See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232593659

Development and evaluation of the Gender Role Conflict Scale

Short Form (GRCS-SF)

Article  in  Psychology of Men & Masculinity · April 2012

DOI: 10.1037/a0025550

CITATIONS READS

49 6,058

4 authors, including:

Stephen R. Wester David L Vogel

University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Iowa State University
45 PUBLICATIONS   2,292 CITATIONS    129 PUBLICATIONS   7,593 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Interventions to Promote Adaptive Help-Seeking View project

Psychological Help-Seeking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David L Vogel on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2011 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 13, No. 2, 199 –210 1524-9220/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025550

Development and Evaluation of the Gender Role Conflict Scale

Short Form (GRCS-SF)

Stephen R. Wester David L. Vogel

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Iowa State University

James M. O’Neil Lindsay Danforth

University of Connecticut University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Within the literature on the psychology of men, the gender role conflict (GRC)
paradigm has been one of the most productive research programs explaining the impact
of restrictive gender roles in men’s lives. Despite recent efforts aimed at understanding
GRC from a multicultural perspective, few studies have examined the factor structure
of the primary measure of GRC, the Gender Role Conflict scale (GRCS), using diverse
samples of men. That was one goal of this research; the second is the development of
a short form of the GRCS, the GRCS-SF, designed to address concerns about item
content of the GRCS. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the four-factor model of
the GRC construct, both as experienced by men of color as well as replicated within the
GRCS-SF. Items used in the GRCS-SF reflect greater conflict, increased situational
focus, and potential clinical use. The meaning of these findings, as well as their
implications for therapy with men, is discussed.

Keywords: Gender Role Conflict, short form, validation, factor analyses

In 1996, Professional Psychology: Re-
search and Practice published a paper entitled
“The New Psychology of Men” in which Ron-
ald Levant outlined an emerging area of the-
ory, research, and practice devoted to under-
standing how the socially defined construct of
masculinity impacts men, women, and society
at large (Levant, 1996). One of the burgeon-
ing areas of research within this extant liter-
This article was published Online First September 26, 2011.
Stephen R. Wester and Lindsay Danforth, Department of
Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee; David L. Vogel, Department of Psychology,
Iowa State University; James M. O’Neil, Department of
Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut.
The Gender Role Conflict Research Program is now
summarized online in 24 informational files for researchers’
use. The Web site address is: http//web.uconn.edu/joneil/.
Individuals seeking to use this scale in their work should
contact Dr. James M. O’Neil, Department of Educational
Psychology, University of Connecticut. E-mail: james
.o’neil@uconn.edu
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Dr. Stephen R. Wester, Department of Educa-
tional Psychology, 753 Enderis Hall, University of Wiscon-
sin–Milwaukee, 2400 East Hartford Avenue, Milwaukee,
WI 53201. E-mail: srwester@uwm.edu
199
ature is the construct of gender role conflict
(GRC; e.g., O’Neil, 2008). GRC is a condi-
tion in which rigid or overly restrictive male
gender roles conflict with incompatible situ-
ational demands and lead to negative conse-
quences for men and those around them (see
O’Neil, Good, & Holmes, 1995, for review).
Four overall patterns of male GRC have been
identified (O’Neil et al., 1995), each repre-
senting a unique aspect of the socialized tra-
ditional male role deemed to lead to conflict
for men. The first pattern—success, power,
and competition (SPC)— examines the degree
to which men are socialized to focus on per-
sonal achievement through competitive ef-
forts. The second pattern, restricted emotion-
ality (RE), discusses the degree to which men
are taught to avoid verbally expressing their
feelings so as to avoid appearing weak and
vulnerable. The third pattern, restricted affec-
tionate behavior between men (RABBM), ex-
plores how men are socialized to have diffi-
culties expressing their care and concern for
other men. Finally, the fourth pattern, conflict
between work and family relationships
(CBWFR), discusses the degree to which men
200 WESTER, VOGEL, O’NEIL, AND DANFORTH
struggle with balancing the demands associ-
ated with work, school, and family relations.
An illustrative example of how GRC mani-
fests in the lives of men is the expression of
tender emotions. Boys are taught to avoid this
behavior for fear of having their masculinity
questioned, and many learn to present a more
instrumental, stoic demeanor to others as a re-
sult. Society at large rewards adherence to this
aspect of the male gender role—instrumentality
and stoicism can often contribute to career ad-
vancement and success in athletic endeavors.
However, as young men enter into interper-
sonal, as well as potentially romantic, relation-
ships, they are expected to be more open and
expressive with their partners. Difficulties may
occur, therefore, as they experience conflict be-
tween the demands of their socialization and the
demands of the situation. Some men experience
conflict and confusion as a result— hallmarks of
GRC. They are perplexed about how to bal-
ance what they understand as masculinity
with the differing demands of external situa-
tions (e.g., Violanti, 2007; Wester, Arndt, Se-
divy, & Arndt, 2010). In other words, mascu-
line behaviors and ideals that allow them to
succeed in certain areas, such as their job,
may conflict with expectations in other areas
(i.e., interpersonal relationships). Thus, GRC
theory stresses the importance of understand-
ing how behaviors associated with a tradition-
ally socialized male gender role interfere with
positive outcomes in situations that require
more nontraditional actions.
More than 230 separate studies have been
conducted exploring the nature of GRC as it is
experienced by men, as well as the variables
associated with that experience (e.g., see
O’Neil, 2008; O’Neil, in press, as well as
Wester & Vogel, in press, for reviews). The
predominant scale used in the research is the
Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS; O’Neil,
Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986). It
consists of 37 items spread across four sub-
scales representing the domains described.
Early work demonstrated that the each of these
subscales had acceptable reliabilities across
several studies, with coefficient alphas ranging
from the low 70s to the low 90s (RE: .81–.91;
RABBM: .82–.88; SPC: .83–.89; CBWFR: .73–
.87; see O’Neil et al., 1995). Test-retest reli-
abilities over a 1-month interval ranged from
the low .70s to the mid .80s across the four
factors. In a more recent review, O’Neil (2008)
confirmed these findings by summarizing the
results of studies using more diverse samples of
men; coefficient alphas for all four subscales
continued to range from the low 70s to the low
90s, therefore “not vary[ing] very much from
the first tests of reliability back in the early
1980s” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 371).
These reviews are clear: All four GRCS sub-
scales have been positively correlated with neg-
ative intrapersonal consequences for men, most
notably depression, anxiety, stress, measures of
self-esteem, substance use and abuse, as well as
alexthymia and shame. Higher levels of both
RE and RABBM have also been associated with
decreased relationship intimacy, marital prob-
lems, and lower levels of social connectedness
(e.g., O’Neil, in press; Wester & Vogel, in
press). Similarly, SPC has been linked with
negative outcomes but it also positively predicts
higher levels of self esteem in certain popula-
tions (e.g., collegians; Wester, Christianson,
Vogel, & Wei, 2007), while CBWFR prediction
of negative outcomes varies across different age
groups (e.g., Norwalk, Vandiver, White, &
Englar-Carlson, 2011), potentially because
younger men have not yet developed significant
stress in the areas of family and career. GRC
has also been operationalized through diagnos-
tic schemas and case studies (O’Neil, 1990,
2006, 2008), and has been the basis for the
development of therapeutic models designed for
clinicians working with male clients (e.g.,
O’Neil, 2006), including fathers (O’Neil & Lu-
jan, 2009), police officers (Wester & Lyubel-
sky, 2005), college men (O’Neil & Crapser,
2011) male members of the military (Brooks,
1998), and transgendered persons (Wester, Mc-
Donough, White, Vogel, & Taylor, 2010).
At the same time, however, while the con-
struct of GRC has been very influential in both
research and clinical domains, the experience of
GRC may vary for men as a function of addi-
tional identity variables such as race (e.g.,
Carter, Williams, Juby, & Buckley, 2005;
Wester, Kuo, & Vogel, 2006) and sexual orien-
tation (e.g., Wester, Pionke, & Vogel, 2005).
While early results suggest that GRC is an ex-
cellent construct for understanding how men of
color experience tensions between the male
gender role stemming from their cultural of
origin and the dominant culture (e.g., Wester,
2008; Wester & Vogel, in press), it stands to
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT SCALE SHORT FORM
reason that the cross-cultural applicability of the
GRCS needs to be examined. Indeed, Norwalk
et al. (2011) determined that, while the factor
structure containing the four subscales was
largely confirmed, several items on the GRCS
seemed to be eliciting different responses from
participants as a function of race. Accordingly,
Norwalk and colleagues (2011) recommended
psychometric exploration of GRCS to ensure
that each item articulates GRC as it applies
across cultures–something that has not been
done since the inception of this construct in
1981.
Questions have also been raised in the extant
literature regarding the degree to which the
items used for the GRCS really measure conflict
between the socialized male gender role and
situational demands rather than merely sub-
scription to the male gender role ideology con-
flict (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1993; Thompson
& Pleck, 1995). O’Neil (2008) argued that GRC
did not address ideology per se, and that the
GRCS items were designed to assess GRC pri-
marily within the man and in an interpersonal
context with an equal mix of items relating to
men’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that
result in negative psychological outcomes. A
psychometric examination, and potential revi-
sion, of the GRCS using a diverse sample might
allow for increased clarity with regard to the
measurement of conflict across the four sub-
scales.
Current Study
Given these concerns regarding the GRCS
items, the purpose of this research was to de-
velop a revised version of the Gender Role
Conflict Scale, the Gender Role Conflict Scale
Short Form (GRCS-SF). Such a scale could (a)
reduce the factorial variance across diverse
groups, and (b) potential examine the distribu-
tion of items measuring conflict across the four
subscales. We did not undertake this process to
reinvent the construct of GRC; rather, we
wanted to develop a shorter, more cultural ap-
plicable measure of GRC that potentially unites
men of different backgrounds rather than differ-
entiates between them based on aspects of iden-
tity such as race, ethnicity, and sexual orienta-
tion. We chose to create a short form rather than
revising all 37 items, because doing so would
allow us to retain the theoretical basis of the
201
GRC construct, given the demonstrated appli-
cability across cultures (e.g., Wester, 2008). It
also allowed us to test several of the specific
items identified by Norwalk et al. (2011) as
problematic. Finally, we examined the correla-
tions between the original GRCS and the
GRCS-SF in order to ensure we captured the
content of the construct.
Method
There were two steps to the development of
the GRCS-SF. We first conducted an explor-
atory factor analysis (EFA) in order to examine
the factor structure and item fit of the GRCS
with a large, distinctly multicultural sample.
Our goal in Step 1 was to retain the highest
loading items from each of O’Neil et al.’s
(1986) subscales that preserved the original
construct design. We next conducted confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) so as to examine the
construct validity of this revised scale. Across
both of those steps, item content of the highest
loading items will be reviewed so as to poten-
tially address published criticisms.
Participants and Procedures
Data for this study was collected as part of
previously published, yet unrelated, investiga-
tions: Wester, Christianson, Vogel, and Wei,
(2007); Wester, Kuo, and Vogel, (2006);
Wester, Vogel, Wei, and McLain (2006), as
well as Wester et al. (2005). These data sets
were chosen in order to provide a larger multi-
cultural sample; in order to ensure the highest
degree of anonymity, the only information that
was removed from these databases were GRCS
scores and demographic information. This re-
sulted in a sample of 1415 participants.
Because these were separate, unrelated stud-
ies conducted over a period of 2 years, there
was no consistency in the conduction of the
research or the administration of the GRCS.
Participants of the Wester et al. (2006) research
completed the questionnaires on paper in face-
to-face settings, whereas Wester et al.’s (2005)
surveys were collected online. Wester et al.
(2007) collected their data through a college
undergraduate mass-testing procedure, while
Wester et al. (2006) collected data through their
respective middle schools. In each case, the
202 WESTER, VOGEL, O’NEIL, AND DANFORTH
GRCS was part of a large battery of question-
naires rather than being specifically positioned.
Item selection sample: Exploratory factor
analysis. To select which of the 37 original
GRCS items should be included on the short
form, we employed a randomly selected sample
of 399 participants from our total sample of
1415. Of this subsample, 3 (⬍1%) did not re-
port their racial background. However, 227
(57%) self-described as Caucasian, 75 (19%)
self-described themselves as African Ameri-
can, 84 (21%) self-described as Asian Ameri-
can, 2 (⬍1%) as Hispanic American, and fi-
nally 8 (2%) endorsed the “other” category.
Furthermore, 199 (50%) self-described as gay
or bisexual, while 188 (47%) self-described as
heterosexual. Twelve (3%) declined to describe
their sexual orientation. In summary, this sam-
ple was 57% Caucasian, 41% racial/ethnic mi-
nority, 47% heterosexual, and 50% nonhetero-
sexual.
Item confirmation sample: Confirmatory
factor analysis. We employed the responses
of our remaining 1031 to conduct a confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) of those items result-
ing from our EFA. For this subsample, 35 (3%)
did not report their racial background. At the
same time, 704 (68%) self-described as Cauca-
sian, 167 (16%) self-described as African
American, 92 (9%) self-described as Asian
American, 15 (1%) as Hispanic American, and,
finally, 28 (3%) endorsed the “other” category.
Furthermore, 617 (60%) of our participants self-
described as gay or bisexual, while 402 (39%)
self-described as heterosexual. In summary,
68% of the participants were Caucasian, 26%
racial/ethnic minority, 39% heterosexual, and
60% nonheterosexual.
Measure
Gender role conflict. We measured the
gender role conflict of our participants using the
GRCS (O’Neil, et al., 1986; O’Neil, 2008),
which is a measure of men’s reactions to the
inconsistent and unrealistic gender role expec-
tations they face. It consists of 37 items divided
into four subscales. Respondents rate their
agreement with each item on a 6-point Likert
scale (1 ⫽ “strongly disagree” to 6 ⫽ “strongly
agree”). Original development of the GRCS in-
dicated that the SPC subscale had an alpha of
.85, and a 4-week test–retest reliability of .84.
The RE subscale had an alpha of .82, and a
4-week test–retest reliability of .76. The
RABBM subscale had an alpha of .83, and a
4-week test–retest reliability of .86. Finally,
the CBWFR subscale had an alpha of .75, and
a 4-week test–retest reliability of .72. Addi-
tionally, O’Neil and Owen (1994) reported
that, across 11 studies, the SPC subscale had
an average alpha of .86, the RE subscale had
an average alpha of .84, the RABBM subscale
had an average alpha of .84, and the CBWFR
subscale had an average alpha of .80. Further,
the average alpha across studies for the GRCS
total score was .88 (O’Neil et al., 1995;
O’Neil & Owen, 1994). Convergent and di-
vergent validity has been demonstrated, as
documented by O’Neil (2008).
Results
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Following the procedures of Wei, Russell,
Mallinckrodt, and Vogel (2007), we conducted
an exploratory factor analysis with Sample 1 to
examine the factor structure of the GRCS. Be-
cause extensive research supports O’Neil et
al.’s (1986) four-factor model (e.g., O’Neil,
2008), we constrained the model to four factors.
Since those four factors tend to be moderately
correlated, we employed direct oblimin rota-
tion and excluded those items that did not
reach the factor-loading cutoff of .4. The four
factors that emerged corresponded to RE
(eigenvalue 8.1, 21.7%), SPC (eigenvalue 4,
10.8%), RABBM (eigenvalue 2.5, 6.6%), and
CBWFR (eigenvalue 2.1, 5.6%). The total
variance explained was 44.7%, and the rota-
tion converged after seven iterations. Each of
these factors showed a number of strong load-
ings (see Table 1).
In reviewing the results of this EFA, our
goal in selecting items for the development of
the short form was to retain items from each
subscale while strengthening the factor struc-
ture and reducing the potential for cross-
loading. Our expressed purpose, therefore,
was to select the strongest loading items from
each subscale while also maintaining the the-
oretical content and independence of that sub-
scale. This process allowed us to shorten the
scale by removing items with lower loadings
(⬍.60) that may be directly linked to differ-
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT SCALE SHORT FORM 203

Table 1
Gender Role Conflict Scale Factors and Loadings From Exploratory Factor Analysis
Eigenvalue Loading
Factor 1: Restricted Emotionality 5.6
(2) I have difficulty telling others I care about them. .65
(6) Strong emotions are difficult for me to understand. .58
(9) Expressing feelings makes me feel open to attack by other people. .58
(13) Talking (about my feelings) during sexual relations is difficult for me. .70
(15) I have difficulty expressing my emotional needs to my partner. .75
(19) I have difficulty expressing my tender feelings. .75
(22) Telling others of my strong feelings is not part of my sexual behavior. .66
(25) I often have trouble finding words that describe how I am feeling. .52
(29) I do not like to show my emotions to other people. .68
(30) Telling my partner my feelings about him/her during sex is difficult for me. .68
Factor 2: Success, Power, and Competition 4.0
(1) Moving up the career ladder is important to me. .48
(5) Making money is part of my idea being a successful man. .63
(8) I sometimes define my personal value by my career success. .55
(12) I evaluate other people’s value by their level of achievement and success. .55
(14) I worry about failing and how it affects my doing well as a man. .46
(18) Doing well all the time is important to me. .41
(21) I often feel that I need to be in charge of those around me. .53
(23) Competing with others is the best way to succeed. .63
(24) Winning is a measure of my value and personal worth. .70
(28) I strive to be more successful than others. .70
(32) I am often concerned about how others evaluate my performance at work or school. .51
(34) Being smarter or physically stronger than other men is important to me. .70
(37) I like to feel superior to other people. .71
Factor 3: Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men 2.5
(3) Verbally expressing my love to another man is difficult for me. .48
(7) Affection with other men makes me tense. .71
(10) Expressing my emotions to other men is risky. .58
(16) Men who touch other men make me uncomfortable. .75
(20) Hugging other men is difficult for me. .75
(26) I am sometimes hesitant to show my affections for other men because of how
others might perceive me. .51
(33) Being very personal with other men makes me feel uncomfortable. .76
(35) Men who are overly friendly to me make me wonder about their sexual preferences
(men or women). .62
Factor 4: Conflicts Between Work and Family Relations 2.1
(4) I feel torn between my hectic work schedule and caring for my health. .60
(11) My career, job, or school affects the quality of my leisure or family life. .41
(17) Finding time to relax is difficult for me. .63
(27) My needs to work or study keep me from my family or leisure more than I would
like. .79
(31) My work or school often disrupts other parts of my life (home, health, leisure, etc). .78
(36) Overwork and stress, caused by a need to achieve on the job or in school, affects/
hurts my life. .66

entiations between our participants based on
identity variables. Four items from each of
the four subscales were retained, resulting
in 16 items total (see Table 2). With regard to
reliability, the revised RE and CBWFR sub-
scales returned coefficient alphas of .77,
while the revised RABBM returned a coeffi-
cient alpha of .78 and the revised SPC sub-
scale a coefficient alpha of .80. These reli-
ability estimates met Ponterotto and Ruckde-
schel’s (2007, p. 1003) cutoff for “moderate”
(RE, CBWFR, RABBM) or “good” (SPC)
internal consistency for short (⬍6 item)
scales and large sample sizes.
It should be noted here that there have been
questions raised in the extant literature regard-
204 WESTER, VOGEL, O’NEIL, AND DANFORTH

Table 2
Gender Role Conflict Short Form Items and Loadings From Exploratory Factor Analysis
Loading
Factor 1: Restricted Emotionality
(13) Talking (about my feelings) during sexual relations is difficult for me. .70
(15) I have difficulty expressing my emotional needs to my partner. .75
(19) I have difficulty expressing my tender feelings. .75
(29) I do not like to show my emotions to other people. .68
Factor 2: Success, Power, and Competition
(24) Winning is a measure of my value and personal worth. .70
(28) I strive to be more successful than others. .70
(34) Being smarter or physically stronger than other men is important to me. .70
(37) I like to feel superior to other people. .71
Factor 3: Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men
(7) Affection with other men makes me tense. .71
(16) Men who touch other men make me uncomfortable. .75
(20) Hugging other men is difficult for me. .75
(33) Being very personal with other men makes me feel uncomfortable. .76
Factor 4: Conflicts Between Work and Family Relations
(17) Finding time to relax is difficult for me. .63
(27) My needs to work or study keep me from my family or leisure more than I would like. .79
(31) My work or school often disrupts other parts of my life (home, health, leisure, etc). .78
(36) Overwork and stress, caused by a need to achieve on the job or in school, affects/hurts my life. .66

ing the degree to which the items used for the
GRCS really measure conflict (e.g., Betz &
Fitzgerald, 1993; Thompson & Pleck, 1995)
between the socialized male gender role and
situational demands rather than merely assess-
ing subscription to the male gender role ideol-
ogy. O’Neil (2008) argued that the GRCS items
assess GRC primarily within the man and in an
interpersonal context with an equal mix of items
relating to men’s thoughts, feelings, and behav-
iors that result in negative psychological out-
comes. The 16 items retained at this step in the
process all seemed to adequately address the
operational definitions of GRC. As an example,
one item on the RE subscale, I have difficulty
expressing my emotional needs to my partner,
addresses the conflict experienced between the
male gender role regarding both stoicism as
well as emotional control and the situational
demands of an interpersonal relationship–a
theme echoed across the three other items. In-
deed, the RABBM subscale now contains only
items that directly measure the socialized con-
flicts regarding the restriction against physical
expression of affection between men. The one
potential exception, Being very personal with
other men makes me feel uncomfortable, can be
interpreted as the sharing of closeness between
individual men in intimate communications or
disclosures. The items loading on the SPC sub-
scale measure more indirect conflicts in the
form of competition between individual men
and other individuals as part of striving for
success. The items on CBWFR clearly represent
conflicts between situations such as work or
school and familial demands.
Finally, we examined the resulting items in
order to confirm whether or not the items iden-
tified by Norwalk et al. (2011) as contributing to
factorial variance between the Caucasian and
African American participants had been in-
cluded or excluded by our analyses. Norwalk et
al. (2011) noted that, for their two samples,
items 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 25,
26, 28, 32, 35, and 37 (see Table 1) had large
standardized residuals while also failing to meet
their effect size criterion. Our item reduction
eliminated all but three of these items: 13, 28,
and 37 were retained in the final GRCS-SF. The
remaining 13 items we retained (see Table 2)
provided lower loading across studies and so
their removal should increase the applicability
of the new GRCS-SF across populations.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted
on the resultant 16-item GRCS-SF using the max-
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT SCALE SHORT FORM
imum likelihood method in LISREL 8.54. Recall
that we employed the responses of our remaining
1031 to conduct this CFA. Since researchers have
suggested that sample sizes of 200 or greater are
adequate for CFA (e.g., Kline, 2005; Quintana &
Maxwell, 1999), the present sample size was
deemed adequate for the analyses. In summary,
68% of the participants were Caucasian, 26% ra-
cial/ethnic minority, 39% heterosexual, and 60%
nonheterosexual.
Since the data did not fit requirements for
normality, ␹2(2, N ⫽ 1,031) ⫽ 1448.85, p ⬍
.001, the scaled chi-square statistic was used to
adjust for the impact of nonnormality (Satorra
& Bentler, 2010). In addition, we followed rec-
ommendations to report the comparative fit in-
dex (CFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), the
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) with 90% confidence intervals, and
the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR). Criteria for acceptable fit have ranged
from CFIs and TLIs greater than or equal to .90
and RMSEA and SRMR less than or equal to
.10 (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999), to more conser-
vative criteria of CFIs and TLIs greater or equal
to .95, RMSEA less than or equal to .06, and
SRMR less than or equal to .08 (e.g., Hu &
Bentler, 1999; Quintana & Maxwell, 1999). Re-
searchers (e.g., Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrug-
ger, & Müller, 2003; Weston & Gore, 2006)
have also argued that model evaluation must
take into account sample size, number of de-
grees of freedom, and theoretical bases for the
models rather than solely relying on conserva-
tive interpretation of fit indices.
The four-factor model using the GRCS-SF pro-
vided a good fit for the data: scaled ␹2(98,
N ⫽ 1,031) ⫽ 430.83, p ⬍ .001; CFI ⫽ .96;
TLI ⫽ .96; RMSEA ⫽ .057 (90% confidence
interval [CI] ⫽ .057 to .063); SRMR ⫽ .05. As
shown in Table 3, the measured items loadings on
the latent variables were all statistically signifi-
cant, p ⬍ .001. This four-factor model using the
short form fit the data better than a one-factor
model, scaled ␹2(104, N ⫽ 1,031) ⫽ 2147.77, p ⬍
.001; CFI ⫽ .78; TLI ⫽ .78; RMSEA ⫽ .14 (90%
confidence interval [CI] ⫽ .13 to .14); SRMR ⫽
.11.
Initial Validity
In order to further demonstrate that the new
GRCS-SF captures the construct measured by
205
the GRCS, we also chose to examine the corre-
lations between the four subscales from the
37-item GRCS and the four new subscales de-
veloped for the GRCS-SF. A new sample of
participants was collected: 495 collegians from
a small Midwestern urban institution completed
the GRCS at the beginning of the semester and
the GRCS-SF at the end of the semester. The
research was described as part of a larger “scale
development” study, and the GRC items were
scattered among an addition 200 distracter
items. This new sample of collegian participants
was 48% freshman, 25% sophomore, 14% ju-
nior, and 11% senior. Participants were 89%
Caucasian, and 11% racial/ethnic minority;
77% were single, and 21% were in a committed
relationship.
Correlations between the two versions are
provided in Table 4. As can be seen from this
data, all four GRCS-SF subscales significantly
correlated with their original GRCS subscales.
Additionally, just as with the GRCS, the indi-
vidual GRCS-SF subscales significantly corre-
lated with each other, albeit sharing only a small
amount of variance. This suggests that the
GRCS-SF captures the construct that was ini-
tially measured by the GRCS and that the indi-
vidual subscales measure independent, yet re-
lated, constructs. Said another way, as expected
the four original subscales correlated with their
shorter versions (i.e., RE with RE, SPC with
SPC, etc.). Again as expected, the four shorter
subscales also correlated with each (i.e., RE
with RABBM, SPC, CBWFR etc.) but in a
manner suggesting a much lower overlap in
variability than demonstrated with the original
GRCS.
Proxy Variables
Questions could be raised with regard to both
within-group and between-groups differences in
short form scores. Did our heterosexual partic-
ipants respond differently to the items than our
nonheterosexual participants? Did our Cauca-
sian participants respond differently than our
racial/ethnic minority participants? We recog-
nize that such comparisons are often common-
place, ostensibly aimed at understanding the
differing impact of the socialized male gender
role across a range of diversity variables. This
type of comparative approach seems similar to
what Quintana, Troyano, and Taylor (2001) la-
206 WESTER, VOGEL, O’NEIL, AND DANFORTH

Table 3
Gender Role Conflict Short Form Items and Loadings From Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Unstandardized Standardized
Measured variables factor loading SE factor loading
Factor 1: Restricted Emotionality
(13) Talking (about my feelings) during sexual relations is
difficult for me. 1.0 .00 .78
(15) I have difficulty expressing my emotional needs to my
partner. .99 .05 .77
(19) I have difficulty expressing my tender feelings. .97 .04 .76
(29) I do not like to show my emotions to other people. .70 .06 .55
Factor 2: Success, Power, and Competition
(24) Winning is a measure of my value and personal worth. 1.1 .01 .65
(28) I strive to be more successful than others. .99 .10 .65
(34) Being smarter or physically stronger than other men is
important to me. .97 .10 .63
(37) I like to feel superior to other people. .88 .10 .58
Factor 3: Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men
(7) Affection with other men makes me tense. 1.0 .00 .68
(16) Men who touch other men make me uncomfortable. 1.1 .08 .73
(20) Hugging other men is difficult for me. 1.2 .08 .77
(33) Being very personal with other men makes me feel
uncomfortable. 1.14 .08 .77
Factor 4: Conflicts Between Work and Family Relations
(17) Finding time to relax is difficult for me. 1.0 .00 .69
(27) My needs to work or study keep me from my family or
leisure more than I would like. 1.1 .07 .74
(31) My work or school often disrupts other parts of my life
(home, health, leisure, etc). 1.2 .07 .85
(36) Overwork and stress, caused by a need to achieve on the job
or in school, affects/hurts my life. .96 .07 .66

beled the use of proxy variables rather than albeit unintended, consequence (e.g., Messick,
actual psychological constructs to explain find- 1995) of reliance on proxy variables is the use
ings. In effect, sexual orientation or race, rather of a deficit model to understand the results,
than variables associated with either race or “polarizing so-called opposites” (McGoldrick
sexual orientation, but more directly related to & Giordano, 1996, p. 23), and the labeling of
GRC, could become the explanation for any one group as worse or less than the other group
demonstrated differences. Indeed, a potential, (e.g., Fiske, 1998). Given that it was our goal to
develop a measure of GRC that did not accen-
tuate differences based on diversity variables,
Table 4 we therefore explicitly avoided such compari-
Correlations Between the Subscales of the GRCS sons between groups on aspects of identity.
and the GRCS-SF
Discussion
Variable RE RAB CBWF SPC
ⴱ
RE (short) .94 .53ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ Within the growing extant literature on the
RAB (short) .48ⴱⴱ .93ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ psychology of men, GRC has emerged as a
CBWF (short) .29ⴱⴱ .96ⴱ .96ⴱ .38ⴱⴱ construct critical to understanding the degree
SPC (short) .23ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .90ⴱ
to which traditional male gender role social-
Note. GRCS ⫽ Gender Role Conflict Scale; GRCS-SF ⫽ ization teaches men values, ideals, and behav-
Gender Role Conflict Scale-Short Form; RE ⫽ restricted iors that might conflict with the demands of
emotionality; RAB ⫽ restricted affectionate behavior be-
tween men; CBWF ⫽ conflict between work and family certain situations. As such, the measurement
relations; SPC ⫽ success, power, and competition. of that GRC construct provides researchers,
ⴱ
p ⱕ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .05. theorists, scholars, and clinicians with an im-
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT SCALE SHORT FORM
portant predictive tool, one that has recently
been applied to understanding the gender role
experience of men of diverse backgrounds.
However, this poses some challenges, given
that some (e.g., Norwalk et al., 2011) have
suggested that several items on the original
GRCS seem to differentiate between groups
of men based on identity variables such as
race. Our goal was to develop a measure of
GRC that eliminates those items while also
maintaining their four-factor structure of
GRC proposed by O’Neil et al. (1986). This
new version, the GRCS-SF, demonstrated
good model fit, strong correlations between
its subscales and those of the original GRCS,
and similar levels of reliability with a large,
diverse sample of male participants. Indeed,
of the 18 items identified as not meeting cut-
off criteria by the most recent study examin-
ing the factor structure of the GRCS based on
diversity variables (Norwalk et al., 2011), our
results deleted 15 of them. This confirms that
the four constructs measured within the GRC
paradigm—success, power, and competition;
restricted emotionality; restricted affectionate
behavior between men; and conflicts between
work and family relations—apply to, and can
be measured within, diverse populations of
men without fears of specific items tapping
somewhat different constructs based on vari-
ables such as race and sexual orientation.
The present research also responds to previ-
ous recommendations (e.g., Rogers, Abbey-
Hines, & Rando, 1997) to revise and improve
the psychometrics of the GRCS. In our version,
weaker loading items have been removed,
thereby improving the item pool, because many
of those items that did not directly assess con-
flict or contributed to factor invariance between
samples were eliminated. Indeed, the total num-
ber of items assessing conflict increased from
60% in GRCS to 75% in GRCS-SF. More im-
portantly those items were more evenly distrib-
uted across all four subscales. With the GRCS,
only 75% of the RABBM items had conflict
terminology, but with the GRCS-SF item reduc-
tion, 100% now measure conflict. The SPC fac-
tor now seems more directly representative of
competition between individuals as a measure
of success, while RABBM is now more specif-
ically a measure of conflicts regarding the phys-
ical expression of affection. RABBM items re-
garding verbal expression of affection were
207
not retained, and items measuring this now
reside exclusively on the RE subscale,
thereby measuring conflict regarding the ex-
pression of emotions within the context of an
interpersonal relationship. These improve-
ments make the assessment more valid in
terms of actual conflict that men experience
because of socialized gender roles. All told,
each of the four scales now directly measure
conflicts between the expectations of the so-
cialized male gender role and either interper-
sonal actions or situational demands.
Research Implications
The GRCS-SF also provides a more flexi-
ble tool to those scholars interested in under-
standing the multitude of variables that are
associated with GRC in men, which, in turn,
allows for the development of more complex
statistical models designed to understand the
situational, contextual, and environmental im-
pact of GRC in men’s lives (e.g., Addis,
Mansfield, & Syzdek, 2010). For example, as
with other recent revisions to masculinity
measures (e.g., Parent & Moradi, 2009), the
GRCS-SF can shorten the length of question-
naires used in both clinical and empirical
settings. Decreasing this “response burden” (Par-
ent & Moradi, 2009, p. 186) on participants, es-
pecially for research conducted outside of a col-
legiate environment, can lower the risk for bore-
dom, loss of motivation, and random responding.
Given the importance of GRC in predicting out-
comes for men, as well as the emerging impor-
tance of increasingly complex statistical models
designed to capture GRC within a web of contex-
tual/situational variables (O’Neil, 2008), the
GRCS-SF can be a useful tool.
Therapeutic Implications
Cochran (2005), for example, called for
greater research on evidence-based treatment
of men, particularly using masculine gender
role conflict and stress constructs. Empirical
evidence is accumulating indicating that GRC
diagnostic schemas could be used when coun-
seling men. O’Neil (2008) reported on eight
studies that have assessed client’s gender role
conflict and psychological problems (Burke,
2000; Coonerty-Femiano, Katzman, Femiano,
Gemar, & Toner, 2001; Cusack, Deane, Wil-
208 WESTER, VOGEL, O’NEIL, AND DANFORTH
son, & Ciarrochi, 2006; Good, Robertson,
Fitzgerald, Stevens, & Bartels, 1996; Hayes
& Mahalik, 2000; Mertens, 2000; Noyes,
2004; Van Delft, 1998). The overall evidence
indicates that GRC has therapeutic relevance
and both the present results and the GRCS-SF
promote more active use of the scale in coun-
seling and psychotherapy. The GRCS-SF
seems to have the potential to fill this need,
and while more research is certainly needed,
the shorter scales might be useful with clients.
Limitations
Despite the promising implications of this
research, there remain some limitations. First,
our number of Hispanic American participants
was lower than ideal, our sample contained a
higher percentage of gay (vs. heterosexual) par-
ticipants, and we used data collected through
unrelated research questions. This suggests that
future research might consider obtaining
more balanced samples with specific research
questions aimed at confirming our findings.
Additionally, future research might consider
using the GRCS-SF in setting already ex-
plored within the psychology of men so as to
compare those results with those previously
published. For example, the GRCS-SF seems
to be a more explicit measure of conflict, and
that conflict is constrained to more specific
situations. The new version of the RABBM
subscale, for example, is more focused on phys-
ical behavior between individuals (i.e., hugging,
touching) while the new RE subscale contains
items exclusively asking about the verbal expres-
sion of emotions. How this shift in scale focus
effects outcomes for men needs to be more fully
explored. This would allow for the confirmation
of the GRCS-SF as a measure of O’Neil and
colleagues (1986) construct while also more fully
grounding it within the nomological network (e.g.,
Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).
Conclusions
GRC theory stresses the importance of un-
derstanding how behaviors associated with a
traditionally socialized male gender role inter-
fere with positive outcomes in situations that
require more nontraditional actions. In essence,
this requires an understanding of the contexts in
which any individual man might currently be
functioning. In the case of a man in an intimate
relationship, expressing affectionate feelings for
his partner or spouse is an important behavior,
which contributes to relationship outcomes.
Since the verbal expression of such feelings
runs counter to the socialized male role regard-
ing stoicism and the restriction of emotional
expression, this situation is ripe for the experi-
ence of GRC. However, in the absence of such
interpersonal demands, a stoic demeanor may
not be detrimental to men and might even be
useful (Vacha-Hasse, Wester, & Christianson,
2010). Such an outlook might be useful in cer-
tain career and/or vocational settings (e.g.,
Wester et al., 2010), for example. We hope that
the GRCS-SF provides scholars with a tool that
allows them to streamline their assessment pro-
cess so as to fully detangle the complexity of
contextual and situational variables likely to be
affecting men.
References
Addis, M. E., Mansfield, A. K., & Syzdek, M. R.
(2010). Is “masculinity” a problem? Framing the
effects of gendered social learning in men. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 77–90. doi:
10.1037/a0018602
Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. (1993). Individuality
and diversity: Theory and research in counseling
psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 44,
343–381. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193
.002015 PMid:19954328
Brooks, G. R. (1998). A new psychotherapy for tra-
ditional men. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, K. (2000). Gender role conflict and psycho-
logical well-being: An exploration in men enrolled
to attend an initiatory weekend (Unpublished mas-
ter’s thesis). University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Carter, R. T., Williams, B., Juby, H. L., & Buckley,
T. R. (2005). Racial identity as a mediator of the
relationship between gender role conflict and the
severity of psychological symptoms in Black, La-
tino, and Asian men. Sex Roles, 53, 473– 486.
doi:10.1007/s11199-005-7135-7
Cochran, S. V. (2005). Assessing and treating depres-
sion in men. In G. E. Good & G. R. Brooks (Eds.),
The new handbook of psychotherapy and counsel-
ing with men (pp. 121–133). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Coonerty-Femiano, A. M., Katzman, M. A.,
Femiano, S., Gemar, M., & Toner, B. (2001, Au-
gust). Gender role conflict in male survivors of
childhood abuse. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Psychological Association, San
Francisco, CA.
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT SCALE SHORT FORM
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct
validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bul-
letin, 52, 281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957
Cusack, J., Deane, F. P., Wilson, C. J., & Ciarrochi,
J. (2006). Emotional expression, perceptions of
therapy, and help-seeking intentions in men at-
tending therapy services. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 7, 69 – 82. doi:10.1037/1524-
9220.7.2.69
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and dis-
crimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychol-
ogy (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357– 415). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Good, G. E., Robertson, J. M., Fitzgerald, L. F.,
Stevens, M., & Bartels, K. M. (1996). The relation
between masculine role conflict and psychological
distress in male university counseling center cli-
ents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 75,
44 – 49.
Hayes, J. A., & Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Gender role
conflict and psychopathology in a clinical popula-
tion. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1, 116 –
125. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.1.2.116
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for
fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of struc-
tural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Levant, R. F. (1996). A new psychology of men.
Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 27, 259 –265. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.27
.3.259
McGoldrick, M., & Giordano, J. (1996). Overview:
Ethnicity and family therapy. In M. McGoldrick, J.
Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and
family therapy (2nd ed., pp. 1–30). New York, NY:
Guilford Press
Mertens, C. E. (2000). Male gender role conflict in
depressed versus nondepressed medical popula-
tions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dis-
sertation Abstract International, 61, 3068.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assess-
ment: Validation of inferences from persons’ re-
sponses and performances as scientific inquiry into
score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–
749. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
Norwalk, K. E., Vandiver, B. J., White, A. M., &
Englar-Carlson, M. (2011). Factor structure of the
Gender Role Conflict Scale in African American
and European American men. Psychology of Men
& Masculinity, 12, 128 –143. doi:10.1037/
a0022799
209
Noyes, B. B. (2004). Gender role conflict as a pre-
dictor of therapy outcome (Unpublished master’s
thesis). University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
O’Neil, J. M. (1990). Assessing men’s gender role
conflict. In D. Moore & F. Leafgren (Eds.), Men in
conflict: Problem solving strategies and interven-
tions (pp. 23–38). Alexandria, VA: American As-
sociation for Counseling and Development
(AACD) Press.
O’Neil, J. M. (2006). Helping Jack heal his emotional
wounds using the gender role conflict diagnostic
schema. In M. Englar-Carlson & M. A. Stevens
(Eds.), In the therapy room with men: A casebook
about psychotherapeutic process and change with
male clients (pp. 259 –284). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of re-
search on men’s gender role conflict using the
Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research para-
digms and clinical implications. The Counseling
Psychologist, 36, 358 – 445. doi:10.1177/
0011000008317057
O’Neil, J. M. (in press). The psychology of men. In
E. Altmaier & J. Hansen (Eds.), Oxford Handbook
of Counseling Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
O’Neil, J. M., & Crapser, B. (2011, April). Using the
psychology of men and gender role conflict theory
to promote comprehensive service delivery for col-
lege men: A call to action. In J. Laker & T. Davis
(Eds.), Masculinities in higher education: Theoret-
ical and practical considerations (pp. 16 – 49).
New York, NY: Routledge.
O’Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995).
Fifteen years of theory and research on men’s
gender role conflict. In R. F. Levant & W. S.
Pollack (Eds.), The new psychology of men (pp.
164 –206). New York, NY: Basic Books.
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. doi:10.1007/BF00287583
O’Neil, J. M., & Lujan, M. L. (2009). An assessment
paradigm for fathers in therapy using gender role
conflict theory. In C. Z. Oren & D. C. Oren (Eds.),
Counseling fathers (pp. 49 –71). New York: Taylor
& Francis Group.
O’Neil, J. M., & Owen, S. V. (1994). The manual for
the gender role conflict scale. Storrs, CT: Univer-
sity of Connecticut.
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory
factor analysis of the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory and development of the CMNI-
46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 175–
189. doi:10.1037/a0015481
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An
overview of coefficient alpha and a reliability
matrix for estimating adequacy of internal con-
 210 WESTER, VOGEL, O’NEIL, AND DANFORTH
sistency coefficient with psychological research
measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105,
997–1014. doi:10.2466/pms.105.3.997–1014.
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implica-
tions of recent developments in structural equa-
tions modeling for counseling psychology. The
Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485–527. doi:
10.1177/0011000099274002
Quintana, S. M., Troyano, N., & Taylor, G. (2001).
Cultural validity and inherent challenges in quan-
titative methods for multicultural research. In J. G.
Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M.
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
counseling (2nd ed., pp. 604 – 630). New York,
NY: Sage.
Rogers, J. R., Abbey-Hines, J., & Rando, R. A.
(1997). Confirmatory factor analysis of the gender
role conflict scale: A cross-validation of Good et
al., 1995. Measurement and Evaluation in Coun-
seling and Development, 30, 137–145.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring pos-
itiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test
statistic. Psychometrics, 75, 243–248. doi:
10.1007/s11336-009 –9135-y
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller,
H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: Tests of significance and descriptive
goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychologi-
cal Research Online, 8, 23–74.
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1995). Masculinity
ideologies: A review of research instrumentation
on men and masculinities. In R. Levant & W.
Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp.
129 –163). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Vacha-Hasse, T., Wester, S. R., & Christianson, H. F.
(2010). Psychotherapy with older men. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Van Delft, C. W. (1998). Gender role conflict and
psychological distress in army men (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Department of Counseling and Per-
sonnel Services, University of Maryland, College
Park.
Violanti, J. M. (2007). Police suicide: Epidemic in
blue. New York, NY: Charles C. Thomas.
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L.
(2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale
(ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor struc-
ture. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187–204.
doi:10.1080/00223890701268041
Wester, S. R. (2008). Multicultural advances in the
psychology of men: Implications for counseling
View publication stats
psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 36,
294 –324. doi:10.1177/0011000006286341
Wester, S. R., Arndt, D., Sedivy, S. K., & Arndt, L.
(2010). Male police officers and stigma associated
with counseling: The role of anticipated risk, an-
ticipated benefit, and gender role conflict. Psychol-
ogy of Men & Masculinity, 11, 286 –302. doi:
10.1037/a0019108
Wester, S. R., Christianson, H. F., Vogel, D. L., &
Wei, M. (2007). Male gender role conflict and
psychological distress: The role of social support.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 215–224.
doi:10.1037/1524-9220.8.4.215
Wester, S. R., Kuo, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2006).
Multicultural coping: Chinese-Canadian adoles-
cents, male gender role conflict, and psychological
distress. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 87–
104. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.7.2.83
Wester, S. R., & Lyubelsky, J. (2005). Supporting the
thin blue line: Gender sensitive therapy with male
police officers. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 36, 51–58. doi:10.1037/0735-
7028.36.1.51
Wester, S. R., McDonough, T. A., White, M., Vogel,
D. L., & Taylor, L. (2010). The use of gender role
conflict theory in counseling Male-to-Female
transgendered individuals. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 88, 214 –219.
Wester, S. R., Pionke, D., & Vogel, D. L. (2005). Male
gender role conflict, gay men, and same-sex romantic
relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6,
195–208. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.6.3.195
Wester, S. R., & Vogel, D. L. (in press). The psy-
chology of men: Historical developments, current
research, and future directions. In N. A. Fouad,
J. Carter, & L. Subich (Eds.), Handbook of Coun-
seling Psychology. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., Wei, M., & McLain, R.
(2006). African-American men, gender role con-
flict, and psychological distress: The role of racial
identity. Journal of Counseling and Develop-
ment, 84, 419 – 429.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to
structural equation modeling. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 719 –751. doi:10.1177/
0011000006286345
Received March 3, 2011
Revision received July 27, 2011
Accepted July 28, 2011 䡲