns and Restricted Affection failed to significantly mediate the relationship between social sensitivity and depression. It should be noted that Success Concerns measures masculine ideology/norms (via personal attitudes about obtaining success through the use of competition and power), rather than gender role restrictions (O'Neil, 2008). Thus, Success Concerns does not directly assess gender role restrictions as the remaining GRCS scales do. Given this, perhaps it is not surprising that Success Concerns failed to mediate the relationship between social sensitivity and depression, as it is a measure of attitudes about success, not an indicator of a man's conflict between his gender role orientation and situational demands.
Perhaps it is also not surprising that Restricted Affection failed to significantly mediate the relationship. Restricted Affection describes concerns men have regarding the expression of affection with other men--both verbally and behaviorally. Thus, given that gay men in general are attracted to other men, it should be expected that this subscale may not be as salient in the lives of gay men as it is to heterosexual men. Indeed, this conjecture is supported by empirical findings (O'Neil, 2008).
Social sensitivity was found to predict depression through the mechanisms of Restrictive Emotionality and Work Concerns. Men who are more concerned with the possibility of being negatively evaluated by others may be apprehensive about displaying emotions for the fear of being labeled feminine or gay (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Martin, 1990). This distress may be related to symptoms of depression associated with the loss of opportunities to connect emotionally with others (Shepard, 2002).
Results from the current study are consistent with the findings of Grant et al. (2007), who also found SAD to predict the development of depression through the mechanism of restriction of emotional expression. Although the sample characteristics of the current study and Grant et al. (2007) differed dramatically (that is, the current study comprised of self-identified gay men recruited from the internet, whereas Grant et al. (2007) sampled undergraduate men and women whose sexual orientation was unknown), similar results were found. For example, in both studies the relationship between components of social anxiety and depression was mediated by restriction of one's emotions. In tandem, these studies shed light on the importance of emotional unexpressiveness as a mediator in the relationship between SAD and depression in both gay and heterosexual samples.
Restrictive Emotionality may operate in the mediational model as a means in which gay men seek to conceal their sexual orientation, out of fears that revealing this information may lead to negative evaluations. In his recent comprehensive cognitive-affective-behavioral model, Pachankis (2007) outlines cognitive, affective and behavioral implications of concealing a hidden stigma. Cognitively, concealment may lead to preoccupation of thoughts related to the hidden stigma. Because an individual has great incentives in keeping the "secret" from others, it may often be on the stigmatized individual's mind. Even use of attempts to refrain from thinking about the concealed stigma may prove unsuccessful, given that thought suppression often leads to thought intrusions (Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987).
Concealment of a hidden stigma may also relate directly and indirectly to affective problems. For example, negative cognitions, such as preoccupation with a particular set of thoughts (i.e., rumination regarding the possibility of the stigma being discovered) can lead to negative affective states, such as depression and anxiety (e.g., Beck, 1976). This relationship is not a one-way association; rather it is bi-directional, with increased negative thoughts leading to negative emotions, and vice versa. Thus, a vicious circle may be created in which cognitive intrusions regarding appropriate emotions to display create depressed mood, and this increase in negative affect reinforces ruminations regarding threat of discovery.
Work Concerns also mediated the relationship between social sensitivity and depression. Perhaps this finding can be viewed within the context of attempts to achieve high "performance" both at home and at work. Again, as noted above, a general predisposition for fearing negative evaluations may influence concerns about specific areas of one's life. In regard to the current study, gay men who generally fear being critiqued by others may develop specific concerns regarding their ability to avoid negative evaluations from supervisors as well as loved ones. The Work Concerns subscale measures conflict a man has regarding his work and family (or leisure) roles. Thus, perhaps socially sensitive gay men have specific concerns regarding their ability to achieve balance between performance at work and spending time with their loved ones. Therefore, a man may find himself in a situation in which he fears displeasing both his family and work; thus, conflict is created in which a man is torn between attempts to please both parties. This concern about pleasing two important entities in one's life may become rather stressful, and may then predispose a man to the development of depressive symptoms (Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris, & Makikangas, 2003).
Despite the contributions of the current study, several limitations should be noted. The ethnic composition of the sample was largely Caucasian, thus, generalizations to ethnic minority gay men should be made with caution; however, recent research suggests that gay men do not differ in their endorsement of depressive symptoms as a function of ethnicity (Kertzner et al., in press). Additionally, although social sensitivity is a core component of SAD, it is not a proxy for the actual diagnosis thereof. Thus, future research may wish to measure SAD more comprehensively than assessing one component of the disorder. The current study also assessed men via the internet, thus, results may not generalize to gay men who lack internet access. Further, the cross-sectional design of the current study precludes inferences made regarding causality. Perhaps future research could circumvent this issue by implementing a longitudinal design to assess the causality of SAD on depression through the mechanisms of GRC.
Clinically, the results of the current study may lead some to believe that gay men who struggle with issues related to perceptions of femininity and threats to their sexuality should be encouraged to disclose their hidden stigma, in hopes of alleviating the initial concern regarding fear of being critiqued for being feminine and/or gay. However, as noted by Pachankis and Goldfried (2006), this may not always be a wise approach. In some scenarios, it may be functional for a gay man to "hide" his femininity, or sexual orientation (e.g., Kelly & McKillop, 1996) in an effort to avoid possible physical and/or verbal harm (e.g., D'Augelli, Pilkington & Hershberger, 2002). However, the results of the current study indicate that gay men's fear of negative evaluations predicts depression through the mechanisms of GRC. Thus, clinicians working with gay men should pay particular attention to the possibility of internalized traditional gender role norms and the struggle that may result from the conflict among one's own values, pressures from society to behave in ways consistent with traditional masculine gender roles, and the fear created by the prospect of violating these expectations.
In conclusion, the current study assessed the mediational impact GRC has on the relationship between social sensitivity and depression in a sample of gay men. Results indicated that global GRC, as well as restricting oneself from expressing emotions and difficulty in balancing work and family demands, were unique mediators in the relationship between social sensitivity and depression. The results suggest that gay men may expend excessive amounts of energy in attempts to appear masculine and/or heterosexual in certain social situations. This act of concealment of one's true self has cognitive, affective, and behavioral implications, and may be associated with depression.
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, 1173-1182.
Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.
Blashill, A.J., & Powlishta, K.K. (2009). The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 160-173.
Blashill, A.J., & Vander Wal, J.S. (2009). Mediation of gender role conflict and eating pathology in gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 204-217.
Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316-336.
Cochran, S.D., & Mays, V.M. (2000). Relation between psychiatric syndromes and behaviorally defined sexual orientation in a sample of the US population. American Journal of Epidemiology, 151(5), 16-23.
Cochran, S.D., Sullivan, J.G., & Mays, V.M. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 53-61.
D'Augelli, A.R., Pilkington, N.W., & Hershberger, S.L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148-167.
Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., & Beautrais, A.L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 876-880.
Gilman, S. E., Cochran, S.D., Mays, V.M., Hughes, M., Ostrow, D., & Kessler, R.C. (2001). Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 933-939.
Good, G.E., & Mintz, L.B. (1990). Gender role conflict and depression in college men: Evidence for compounded risk. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 17-20.
Grant, D.M., Beck, G., Farrow, S.M., & Davila, J. (2007). Do interpersonal features of social anxiety influence the development of depressive symptoms? Cognition and Emotion, 21, 646-663.
Kelly, A.E., & McKillop, K.J. (1996). Consequences of revealing personal secrets. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 450-465.
Kertzner, R.M., Meyer, I.H., Frost, D.M., & Stirratt, M.J. (in press). Social and psychological well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: The effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P.A., Demler, O., Jin, R., & Waiters, E.E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Archives of General Psychiatry. 62, 593-602.
Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Koretz, D., Merikangas, et al. (2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 3095-105.
Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J., & Makikangas, A. (2003). Work-family conflict and its relations to well-being: The role of personality as a moderating factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1669-1683.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T.J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35-49.
Leafy, M.R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371-375.
Lundgren, T., Dahl, J., & Hayes, S.C. (2008). Evaluation of mediators of change in the treatment of epilepsy with acceptance and commitment therapy. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 225-235.
Magovecviv, M., & Addis, M.E. (2005). Linking gender role conflict to nonnormative and self-stigmatizing perceptions of alcohol abuse and depression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 127-136.
Martin, C.L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151-165.
Meyer, I.H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697.
Miller, R.S. (1995). On the nature of embarrassability: Shyness, social evaluation, and social skill. Journal of Personality, 63, 315-339.
O'Neil, J.M. (1981). Male sex role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Psychological implications for men, women, and the counseling profession. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 61-80.
O'Neil, J.M. (1990). Assessing men's gender role conflict. In D. Moore & F. Leafgren (Eds.), Problem solving strategies and interventions for men in conflict (pp. 23-38). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.
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, 358-445.
O'Neil, J.M., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. (1986). Gender role conflict scale: College men's fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-350.
Pachankis, J.E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328-345.
Pachankis, J.E., & Goldfried, M.R. (2006). Social anxiety in young gay men. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 996-1015.
Pachankis, J.E., Goldfried, M.R., & Ramrattan, M.E. (2008). Extension of the rejection sensitivity construct to the interpersonal functioning of gay men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 306-317.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
Radoff, R.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Rapee, R.M., & Heimberg, R.G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741-756.
Sandfort, T.G.M., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R.V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study (NEMESIS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 85-91.
Schwartz, J.P., Buboltz, W., Seeman, E.A., & Flye, A. (2004). Personality styles: Predictors of masculine gender role conflict in male prison inmates. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 59-64.
Sharpe, M.J., & Heppner, P.P. (1991). Gender role, gender-role conflict, and psychological well-being in men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 323-330.
Shepard, D.S. (2002). A negative state of mind: Patterns of depressive symptoms among men with high gender role conflict. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 3-8.
Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
Simonsen, G., Blazina, C., & Watkins, C.E. (2000). Gender role conflict and psychological well-being among gay men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 85-89.
Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stein, M.B., & Chavira, D.A. (1998). Subtypes of social phobia and comorbidity with depression and other anxiety disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 50, S11-S16.
Stein, M.B., Fuetsch, M., Muller, N., Hofler, M., Lieb, R., & Wittchen, H.U. (2001). Social anxiety disorder and the risk of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 251-256.
Weeks, J .W., Heimberg, R.G., Fresco, D.M., Hart, T.A., Turk, C.L., et al. (2005). Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale in patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Assessment, 17, 179-190.
Wegner, D.M., Schneider, D.J., Carter, S.R., & White, T.L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5-13.
Wester, S. R., Pionke, D. R., & Vogel, D. L. (2005). Male gender role conflict, gay men, and same-sex romantic relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 195-208.
Wittchen, H.-U., Stein, M.B., & Kessler, R.C. (1999). Social fears and social phobia in a community sample of adolescents and young adults. Psychological Medicine, 29, 309-323.
Aaron J. Blashill (a) and Jillon S. Vander Wal (a)
(a) Saint Louis University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Aaron J. Blashill, Shannon Hall 210, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63103. Email: email@example.com
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Variables M SD 1 2 1. Restrictive Emotionality 2.80 1.13 2. Restrictive Affection 2.32 0.88 .73 ** 3. Work Concern 3.55 1.21 .27 ** .15 4. Success Concern 3.53 0.94 .34 ** .20 * 5. Social Sensitivity 21.57 8.05 .41 ** .39 ** 6. Negative Affect 16.70 11.24 .48 ** .46 ** 3 4 5 1. Restrictive Emotionality 2. Restrictive Affection 3. Work Concern 4. Success Concern .45 ** 5. Social Sensitivity .23 ** .36 ** 6. Negative Affect .25 ** .18 ** .50 ** Note. * p<.05; ** p<.01 Restrictive Affection = Restrictive Affectionate Behavior between Men; Work Concern = Conflict between Work and Family Relations; Success Concern = Success/Power/Competition; Social Sensitivity = the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale; Negative Affect = Center for the Epidemiological Study--Depression scale. Table 2 Total and Unique Indirect Effects of the Gender Role Conflict Subscales Point Lower 95% Upper 95% Indirect Effect Estimate BC CI BC CI Total .1761 .0692 .2978 Restrictive Affection .0758 -.0050 .1880 Restrictive Emotionality .1124 .0064 .2550 Success Concerns -.0480 -.1368 .0064 Work Concerns .0358 .0008 .1180 Note. Restrictive Affection = Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men; Success Concerns = Success/Power/Competition; Work Concerns = Conflict Between Work and Family Relations; BC CI = Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals. BC CIs containing zero are interpreted as non-significant. Table 3 Contrasts between the Unique Indirect Effects of the Gender Role Conflict Subscales Point Lower 95% Upper 95% Contrast Estimate BC CI BC CI 1 -.0366 -.2357 .1489 2 .1237 .0238 .2457 3 .0400 -.0652 .1590 4 .1604 .0218 .3372 5 .0766 -.0725 .2306 6 -.0838 -.2076 -.0073 Note. 1 = Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men vs. Restrictive Emotionality; 2 = Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men vs. Success-Power-Competition; 3 = Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men vs. Conflict Between Work and Family Relations; 4 = Restrictive Emotionality vs. Success-Power-Competition; 5 = Restrictive Emotionality vs. Conflict Between Work and Family Relations; 6 = Success-Power-Competition vs. Conflict Between Work and Family Relations. BC CIs containing zero are interpreted as non-significant.
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|