Examining masculine gender-role conflict and stress in relation to religious orientation and spiritual well-being in australian men

21 Pages·0.573 MB·English

by  Jurkovic D., Walker G.A.

Examining Masculine Gender-Role Conflict
and Stress in Relation to Religious Orientation
and Spiritual Well-Being in Australian Men
DUBRAVKOJURKOVICandGORDONA. WALKER
Monash University, Australia
This study investigated the relationship between masculine gen-
der- role conflict and stress factors, on one hand, and religious ori-
entation and spiritual well-being, on the other, using a sample of
Australian men. Participants were separated into two groups based
on their self-reported level of religiousness. There were 73 partici-
pants in the religious group (who described themselves as “some-
what,” “very,” or “extremely religious”) and 70 participants in the
non-religious group (who identified themselves as “not-at-all” or
“not very religious”). All participants completed a personal infor-
mation sheet and four questionnaires: The Gender Role Conflict
Scale, The Gender Role Stress Scale, The Intrinsic-Extrinsic Reli-
gious Orientation Scale-Revised, and The Spiritual Well-Being
Scale. As predicted, the nonreligious men exhibited higher levels
of masculine gender-role conflict and stress than religious men.
Separate canonical correlation analyses for the two groups
revealed significant relationships between the measures assessing
masculine gender-role conflict and stress and those assessing reli-
giousness and spiritual well-being. Limitations and directions for
additional research on religion and psychological well-being of
men as well as implications for practice are discussed.
Keywords: masculine gender role conflict, stress, religious orien-
tation, spiritual well-being, Australian men
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gordon Walker, Department of Psychol-
ogy, School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and
Health Sciences, Monash University, 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, Melbourne, Australia 3145.
Electronic mail: [email protected].
The Journal of Men’s Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter 2006, 27-46.
© 2006 by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved.
27
JURKOVICandWALKER
E
ven though an overwhelming majority of Australians find churches unappealing
and irrelevant (new statistics confirm declining attendance at traditional churches),
according to the latest figures up to 75% of the Australian population claim to be
religious in some way (Australian Bureau of Statistic, 2001). Despite this fact, most
psychotherapists receive no formal training in the psychology of religion, and many
studies report that most psychotherapists either avoid the theme of religion or handle
it with insufficient skills, feeling uncomfortable and ill-equipped to deal with the
spiritual concerns of clients (Schreurs, 2002). In a religiously diverse society like
Australia, mental health professionals are likely to encounter many persons (appar-
ently three out of four) of different religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, for
reasons of intellectual integrity, psychology cannot afford to ignore or dismiss mil-
lennia of religious and philosophical thought about the very essence of human nature
and existence (Turbott, 1996).
According to Tacey (2000), rationality without spirituality leads to “dryness”
and a lack of meaning, a scenario reported by many depressed and suicidal Aus-
tralian men. Suicide is the greatest cause of unnatural death for men in Australia
(Biddulph, 1995). Recent surveys across 14 industrialised nations have found Aus-
tralia to be the leader in suicide rates among 15- to 24-year-olds and that the rate is
significantly higher for males in all age groups than for women (Mann, 1997). Since
the increase in suicides over the past 30 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000)
happened at the same time as a marked upheaval in men’s gender roles, some recent
literature suggests that the nature of the male role in society itself may be the cause
of the tendency for males toward suicide more often than females (Hassan, 1995;
Kidd, 2002). This line of reasoning (Hassan, 1995; Kidd, 2002; Tacey, 2000) has
great appeal and encourages closer examination of the relationship between gender-
role restrictions and pressures observable in the socialization process of men on one
hand and their religious orientation and spirituality on the other.
Since the topics of religiousness and spirituality are very broad and are dis-
cussed in detail elsewhere (see Argyle, 2000; Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi 1975;
Loewenthal, 2000; Schreurs, 2002; Spilka, Hood, & Gorsuch, 1985; Tacey, 2000;
Vaughan, 1991; Wulff, 1997), only certain aspects will be examined in this study—
namely the measurement of religiousness and spirituality.
The dominant paradigm for measuring religion has been the distinction between
extrinsic (E) versus intrinsic (I) religious orientation (Allport & Ross, 1967). Extrin-
sic religiousness is the religion of comfort and social convention, a self-serving
instrumental approach shaped to suit oneself, while intrinsic religiousness is religion
as a meaning-endowing framework in terms of which all life is understood (Allport
& Ross, 1967). The most widely used measure of spirituality is The Spiritual Well-
Being Scale(SWBS) (Ellison, 1983), which purports to assess two distinct dimen-
sions. The vertical dimension (or religious well-being) refers to a sense of
well-being in relation to God. The horizontal dimension (or existential well-being)
refers to a sense of life purpose and life satisfaction (Slater, Hall, & Edwards, 2001).
One of the most consistent findings in the sociology of religion is that women
tend to be more religious than men (Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi, 1975; deVaus &
McAllister, 1987; Francis & Wilcox, 1996; Paloma & Gallup, 1991). In comparison
to women, men generally avoid religious activities and neglect attending to their
28
EXAMININGMASCULINEGENDER-ROLECONFLICT
spiritual lives (Batson & Ventis, 1982). The explanations for that finding vary from
psychological theories (Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi, 1975; Suziedelis & Potvin, 1981)
to the structural location of women in society (de Vaus & McAllister, 1987).
Thompson (1991) challenged existing explanations, arguing that gender differences
in religiousness are due to the different gender-role socialization processes that men
and women experience. A body of research that suggests that male clergy tend to
reflect a feminine personality profile (Ekhardt & Goldsmith 1984; Francis, 1991;
Goldsmith & Ekhardt, 1984) and the findings of Francis and Wilcox (1996) that
both men and women who possess a feminine rather than a masculine outlook tend
to be more religious add further support to Thompson’s thesis. Following the work
of Erikson (1958, 1969), who argued that one needs the feminine mode to be able to
have a religious experience, Zock (1997) concluded that the feminine mode is the
basis of internalised religious experience and expression.
According to Mahalik and Lagan (2001), a more heuristic framework for
explaining men’s religiousness and spiritual well-being should incorporate a com-
prehensive understanding of the restrictive nature of the masculine socialization
process. Pleck (1981, 1985) argued that, when men internalise stereotyped societal
norms around male ideals (that are often contradictory, inconsistent, and unattain-
able), a gender-role strain arises. One type of gender-role strain is gender-role con-
flict (O’Neil, 1981; O’Neil, Good, & Holmes, 1995). More specifically, this
psychological state in men occurs when “rigid, sexist, or restrictive gender roles
learned during socialization result in personal restrictions, devaluation, or violation
of others or self” (O’Neil, 1990, p. 25). O’Neil theorized that traditional male role
socialization produces messages that are contradictory and unrealistic and lead to a
fear of femininity (O’Neil, 1981, 1982). In turn, men engage in gender-role conflict
patterns (that restrict their roles and behavior to stereotypically masculine ones)
because of a fear of being or appearing feminine.
Masculine gender-role stress (MGRS) refers to the cognitive appraisal of a spe-
cific situation as being stressful for men (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). MGRS is a the-
oretical construct that describes the stress experienced by men when they feel they
are not meeting culturally sanctioned masculine gender-role behavior or when the
situation forces men to act in stereotypically feminine ways (Eisler, 1995). The pres-
sure men tend to place on themselves reflects stressful experiences around (a) physi-
cal inadequacy, (b) emotional inexpressiveness, (c) subordination to women, (d)
intellectual inferiority, and (e) performance failure. In addition, under conditions of
accelerated modernization and women’s emancipation, one might argue that there is
a strong element of negativity in contemporary Australian culture about men, which
contributes to masculine gender stress (Hassan, 1995).
Accumulated evidence supports the view that the way men are traditionally
socialized to be masculine can have deleterious mental and physical health conse-
quences (Fragoso & Kashubeck, 2000). For example, gender-role conflict has been
shown to be related to men’s overall psychological distress (Good et al., 1995);
lower self-esteem and higher anxiety (Sharpe & Heppner, 1991); higher levels of
anger and substance use (Blazina, & Watkins, 1996); a higher level of depression
(Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995); and sexual aggression against women (Rando,
Rogers, & Brittan-Powel, 1998). Research on masculine gender-role stress shows
29
JURKOVICandWALKER
similar results in that gender-role stress has been reported to be associated with
problematic behaviors, negative emotions, anger, and hostility as well as elevated
blood pressure and high-risk health habits (Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988;
Watkins, Eisler, Carpenter, Schechtman, & Fisher, 1991). Social constructionists
also relate gender-role conflict and stress to a higher likelihood of men committing
suicide than women (Kid, 2002; Tacey, 2000). The line of reasoning in this
approach is that men’s “gender identity” is subsumed by an overall “dominant hege-
monic masculinity” and that it results in men’s being unable to seek help (Connell,
1996). More specifically, men do not usually talk about their problems to anyone out
of fear or embarrassment of being seen as weak (i.e., it would not be considered
manly). In addition, the relative loss of status experienced by men produces a social,
psychological, and economic climate that is conducive to an increase in men’s sui-
cide (Hassan, 1995).
In contrast, research reports a strong relationship between religiousness, spiritual
well-being variables, and positive mental and physical health. A large proportion of
the published empirical data suggests that religious commitment may play a benefi-
cial role in preventing mental and physical illness (Koenig, 1998). Individuals with
strong religious faith report higher levels of life satisfaction, greater personal happi-
ness, and fewer negative psychosocial consequences of traumatic life events (Ellison,
1991). Studies also indicate that a variety of religious practices (e.g., church atten-
dance, prayer) tends to be inversely associated with psychoactive substance use (Gor-
such, 1995). Several studies have shown that religion has the capacity to moderate
the effects of stress in coping with significant negative life events (Maton, 1989;
Pargament & Brant, 1998). Research also indicates that persons who are more reli-
gious experience less anxiety (Thorson, 1998) and less depression (Kennedy, 1998;
Koenig, 1998). Also, religious commitment may afford protection against one of the
most severe outcomes of depression: suicide (Gartner, Larson, & Allen, 1991).
Overall, following the evidence of the opposite effects of gender conflict/stress
and religiousness/spirituality on men’s health, it could be argued that masculine gen-
der-role conflict and stress factors would relate to less spiritual well-being. Using a
U.S. sample, Mahalik and Lagan (2001) examined masculine gender-role conflict
and stress in relation to religiousness and spiritual well-being. Because men are
socialized to avoid all things feminine (Levant & Pollack, 1998), and because the
feminine mode is the basis of internalised religious experience and expression (Zock,
1997), Mahalik and Lagan (2001) argued that “men do not internalise religiousness
or experience spiritual well-being to the extent that they constrain themselves from
activities that may be considered feminine” (p. 24). Specifically, men who experience
greater gender-role conflict and stress are likely to restrict themselves in terms of
developing intrinsically oriented religious behavior, values, and attitudes because of
fear of being or appearing feminine as well as the stress involved in participating in
“feminine” activities. The results of the study revealed a significant relationship
between the measures assessing gender-role conflict and stress and those assessing
religiousness and spiritual well-being (Mahalik & Lagan). Given the similarity
between the U.S. and Australian cultures, that insight could be also relevant in Aus-
tralia. However, in the United States, religion is much more a part of the dominant
culture than it is in Australia. By taking that difference into account, Mahalik and
30
EXAMININGMASCULINEGENDER-ROLECONFLICT
Lagan’s hypothesis may still have relevance in explaining some societal factors that
work against the psychological well-being of men in Australia.
Following the lead established by Mahalik and Lagan (2001), the present study
was undertaken to investigate the relationship between masculine gender-role con-
flict factors and stress, on one hand, and religious orientation and spiritual well-
being, on the other, using a sample of Australian men. Participants were asked to
identify their level of religiousness (ranging from “not at all” to “extremely reli-
gious”) as well as to fill out four questionnaires: the Gender Role Conflict Scale
(GRSC); the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale(MGRS); the Intrinsic-Extrinsic
Religious Orientation Scale—I/E-ROS Revised;and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale
(SWBS). Three hypotheses were examined.
First, it was hypothesised that nonreligious men would exhibit higher levels of
masculine gender-role conflict and stress than religious men. Second, it was pre-
dicted that masculine gender role conflict and stress factors would be related to less
intrinsic religiousness for men. Finally, it was also hypothesised that masculine gen-
der-role conflict and stress factors would be related to less spiritual well-being.
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The initial sample consisted of 147 volunteer males whose ages ranged from 18 to
83 years (M= 38.47, SD= 14.29). Four participants did not give an answer to more
than 30% of the questions and were removed from the study. For data analysis, par-
ticipants were separated into two groups: “religious” (committed to religion) and
“nonreligious” (not committed to religion), based on their self-reported level of reli-
giousness.
The religious group (with self-reported levels of religiousness: “somewhat,”
“very,” and “extremely religious”) consisted of 73 participants, who averaged 38.90
years of age (SD = 13.28). They reported their religion as Protestant (53.4%),
Catholic (23.3%), nondenominational (12.3%), and Orthodox (1.4%). Seven partici-
pants (9.6%) did not specify any religion.
The seventy (70) participants who were assigned to the nonreligious group
(with self-reported level of religiousness either “not at all” or “not very religious”)
averaged 36.73 years of age (SD= 15.29).
MATERIALS
A personal particulars sheet and four self-report questionnaires were used. The per-
sonal particulars sheet was used to obtain general information about participants
such as religion, level of religiousness, age, marital status, and country of birth.
Specifically, level of religiousness was assessed on a five-point scale (“not at all,”
“not very,” “somewhat,” “very.” and “extremely”).
The Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRSC) (O‘Neil, Helms, Gable, David, &
Wrightsman, 1986) was used to measure levels and patterns of gender-role conflict
in men. The GRCS provides an assessment of four factors: (a) success, power, and
31
JURKOVICandWALKER
competition (SPC); (b) restrictive emotionality (RE); (c) restrictive affectionate
behavior between men (RABBM); and (d) conflict between work and family rela-
tions (CBWF). It consists of 37 items that asked about participants’ reactions in
potential gender-role conflicts. Each item was scored on a 1-to-6 Likert scale
(“strongly disagree”= 1 to “strongly agree”= 6), and scores were obtained by sum-
ming across items for each of four factors. Higher scores indicate greater gender-role
conflict and fear of femininity.
O’Neil et al. (1986) reported internal consistency for the four factors (alphas
range from .75 to .85) and adequate test-retest reliabilities (ranging from .72 to .86).
Construct validity is supported by findings of positive relations with depression
(Good & Mintz, 1990), traditional male role norms, and psychological distress
(Good et al., 1995).
The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale(MGRSS) (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987)
consists of 40 items designed to assess men’s experience of stress associated with
cognitive, behavioral, and environmental events related to the male gender role.
Eisler and Skidmore found five factors reflecting experiences typically perceived as
more stressful by men than by women: (a) being in situations that require emotional
expressiveness, (b) feeling intellectually inferior, (c) feeling physically inadequate,
(d) experiencing performance failure, and e) being subordinate to women. The
respondents answer each item using a six-point Likert type scale ranging from “not
stressful” (0) to “extremely stressful” (5), in terms of its impact on them (as if they
were in the situation). Thus, higher scores indicate greater masculine role stress.
The coefficient alpha internal consistency of the MGRS is .90, while alpha coeffi-
cients range from .64 to .83 for the MGRS factors (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). Validity
is supported by findings of positive correlations between MGRS scores and measures
of Type-A behavior and hostility (Watkins et al., 1991) as well as by findings from
studies that report that men score significantly higher on the MGRS and the five
MGRS factors than do women (Eisler & Skidmore). Thus, the MGRS scale shows that
some stresses in men are gender specific, tap into negative aspects of commitment to
traditional masculine ideology, and are related to psychological distress.
To measure religious orientation, participants completed the revised Age Uni-
versal Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale (I/E ROS) (Gorsuch & Ven-
able, 1983; Maltby & Lewis, 1996). The I/E ROS can be used among both religious
and nonreligious samples and among all age groups (Maltby & Lewis, 1996). The
scale contains two separate subscales designed to measure two distinct religious ori-
entations: an intrinsic (I) and an extrinsic (E) orientation. Nineteen of the 20 items
are scored on the same three-point Likert continuum scale, with 1 indicating dis-
agreement, 2 indicating that the respondent is not sure, and 3 indicating agreement.
Item six (part of the I subscale), which measures the frequency of church attendance,
was dropped from the analysis because it did not seem appropriate to treat intrinsic
faith and participation in religious services together. It was found in previous studies
(e.g., Genia, 1993) that frequency of worship attendance as part of the I scale pre-
sents theoretical as well as methodological problems. Gorsuch (1984) argued that
the relationship between intrinsic commitment and frequency of worship attendance
should be established empirically rather than assumed a priori. The remaining eight
intrinsic and 11 extrinsic items were scored separately.
32
EXAMININGMASCULINEGENDER-ROLECONFLICT
Gorsuch and Venable (1983) reported internal consistency reliability of .66 for
the E subscale and .73 for the I subscale. Hood (1970) reported the test-retest relia-
bility of .93 for the total scale. Construct validity is supported by finding that intrin-
sicness correlated positively with measures of religious commitment (.76), while
extrinsicness remained uncorrelated (.03) (Hood, 1970). Also, it was found that
intrinsicness correlates positively with a sense of purpose in life (Crandall & Ras-
mussen, 1975), internal locus of control (Kahoe, 1974), and empathy (Watson,
Hood, Morris, & Hall, 1984). Negative correlations were found between intrinsic-
ness and depression (Genia & Shaw, 1991), trait anxiety (Baker & Gorsuch, 1982),
prejudice, and dogmatism (Donahue, 1985). Positive correlation was found between
high intrinsic orientation scores on the I/E–ROS and high spiritual well-being scores
on the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (Bassett et al., 1991; Ellison, 1983). It was also
found that religious people with intrinsically oriented faith are more psychologically
adjusted than those who are extrinsically oriented toward religion (Bergin, 1991;
Donahue, 1985).
The Spiritual Well-Being Scale(SWBS) (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982) is a gen-
eral measure of the subjective quality of life. The scale is nonsectarian and may be
used with people from a wide range of beliefs as well as with nonreligious people
(Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). It serves as a global psychological measure of one’s
perception of spiritual well-being. By design, the construction of the SWBS includes
both a religious and a social psychological dimension. The scale provides an “over-
all measure of the perceived spiritual quality of life, as understood in two senses—a
religious sense and an existential sense” (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982, p. 2). The reli-
gious dimension (religious well-being—RWB) focuses on how one perceives the
well-being of her or his spiritual life as this is expressed in relation to God. The
social psychological dimension (existential well-being—EWB) concerns how well
the person is adjusted to self, community, and surroundings. This component
involves the existential notions of life purpose and life satisfaction. Based on these
concepts, the SWB scale is a 20-item self-assessment instrument constructed of two
subscales, one that represents the RWB dimension and one that represents the EWB
dimension; each subscale contains 10 items. All of the RWB items contain the word
“God.” The EWB items contain no specifically religious language and instead ask
about such things as life purpose, satisfaction, and relations with the people and situ-
ations around us. In order to control for response set bias, approximately half of the
items are worded in a reverse direction so that disagreement with an item represents
higher well-being. Each item is rated on a six-point Likert scale with answer options
ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” and the items are scored from
one to six with a higher number representing more well-being.
Research reports strong test-retest reliability over a one-week period for the
RWB between .88 and .96, for the EWB between .73 and .98, and for total SWBS
between .82 and .99 (Ellison, 1983). The index of internal consistency ranges from
.82 to .94 (RWB), .78 to .86 (EWB), and .89 to .94 (SWB) (Bufford, Paloutzian, &
Ellison, 1991). The SWBS has good face validity as is evident by the content of the
items. The SWBS is correlated positively with sense of purpose in life, a positive
self-concept, emotional adjustment, and physical health (Bufford, Paloutzian, &
Ellison, 1983; Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982).
33
JURKOVICandWALKER
PROCEDURE
The Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans at Monash Uni-
versity approved this research study. Participants were recruited by several different
methods. For the religious group, the investigator passed out the questionnaires after
church meetings to those willing to participate or gave the questionnaires to clergy
to distribute to other church members. Participants in both groups were also selected
by a snowballing technique from everyday situations in which the investigator was
involved (workplace, sport activities, philosophy group, university).
Participation was voluntary. The only prerequisite for participation was that the
individual be a male 18 years or over. All participants received a package containing
a document explaining the nature of the study, the personal particulars sheet, four
questionnaires (the GRCS, the MGRS, the SWBS, and the I/E ROS), and a prepaid
reply envelope.
The participants completed questionnaires on their own time and either returned
them to the researcher directly or by mail. All participant responses were anony-
mous in an attempt to decrease the likelihood of socially desirable responses and to
increase the chance of honest replies. Scores on the GRCS, MGRS, SWBS and I/E
ROS subscales were calculated and together with the personal data were entered into
a data file for further statistical analyses.
RESULTS
Raw data were analysed using SPSS Version 11.0 for Windows. Frequencies and
descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the variables. Examination of the z-
scores revealed 13 univariate outliers. Cases found to be outliers were adjusted (up or
down) to the nearest score that was not an outlier so that they remained extreme cases
but not outside the distribution, as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). Skew-
ness and kurtosis were insignificant for all variables, and linearity between variables
was assessed by inspection of bivariate scatter plots. No within-set multivariate out-
liers were identified at the p< .001 criterion for Mahalanobis distance (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1996). Assumptions regarding within-set multicollinearity were met.
Reliability measures for each subscale employed were checked using Chron-
bach’s alpha, and all subscales showed acceptable internal reliability. Specifically,
alphas for factors of the GRCS were .90 for SPC, .88 for CBWF, .86 for RE, and .89
for RABBM. Alphas for factors on the MGRS were .73 for physical inadequacy, .74
for emotional inexpressiveness, .83 for subordination to women, .72 for intellectual
inferiority, and .82 for performance failure. Alphas for I/E ROS subscales were .90
for internal religious orientation (intrinsic) and .63 for external religious orientation
(extrinsic). The SWBS yielded alphas of .90 for the RWB and .86 for the EWB sub-
scale.
Means (M)and standard deviations (SD)of the predictor and criterion variables
for both groups of men (religious and nonreligious) were calculated. Table 1 shows
means and standard deviations for the religious and nonreligious groups on each of
the subscales.
34
EXAMININGMASCULINEGENDER-ROLECONFLICT
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Religious (N = 73) and Nonreligious (N = 70)
Groups on Each of the Subscales Employed
Religious Nonreligious
Variable M SD M SD
Gender Role Conflict Scale
• success, power, and competition 34.05 11.75 40.04 14.84
• restrictive emotionality 23.33 7.81 30.29 10.87
• restrictive affectionate behavior
between men 19.88 7.25 23.96 10.50
• conflict between work and family 18.42 7.57 20.90 8.61
Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale
• physical inadequacy 14.52 7.05 18.57 8.48
• emotional inexpressiveness 8.23 4.77 11.07 5.70
• subordination to women 5.26 3.89 7.51 6.52
• intellectual inferiority 8.75 5.03 10.73 6.01
• performance failure 19.77 7.36 24.56 5.74
Spiritual Well-Being Scale
• existential well-being 49.49 7.73 42.13 9.86
• religious well-being 49.53 10.24 22.20 10.97
Internal-External Religious Orientation Scale
• internal orientation 20.19 3.43 10.93 2.80
• external orientation 16.86 4.01 15.64 3.13
Table 1 shows that the means for all subscales of the GRCS and MGRSS were
higher for the nonreligious than for the religious group, while means for subscales of
the SWBS and I/E ROS were higher for the religious group.
To assess the difference between the religious and the nonreligious groups in
the levels of gender conflict and stress (hypothesis 1), two independent-measures t-
tests were conducted. Significant differences were found for the level of gender con-
flict, (t( ) = 3.67, p < .01), and for the level of masculine gender stress, (t( ) =
141 141
3.70, p < .01), with the nonreligious group showing significantly higher levels of
conflict and stress than the religious group.
Pearson’s product-moment correlations were used to examine the nature of the
relationships between the subscales employed for both groups. These are presented
in Table 2.
Table 2 indicates that significant positive relationships for the religious group
were between SPC and external religious orientation (r = .37, n = 73, p< .01) and
performance failure and external religious orientation (r = .31, n = 73, p< .01). Sig-
nificant negative relationships were found between SPC and internal religious orien-
tation (r = -.25, n = 73, p < .05), between performance failure and existential
well-being (r = -.29, n = 73, p< .05), and between performance failure and religious
well-being (r = -.34, n = 73, p< .01).
35
JURKOVICandWALKER
nal- 13 .37**.12.16.18.21 .23 .09.06.31** -.29-.48**-.49** = success,mily; PI =existential
Table 2Correlation Matrix for Gender-Role Conflict Factors, Gender-Role Stress Factors, Spiritual Well-Being Scales, and InterExternal Religious Orientation Scale Scores Variable1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 1. SPC.46**.41**.50**.49**.37**.32**.57**.56**-.23-.18-.25*2.RE .49** .63** .36** .38** .45** .34** .42** .36** -.21 -.08 -.02 3. RAM .56** .64** .32** .40** .53** .40** .47** .21 -.01 .06 .07 4.CBWF .64** .38 .51** .34**.25* .18 .48** .41**-.14 -.11 -.18 5.PI .55** .40** .41** .32** .57** .56* .66** .71**-.20 -.19 -.08 6.EI .39** .62** .54** .31** .72** .53** .65** .32**-.16 -.12 -.07 7.SW .56** .45** .47** .33** .75** .70** .57** .34**-.04 .04 .00 8.II .53** .51** .54** .40** .79** .78** .77** .54**-.18 .05 .09 9.PF .43** .27* .35** .31** .76** .61** .54** .70** -.29* -.34** -.21 10.EWB -.26* -.24* -.35**-.24* -.46** -.46**-.44**-.46** -.33** .66** .46**11.RWB .02 -.11 -.09 -.11 -.01 -.09 .12 -.03 -.12 .22 .79**12.IRO .03 -.09 -.10 -.02 -.09 -.13 -.05 -.04 -.23 .15 .39** 13.ERO .33 .22 .27* .32** .15 .19 .33** .24* .03 -.22 .36** .51** * p< .05, two tailed, ** p< .01, two tailedNote. Above the diagonal are correlations for the religious group (n= 73); below the diagonal are correlations for the nonreligious group (n= 70). SPC power, and competition; RE = restrictive emotionality; RAM = restrictive affectionate behavior between man; CBWF = conflict between work and faphysical inadequacy; EI = emotional inexpressiveness; SW = subordination of women; II = intellectual inferiority; PF = performance failure; EWB = well-being; RWB = religious well-being; IRO = internal religious orientation; ERO = external religious orientation.
36