Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 20;19(3):e0298750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298750

Relationship between gender roles, motherhood beliefs and mental health

Maribel Delgado-Herrera 1,#, Anabel Claudia Aceves-Gómez 1,#, Azalea Reyes-Aguilar 1,*,#
Editor: Sergi Fàbregues2
PMCID: PMC10954095  PMID: 38507331

Abstract

Gender roles, as social constructs, play a significant role in shaping individuals’ beliefs and attitudes, influencing various aspects of life, including perceptions and expectations surrounding motherhood. These beliefs, acquired through culture and society, can have an impact on our mental well-being. This research consists of three independent studies conducted in the Mexican population. In the first and second studies, we extended the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale and Motherhood Beliefs Scale and performed psychometric validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The aim of including additional items in both scales was to update these attitudes and beliefs in Mexican culture to avoid the traditionalist bias in both instruments. Finally, the third study examined the relationship between the new versions of both scales and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and Positive Psychological Functioning as indicators of mental health in women and men with and without children. Our findings revealed a significant association between higher levels of traditional attitudes towards gender roles and traditional motherhood beliefs, as well as between non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles and non-traditional beliefs about motherhood. Interestingly, we observed that traditional attitudes toward gender roles were associated with lower anxiety and depression scores, while non-traditional attitudes were associated with higher levels of depression. Furthermore, individuals who embraced non-traditional attitudes towards both gender roles and motherhood beliefs tended to exhibit better psychological well-being in all subsamples. Additionally, women generally showed lesser alignment with traditional attitudes towards both gender roles and motherhood beliefs compared to men. However, women reported higher rates of depression and anxiety, along with lower psychological well-being scores, than their male counterparts. This highlights the significant influence that traditional cultural norms about gender roles and motherhood have on women’s mental health, underscoring the need for a deeper understanding and reevaluation of these traditional constructs in society.

Introduction

Gender roles, as social constructs, play a significant role in shaping people’s beliefs and attitudes, influencing various aspects of life, including their perceptions and expectations, and even impacting their mental health and well-being.

In Western societies, gender ideology is molded by traditional gender roles defined by the sexual division of labor, where specific tasks are strictly assigned based on gender [1]. Women are typically tasked with reproductive work within the home and family, involving domestic management, infrastructure maintenance, and the care of family members. Conversely, men are expected to engage in productive work, contributing to the production of public goods and services, with economic retribution and social recognition [2].

This societal structure gives rise to traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, representing the accepted beliefs about suitable characteristics for men and women [3]. Masculinity often involves traits like dominance, leadership, and competitiveness, while femininity is associated with qualities such as understanding, warmth, and compassion. These learned behaviors gradually become ingrained expectations, influencing individuals’ actions and earning societal approval or disapproval [4], ultimately impacting their mental health and overall well-being.

In general, traditional masculinity traits have been associated with better physical health [5] and mental well-being. Specifically, traditional masculinity has shown a negative association with depression [6] and anxiety symptoms [7]. The influence of femininity traits on mental health remains inconclusive [8], as different studies have presented conflicting results. Some research suggests that femininity traits may increase the risk of depression in women [9], whereas other studies show a weak negative correlation between femininity and depression [6, 7]. In addition, there is evidence of a positive correlation between femininity traits and anxiety symptoms [7]. Notably, women experience higher rates of physical and mental health problems than men in different age groups and regions around the world [10].

Vespa [11] contends that gender ideology is dynamic, evolving over time as individuals encounter diverse social environments that introduce them to gender expectations related to aspects like marriage, parenthood, and work. Various determinants, such as race, age of children, education, family type, and pre-parenthood attitudes toward gender roles, contribute to this organic nature [1113]. Fatherhood, for instance, often entails the expectation of being the primary breadwinner, whereas motherhood encompasses responsibilities related to childcare, nurturing, and housework [14]. Nevertheless, diverse experiences of parenthood influence gender ideology, shaped by the specific gender expectations individuals encounter. For married couples, parenthood tends to be associated with less egalitarian gender ideologies, irrespective of gender and race [11]. Conversely, some studies suggest that parenthood may reinforce traditional gender role stereotypes when compared to childless individuals [13]. Moreover, there is evidence indicating that individuals may develop more traditional attitudes and behaviors regarding gender roles once they become parents [1517].

Attitudes toward traditional gender roles also impact individuals without children in different ways. For instance, women who prioritize their careers over starting a family may face judgments of being less feminine and more selfish, receiving more negative evaluations compared to women with children. Similarly, childfree men may encounter similar negative evaluations in comparison to men who have children [18]; or men who take on more domestic responsibilities may be seen as less manly [14]. These attitudes create obstacles for individuals who wish to adopt non-traditional gender roles. It has been reported that those who deviate from traditional gender roles may experience discrimination, leading to negative effects on both their mental and physical health [19].

Motherhood beliefs reflect societal norms and gender roles, yet studies often narrowly focus on the relationship between parenthood and mental health, neglecting the gendered aspects of motherhood. In other words, they often overlook the impact of gender roles and social expectations on this experience. For women, motherhood carries a unique context in which it is seen as both a gender-based obligation and a defining aspect of identity [20, 21]. Moreover, motherhood, unlike fatherhood, is often described as intensive, meaning that it is seen as the most significant and valuable role a woman can assume. At the same time, it imposes strict demands and sets unattainable standards, such as the invisible double workload involving both productive and reproductive work [2, 22].

The imposition of these roles, whether one is a mother or not, poses challenges for those diverging from societal expectations. Warner [23] introduces the "mommy mystique," illustrating how mothers grapple with stress, anger, and guilt due to unrealistic motherhood expectations. Intensive motherhood ideology has been linked to lower self-efficacy, high stress levels [24], parental exhaustion [25], depression, reduced life satisfaction, low perceived family support [26], and anxiety [27].

In Mexico, family and gender roles adhere strictly to societal expectations, imposing significant pressure to conform. A central cultural aspect is affiliative obedience, where both men and women embody the distinct feature of Mexican culture: self-sacrifice. This implies a belief that prioritizing the needs of others over one’s own is more important [28]. Mexicans frequently prioritize external social demands over their personal interests and desires [29].

The traditional Mexican family serves as an illustrative context to understand how gender roles are instilled and acquired in Mexico. According to Diaz-Loving et al. [28], Mexican families are guided by two main axes: a) the power and absolute supremacy of the father, and b) the love and essential sacrifice of the mother. This family structure is mirrored in normative traits of Mexicans, including the emphasis on obedience, the fear of family dishonor, and the magnification of virginity even among adolescents. Moreover, predominant beliefs in this culture include machismo, fear of parental authority, and the importance of respect.

Nevertheless, in Mexico there is a growing diversification of family structures, contemporary meanings related to the family are going beyond the exclusivity of the nuclear biparental model and there is greater openness and tolerance regarding possible alternative forms of coexistence and personal and family development [30]. Within this diversity, coupled with the collectivist character of Mexican society [31], is the participation of networks of women and extended family in the care of children, a term known as othermothers [32]. This could facilitate some conditions such as women having a support network that allows them to occupy other professional and work roles or to have time for self-care, reducing the parental burden.

Despite current changes in parenting roles and parenting decisions, it seems that there is an underlying maintenance of traditional gender roles, and if so, it would be important to know their relationship with mental health in both people with and without children. Furthermore, there is a lack of research on what this relationship would be like in a society where traditional family and gender beliefs are highly esteemed, and where women, due to the conventional family structure, are engaged in childcare collectively rather than individually. To test this hypothesis, the first step would be to have updated instruments that probe attitudes towards gender roles today, otherwise the results between gender roles and mental health could be biased.

The present research was divided into three independent studies. In the first and second studies, we extended the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale (ATGRS) [33] and Motherhood Beliefs Scale (MBS) [34] and performed psychometric validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The aim of including additional items in both scales was to update attitudes and beliefs in Mexican culture in order to avoid the traditionalist bias in both instruments. Finally, the third study examined the relationship between the new versions of ATGRS and MBS with measures assessing depression, anxiety and Positive Psychological Functioning (PPF) as indicators of mental health. This analysis was conducted in women and men with and without children.

Study 1

The objective for this first study was to add and validate new items of the ATGRS [33].

Participants

Participants were recruited through the laboratory’s social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter) and the personal social media accounts of the lab members from November to December 2021. Participants were native-Spanish speakers of Mexican nationality and 18 years or older and signed a written privacy notice and an informed consent form. During the data collection, demographic variables such as age, sex, parental status, and level of education were recorded in an anonymized manner. Later, during the database construction, one of the authors ensured that the data was anonymized by removing any information that could identify the participants, in order to perform the analysis and interpretation of the results. The research protocol received approval from the local Ethics in Research Committee of the School of Psychology-UNAM, in accordance with the federal guidelines set forth by the Mexican Health Department, which align with international regulations.

Instruments and procedure

We selected the ATGRS for our study as it is the sole scale developed in Mexico specifically designed to evaluate the construct it measures: an individual’s perception based on societal norms and expectations related to traditional and non-traditional gender roles in men and women [33]. The authors conducted an exploratory study prior to developing the scale to ensure its content was both culturally sensitive and had face validity. They used open questions to collect diverse conceptions -encompassing behaviors, traits, beliefs, etc.- that men and women have regarding their gender identity [33]. The scale’s validation process involved 120 men and 224 women, with an average age of 30 years (SD = 9.91). The educational background of the participants was varied: 40% had an education level of high school or less, while 60% had attained at least a bachelor’s degree. All participants belonged to a medium socioeconomic stratum.

ATGRS comprises 21 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = I like it very much, 5 = I dislike it very much). The scale is structured around three factors, collectively accounting for 46% of the variance. The first factor, Traditional Attitudes Towards Gender Roles, includes statements that endorse the continuation of conventional gender roles. The second factor, Favorable Attitudes Towards Gender Equity, reflects a supportive view of equal rights and opportunities for both men and women. The third factor, Favorable Attitudes Towards Female Empowerment, consists of items that positively assess the progress and emancipation of women. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, which measure internal consistency, were high, indicating strong reliability: 0.86 for the first factor, 0.85 for the second, and 0.76 for the third.

Our analysis identified several issues with the composition of the factors within the ATGRS. Firstly, the scale includes items that are anchored in hegemonic gender roles. Even the second factor, which is intended to assess favorable attitudes towards gender equity, does so within a traditional framework. For instance, the item "That the man participates in the care of the children" reflects the conventional view that caregiving is primarily a woman’s role. Thus, within the scale, male involvement in childcare is seen as an equitable attitude. However, in a modern context, true equity in childcare would mean recognizing both parents’ rights and responsibilities in child-rearing. This suggests a need for additional items in this factor to more accurately encapsulate the essence of gender equity.

Another issue is with the third factor, Favorable Attitude Towards Female Empowerment. Most of its items seem to focus more on gender equity rather than on female empowerment. Take, for example, "That women have the same freedom as men" (Item 3 in the original scale) and "That men and women perform the same tasks" (Item 6 in the original scale). Considering empowerment as a process enabling women, particularly those who have faced oppression, to make independent and strategic life choices based on their personal priorities [35], it becomes evident that the items in this third factor fall short of adequately capturing the concept of female empowerment.

To address these issues, we modified the items that make up factor 1 of the original scale, Favorable attitude towards traditional roles, but with reversed roles. For instance, the original item "That the man establishes the rules of the home" was complemented with "That the woman establishes the rules of the home." In the second factor, Favorable Attitude Towards Gender Equity, we introduced role-reversed items such as "That the woman expresses her emotions just like the man" and "That the man focuses on personal and professional self-improvement." Additionally, we incorporated two items related to maternity/paternity to address specific gender role stereotypes associated with women [21]. These items were "That the success of being a woman lies in being a mother" and "That the success of being a man lies in being a father." This inclusion acknowledges the gendered expectations surrounding parenting roles. In total, 13 new items were added to the scale, bringing the total number of items in the extended version of the ATGRS to 34. All participants in our study responded to this expanded scale via a Google Form.

Data analysis

To assess the adequacy of the sample, we performed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity.

To achieve the objective of this initial study, which is to psychometrically validate the ATGRS with new items, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory factor analysis as outlined below. We employed two approaches to determine the appropriate number of factors: Kaiser’s criteria and a scree plot. According to Kaiser’s criteria, we selected factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. In the scree plot, we identified the point where the eigenvalues seemed to stabilize, referred to as the "elbow" of the graph. This indicated the number of factors to include in the exploratory analysis. After considering the results from both approaches and taking theoretical foundations into account, we determined the final number of factors for the exploratory factor analysis.

For factor extraction, we used an orthogonal rotation since the factors were theoretically unrelated. Subsequently, we examined the factor loadings, retaining items with coefficients greater than 0.40 and eliminating those with lower loadings.

Next, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis with a Satorra-Bentler scaled correction of maximum likelihood to validate the factors identified in the exploratory analysis. Finally, we assessed the model using Chi-square goodness-of-fit statistics (p > .05), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). All statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 4.1.1 [36].

Results

The sample for Study 1 consisted of 2,677 participants, including 1,742 females (65.07%), 927 males (34.62%), and eight non-binary individuals (0.29%). The participants had a mean age of 23.36 years with a standard deviation of 7.76, and with an age range of 18–50 years. In terms of educational attainment, the distribution in the sample was as follows: seven participants (0.26%) with a primary school education, 79 (2.95%) with a secondary school education, 1,560 (58.27%) with a high school education, 952 (35.56%) with a bachelor’s degree, and 79 (2.95%) with a postgraduate degree. Among the participants, 7.39% reported having more than one child, 5.19% reported having only one child, and 87.41% reported not having any children.

Exploratory factor analysis

The KMO test was 0.89, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (χ2 = 68271.12; df = 561, p < .001), both results suggesting that the data was adequate for performing exploratory factor analysis. The scale´s reliability with the new items added was Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91.

Kaiser’s criteria revealed the presence of seven factors. The scree plot suggested seven factors first, followed by four factors. Based on these approaches, we decided to extract four factors because it was the model that best fitted to the theoretical bases of the topic.

Using the four-factor structure, we conducted an orthogonal rotation and eliminated items based on established factor loading criteria. Three items were removed, resulting in a final scale of 31 items across four factors (Table 1). The reliability of the final scale, consisting of 31 items, remained high with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91.

Table 1. Items from original and extended ATGRS.

Item number on original scale Factors New/ original item OriginalFactor Loadings Std
Exploratory Confirmatory
Factor 1. Traditional attitudes towards gender roles
1 The man establishes the rules of the home / Que el hombre establezca las reglas del hogar Original 1 0.65 0.63
4 The man always has the last Word / Que el hombre tenga siempre la última palabra Original 1 0.63 0.62
7 The woman is in charge of cooking / Que sea la mujer la que se encargue de hacer la comida Original 1 0.63 0.6
10 The man is dominant / Que el hombre sea dominante Original 1 0.55 0.51
13 The woman is in charge of taking care of the children / Que la mujer se encargue del cuidado de los hijos(as) Original 1 0.54 0.53
15 The woman dedicates herself to housework and stays at home / Que la mujer se dedique a las tareas domésticas y permanezca en el hogar Original 1 0.57 0.65
17 The man is a strong part of the relationship / Que el hombre sea la parte fuerte de la relación Original 1 0.57 0.59
19 The woman is submissive and selfless / Que la mujer sea sumisa y abnegada Original 1 0.42 0.48
Factor 2. Favorable attitude towards egalitarian success
21 The success of being a man lies in having a paid job / Que el éxito de ser hombre radique en tener un trabajo remunerado Original 1 0.51 0.85
NA The success of being a woman lies in having a paid job / Que el éxito de ser mujer radique en tener un trabajo remunerado New NA 0.50 0.89
NA The success of being a woman lies in being a mother / Que el éxito de ser mujer radique en ser madre New NA 0.89 0.46
NA The success of being a man lies in being a father / Que el éxito de ser hombre radique en ser padre New NA 0.86 0.46
Factor 3. Favorable attitude towards gender equity
2 The man participates in childcare / Que el hombre participe en el cuidado de los hijos Original 2 0.78 0.65
5 The woman has job opportunities similar to men / Que la mujer tenga oportunidades laborales similares a los hombres Original 2 0.85 0.77
8 The man expresses his emotions just like a woman / Que el hombre externe sus emociones igual que una mujer Original 2 0.81 0.71
NA The woman expresses her emotions just like a man / Que la mujer externe sus emociones igual que un hombre New NA 0.68 0.52
11 The woman overcomes herself personally and professionally / Que la mujer se supere personal y profesionalmente Original 2 0.94 0.88
NA The man overcomes himself personally and professionally / Que el hombre se supere personal y profesionalmente New NA 0.94 0.85
14 The man interacts and plays with the children / Que el hombre conviva y juegue con los hijos Original 2 0.92 0.85
16 The woman develops outside the home environment / Que la mujer se desarrolle fuera del ámbito hogareño Original 2 0.86 0.79
3 The woman has the same freedom as man / Que la mujer tenga igual libertad que el hombre Original 3 0.89 0.85
6 Men and women perform the same tasks / Que los hombres y las mujeres desarrollen las mismas tareas Original 3 0.85 0.78
9 The woman is self-sufficient / Que la mujer sea autosuficiente Original 3 0.90 0.85
12 The woman participate in decision-making / Que la mujer participe en la toma de decisiones Original 3 0.90 0.85
Factor 4, Non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles
NA The woman establishes the rules of the home / Que la mujer establezca las reglas del hogar New NA 0.67 0.66
NA The woman always has the last word / Que la mujer tenga siempre la última palabra New NA 0.65 0.65
NA The man is in charge of cooking / Que sea el hombre el que se encargue de hacer la comida New NA 0.65 0.67
NA The woman is dominant / Que la mujer sea dominante New NA 0.66 0.60
18 The man is in charge of taking care of the children / Que el hombre se encargue del cuidado de los hijos(as) Original 2 0.65 0.67
NA The man dedicates himself to housework and stays at home / Que el hombre se dedique a las tareas domésticas y permanezca en el hogar New NA 0.67 0.63
NA The woman is a strong part of the relationship / Que la mujer sea la parte fuerte de la relación New NA 0.66 0.63
Delated items
NA The man is submissive and selfless / Que el hombre sea sumiso y abnegado New NA > 0.40
20 The man is more time away from home / Que el hombre se encuentre más tiempo fuera del hogar Original 1 > 0.40
NA The woman spends more time away from home / Que la mujer se encuentre más tiempo fuera del hogar New NA > 0.40

NA, Not Applicable

The four factors were composed as follows, presented in order from the factor encompassing the most traditional attitudes to the factor that includes non-traditional attitudes: Factor 1, Traditional attitudes towards gender roles, (eight items); Factor 2, Favorable attitude towards egalitarian success, (four items); Factor 3, Favorable attitude towards gender equity, (12 items); and, Factor 4, Non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles (seven items) (Table 1).

Confirmatory factor analysis

The fit indices calculated to evaluate the model indicated that the four-factor structure derived from the exploratory analysis was validated. The obtained results were as follows: CFI = 0.77, TLI = 0.75, RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR = 0.07, and S-Bχ2 (428) = 14464.42 (p < 0.001). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.86 for Factor 1, Traditional attitudes towards gender roles; 0.86 for Factor 2, Favorable attitude towards egalitarian success; 0.94 for Factor 3, Favorable attitude towards gender equity; and 0.85 for Factor 4, Non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles. The factor loadings of each item are shown in Table 1.

Discussion of study 1

In this first study, we identified two issues with the ATGRS scale, prompting us to propose an extension. The first issue pertains to factor 2 of the original scale, where we observed a bias towards traditional content in the items. The second issue concerns the third factor of the original scale, labeled as female empowerment, as the items reflected behaviors associated more with gender equity rather than female empowerment.

Through our exploratory and confirmatory analyses, incorporating the newly proposed items, we found that the scale required a restructuring into four factors. This restructuring successfully addressed the aforementioned issues.

In the ATGRS extended scale, all the items of factor 1 of the original scale were retained, now referred to as Traditional attitudes towards gender roles.

In factor 2, we grouped four items that address the success of men and women, and we named this factor Favorable attitudes towards egalitarian success. An item from factor 1 of the original scale, (The success of being a man lies in having a paid job), was included in this factor. Additionally, we grouped its counterpart, the idea that the success of women is having a paid job (a new item proposed by us).

Furthermore, we grouped two new items in factor 2. Continuing with our intention to include non-hegemonic statements, considering that the idea of success for women has traditionally focused on their role as mothers, we included an item in this factor that reflects the success of men in terms of their paternity: The success of being a man lies in being a father. As a result, factor 2 of the extended version of ATGRS incorporates two traditional items regarding the success of being a man or a woman, while also highlighting the non-hegemonic version of success in women and men.

In the extended version, factor 3 was made up of six items related to gender equity, which were taken from factor 2 of the original scale. As anticipated, the items that originally comprised factor 3, referred to as female empowerment, were grouped into the new factor 3, which we named Favorable attitude towards gender equity. Additionally, two new items were added (The woman expresses her emotions just like a man; and, The man overcomes himself personally and professionally). The extended version of factor 3 comprised a total of 12 items, surpassing the original scale’s seven items, thus providing a more comprehensive representation of gender equity.

Lastly, all the items we added as counterparts to the traditional items were grouped in factor 4, named Non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles. It is important to mention that in this factor an item from factor 2 of the original scale (The man is in charge of taking care of the children).

In summary, the extended version of ATGRS consists of four factors, ranging from the most traditional gender attitudes (Factor 1) to the least traditional attitudes (Factor 4). Furthermore, non-hegemonic items were incorporated to assess the success of women and men (Factor 2), and the number of items addressing gender equity (Factor 3) was expanded.

The importance of expanding this scale lies in two main reasons. The first reason is to broaden the traditional conception of success for men and women. By acknowledging that a woman’s success can lie in having a paid job, it helps to challenge the stereotype that her role should be limited to child-rearing or being a housewife [37]. It also aims to eliminate the notion that a woman is only considered successful once she becomes a mother. This extended version will allow for the study of a realistic portrayal of the acceptance of women’s lives today and the actual adoption of non-traditional gender roles. This can help to recognize and address any lingering biases towards what is considered feminine or masculine, with the aim of reducing them. Secondly, by exploring attitudes towards gender roles in a society where traditional gender roles are being challenged by the demands of social reorganization, we can gain insights into how this transformation of roles impacts mental health and overall quality of life for individuals.

Study 2

The objective for this study was to create and validate new items of the MBS [34].

Participants

We recruited a new sample of participants than in Study 1, from January to June 2022. In the same way, volunteers were Mexican, native-Spanish speakers and 18 years or older. All volunteers signed a written privacy notice and an informed consent form according to the approval of the same protocol as study 1, by the local Ethics in Research Committee of the School of Psychology-UNAM. Again, demographic variables were collected anonymously during data collection, and one author ensured this during database formation.

Instruments and procedure

In Mexico there is just one validated scale that evaluates Motherhood Beliefs, i.e. MBS [34]. This scale was developed through interviews with three distinct groups of women: 1) those receiving gynecological care at a reproductive health hospital, 2) mothers of preschool children, and 3) university students. These women were asked about their perceptions of what it means to be a mother. Based on their responses, 17 items were written with Likert-type responses ranging from 0 = disagree to 5 = totally agree belonging to two dimensions: 1) Sense of Life, which assesses statements related to motherhood as a woman’s life purpose, something that brings her happy and fulfilled; and 2) Social Duty, which includes statements about motherhood as an obligation to society, with a woman’s value being diminished if she does not fulfill this duty. After initial development, three judges assessed how well each item aligned with the definitions of these proposed dimensions, leading to the elimination of two items.

The scale’s validation involved a sample of 545 women, aged between 17 and 52 years (Mean = 30.97; SD = 7.54). To establish concurrent validity, the study included women with varying maternal statuses: those who experienced perinatal loss (35.8%), those undergoing infertility treatments or with high-risk pregnancies (10.8%), mothers of preschool-age children (36.6%), and female university students without children (17.1%). Educational background varied, with 64.7% having at least a secondary school education. Only 38.2% were employed, and about 40% were single. Approximately 40% of the participants had between one and five children.

Two additional items were excluded due to their factor loadings being less than 0.40 in the exploratory analysis, resulting in the final scale comprising 13 items. Again, the scale was categorized into two factors: 1) Sense of Life, and 2) Social Duty. The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 for the total scale, 0.91 for the Sense of Life factor, and 0.83 for the Social Duty factor.

During the validation of the Motherhood Belief Scale, groups were contrasted based on maternal status. Findings revealed that women who had experienced perinatal loss or infertility issues exhibited more favorable beliefs towards motherhood on both subscales than did mothers and university students.

Although the initial validation included women with diverse motherhood statuses, we consider that the 13 items across just two factors are insufficient for a comprehensive assessment of motherhood in our society [37]. The original scale’s items also displayed a significant bias towards hegemonic gender stereotypes, exemplified by statements like "A woman is complete until she is a mother".

To enhance the scale, we introduced additional items that more thoroughly examine various aspects of motherhood while avoiding gender stereotypes. These new items were derived from an extensive review of theoretical and scientific literature on motherhood from 2000 to 2021. This review led to the identification of a wide range of definitions, concepts, and beliefs about motherhood, which were then adapted into Likert-type statements. As a result, 16 new items were added to the MBS, covering areas such as female identity, decision-making, lifestyle, success, life plans, and emotions including love, frustration, pain, and passion. For example, new items included ’Maternity is a woman’s decision’ and ’Motherhood can generate anxiety,’ as detailed in Table 2. Participants completed this extended version of the MBS via a Google Form.

Table 2. Items from original and extended MBS.

Item number on original scale Factors New/ original item Original Factor Loadings Std
Factor 1: Social duty / Original-MBS Exploratory Confirmatory
1 A woman’s value depends on her being a mother. / El valor de una mujer depende de que sea madre. Original 2 0.76 0.79
13 If a woman does not have children, she deserves to be rejected by others. / Si una mujer no tiene hijos, merece el rechazo de los demás. Original 2 0.67 0.70
15 For a woman life is only worthwhile if she has children. / Para una mujer vale la pena vivir solo si tiene hijos. Original 2 0.64 0.71
6 A woman’s duty is to have children. / El deber de una mujer es tener hijos. Original 2 0.45 0.58
8 Men respect a woman more when she is a mother. / Los hombres respetan más a la mujer cuando es madre. Original 2 0.10 Delated item
Factor 2: Sense of life / Original-MBS
9 In order to feel happy a woman needs to have a child. / Para sentirse feliz, una mujer necesita tener un hijo. Original 1 0.80 0.88
5 A woman isn’t complete/fulfilled until she becomes a mother. / Una mujer está completa hasta que es madre. Original 1 0.80 0.87
4 For a woman, no achievement compares to being a mother. / Para una mujer, ningún logro se compara con ser madre. Original 1 0.78 0.77
12 The most important thing for a woman is to become a mother. / Lo más importante para una mujer es ser madre. Original 1 0.78 0.75
3 A woman’s greatest desire is to have one or more children. / Lo que más desea una mujer es tener uno o más hijos. Original 1 0.77 0.76
7 A woman is happier if she becomes a mother. / Una mujer es más feliz si es madre. Original 1 0.77 0.75
11 A woman doesn’t feel fulfilled until she has a child. / Una mujer se realiza hasta que tiene un hijo. Original 1 0.76 0.86
2 Life is worth living if you have children. / La vida vale la pena si tienes hijos. Original 1 0.55 0.57
Factor 3: Hegemonic stereotypes / Extended-MBS
NA Motherhood makes women more responsible. / La maternidad hace más responsable a la mujer. New NA 0.43 0.64
NA Motherhood bestows happiness. / La maternidad otorga la felicidad. New NA 0.38 0.55
NA It is better when only the mother takes care of the children’s upbringing. / Es mejor que solo la madre se haga cargo de la crianza de los hijos(as). New NA 0.37 0.37
NA Motherhood implies forgetting the needs of women. / La maternidad implica olvidar las necesidades propias de la mujer. New NA 0.35 0.22
NA Maternity interferes with the work-professional performance of women due to the pregnancy and parenting time. / La maternidad interfiere con el desempeño laboral-profesional de las mujeres debido al tiempo de gestación y de crianza. New NA 0.32 0.20
NA Prioritizing your own needs before those of your children makes you a bad mother. / Priorizar las necesidades propias antes que las de los hijos (as) te hace ser una mala madre. New NA 0.31 0.36
Factor 4: Negative Emotions / Extended-MBS
NA Motherhood can be scary. / La maternidad puede generar miedo. New NA 0.87 1.02
NA Motherhood can generate anxiety. / La maternidad puede generar ansiedad. New NA 0.85 0.79
Factor 5: Motherhood as a decision / Extended-MBS
NA A woman can have a successful identity without being a mother. / Una mujer puede tener una identidad exitosa sin ser madre. New NA 0.69 0.73
NA Motherhood is one way to build a family, but it is not the only one. / La maternidad es solo una forma de construir una familia, pero no la única. New NA 0.66 0.59
NA A couple’s relationship can be solid or consolidated without children. / Una relación de pareja puede ser sólida o consolidarse sin hijos. New NA 0.63 0.69
NA Feminine identity is NOT built from the women’s reproductive capacity. / La identidad femenina NO se construye a partir de la capacidad reproductiva de las mujeres. New NA 0.62 0.61
NA A woman’s identity is defined by personal, family, social, and professional diversity and not only from motherhood. / La identidad de una mujer se define desde una diversidad personal, familiar, social, profesional y no sólo desde la maternidad. New NA 0.59 0.70
NA Motherhood is a woman’s decision. / La maternidad es una decisión de la mujer. New NA 0.57 0.55
NA Motherhood does not define a women’s life. / La maternidad no define la vida femenina. New NA 0.56 0.50
NA Other woman can raise the child besides the mother. / La crianza puede ser ejercida por otras mujeres además de la mamá. New NA 0.35 0.36

NA, Not Applicable

Data analysis

To attain the objective of psychometrically validating the MBS with new items, we followed the same analysis as Study 1, which involved an exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory factor analysis as outlined below. For the statistical analysis of the psychometric properties of the extended MBS, we utilized R software, version 4.1.1 [29]. The analysis included several measures: the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, which assesses the suitability of the data for factor analysis; Bartlett’s sphericity test, which examines the presence of redundancy or correlation among item scores in the extended MBS that can be summarized with a few factors; and Cronbach’s α, which measures the reliability of the scale. Subsequently, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to examine the structure of the extended MBS. Finally, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a Satorra-Bentler scaled correction of maximum likelihood to assess the factor model’s fit, as it provides a more robust fit [38] for extended-MBS.

Results

The sample for Study 2 consisted of 565 participants, with 417 (73%) females, 144 (25.5%) males, and 4 (0.71%) identifying as non-binary. The age range of the participants was 18 to 50 years old (mean = 25.50, sd = 9.58). Among the participants, 19.3% (109) had children, while 80.7% (456) did not. The educational distribution of the sample was as follows: one participant (0.17%) with a primary school education, 7 (1.24%) with a secondary school education, 287 (50.8%) with a high school education, 251 (44.4%) with a bachelor’s degree, and 19 (3.36%) with a postgraduate degree.

Exploratory factor analysis

The exploratory factor analysis for psychometric properties of the extended-MBS showed that the adequacy of the sample was assessed as KMO = 0.86. The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity yielded a significant result (χ2 = 7500.40; df = 406, p < 0.001), indicating that there was significant correlation among the item scores. The reliability of the new scale, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, was 0.82.

To determine the number of factors, we applied Kaiser’s criteria (eigenvalues > 1), which indicated the presence of five factors. Subsequently, employing an orthogonal rotation with the five-factor structure and minimizing the overall residual matrix through an ordinary least squares (OLS) procedure with empirical first derivatives, we confirmed the exclusion of the item with the lowest loading score from the original-MBS, i.e., item 13: “Men respect a woman more when she is a mother. The final scale, consisting of 28 items, demonstrated good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.87.

Confirmatory factor analysis

The confirmatory factor analysis of extended-MBS demonstrated that the five-factor model exhibited a good fit according to the standard fit indexes, with a CFI = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.07, and S-Bχ2 (340) = 1499.32 (p < 0.001).

After confirming that the 28 items were allocated into five factors, we named and ordered them based on the degree of traditionalism, from most to least traditional: Factor 1, Social duty, included four items from original-MBS; Factor 2, Sense of life, comprised eight items from original-MBS; Factor 3, Hegemonic stereotypes comprised six new items; Factor 4, Negative emotions, included two new items; and, Factor 5, Motherhood as a decision, encompassed eight new items (Table 2).

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.89 for Social duty, 0.91 for Sense of life, 0.54 for Hegemonic stereotypes, 0.77 for Negative emotions, and 0.78 for Motherhood as a decision. The factor loadings for each item are presented in Table 2.

Discussion of study 2

In our study, we aimed to refine the Motherhood Belief Scale (MBS) due to its original version’s bias, which was narrowly concentrated on two factors: Sense of Life and Social Duty. These factors predominantly echoed conventional stereotypes about motherhood. To rectify this, the updated MBS preserved these two original factors while significantly broadening its framework. A thorough factorial analysis led to the integration of all 28 items, encompassing both the original and newly added items. We then named the factors in alignment with the themes of the grouped items, thus including Hegemonic stereotypes, Negative emotions, and Motherhood as a decision alongside the two original and initial factors, Sense of life and Social duty. This expanded and diversified structure of the MBS offers a deeper, more inclusive exploration of motherhood’s complex and varied dimensions.

The third factor, named Hegemonic Stereotypes, aims to underscore the predominant beliefs about motherhood that reinforce the exclusive responsibility of mothers in child-rearing. It reflects societal expectations of full-time dedication as a criterion for being deemed a good mother, emphasizing complete responsibility and happiness in motherhood, absolute commitment to procreation, and the act of relinquishing one’s own needs and the professional field. Although Hegemonic Stereotypes are expressed across these diverse contexts (responsibility, parenting style, professional work, personal needs). The inclusion of various contexts in the items of this factor may have contributed to its lower consistency. Future efforts could focus on refining this factor by either narrowing down the included contexts or incorporating more items for each context.

However, the primary contribution of the extended MBS version was the inclusion of items representing the non-hegemonic perspective of motherhood, grouped in the last two factors. Factor Four, named Negative Emotions, encompassed items acknowledging the presence of negative emotions in motherhood, contrary to traditional approach that took for granted that motherhood to be only positive emotions. This conceptualization had not been previously addressed in motherhood inventories, as the myth of motherhood being the ultimate fulfillment for women perpetuates the idea that negative emotions, such as fear, hopelessness, and anxiety, are not commonly experienced. By shedding light on these emotions, we normalize the idea that negative emotions are a normal part of motherhood, including feelings of anxiety, depression, fatigue, exhaustion, and uncertainty. Therefore, we encourage include theoretical and methodological study of this emotional ambivalence as part of the experience of motherhood.

Factor Five, named Motherhood as a Decision, incorporated items representing an alternative perspective to the social duty and sense of life viewpoints. These items conveyed beliefs such as a woman’s ability to be successful without becoming a mother, that motherhood is not the sole path to starting a family, that a solid couple relationship can exist without children, and that a woman’s feminine identity is not solely defined by her reproductive capacity. In essence, these items emphasize that motherhood is ultimately a personal decision.

Overall, the factors newly introduced displayed a comparatively lower level of internal consistency than the original, more traditional factors. This discrepancy can likely be attributed to the varied contexts of motherhood that these new factors explore, as previously mentioned. Another contributing factor could be the limited number of items for each new factor, such as only two items in the Negative Emotions factor. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the original factors, which are deeply rooted in tradition, exhibited higher consistency. This higher consistency may stem from their focus on beliefs that are more established and broadly accepted in our society, particularly those beliefs that correspond with traditional and hegemonic perspectives on motherhood.

The significance of including non-hegemonic beliefs about motherhood lies in several aspects: 1) dispelling the myth of the perfect mother, which imposes demands that jeopardize women’s physical, mental, and emotional well-being [22]; 2) reducing the gender gap in academic and professional environments by normalizing the continuation of studies and/or work after becoming a mother [39]; 3) addressing the psychological distress resulting from the pressure to conform to societal expectations of hegemonic motherhood, from the decision-making process to the act of parenting [40]; and 4) alleviating feelings of guilt for deviating from societal norms, whether it be delaying or choosing not to pursue motherhood, prioritizing academic and/or career success over starting a family [24]. Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that experiencing negative emotions such as fatigue, exhaustion, anxiety, and anguish while navigating motherhood is valid, necessary, and entirely normal [41].

Study 3

For the final study, we examined the relationship between the new versions of ATGRS and MBS, as well as their association with scores on depression, anxiety, and PPF scales, which serve as measures of mental health.

Participants

Similarly, as in Study 1 and 2, participants were recruited through the laboratory’s social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter) and the personal social media accounts of laboratory members from October to December 2022. We invited the general population to participate with the only restriction that they were over 18 years of age. Participants were native-Spanish speakers of Mexican nationality, and all signed a written privacy notice and an informed consent form. Demographic data were anonymously collected including age, last grade of studies, employment status, locality, and marital status. All participants were provided with written information about the study’s objectives and procedures. They then signed a privacy notice and informed consent form in accordance with the project’s approval from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology at UNAM.

Materials and procedure

Instruments

We utilized the extended version of ATGRS from Study 1 and the extended version of MBS from Study 2. Due to the lengthy names of the factors comprising ATGRS, the following abbreviations were employed in Study 3: Factor 1, Traditional attitudes towards gender roles (abbreviated as Traditional factor); Factor 2, Favorable attitude towards egalitarian success (abbreviated as Egalitarian success factor); Factor 3, Favorable attitude towards gender equity (abbreviated as Gender equity factor); and, Factor 4, Non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles (abbreviated as Non-traditional factor).

Beck Depression Inventory [42]. This inventory assesses the frequency and intensity of cognitive-affective and somatic-motivational symptoms of depression over a two-week period. It comprises 21 items that are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (no presence of the symptom) to 3 (severe degree of the symptom).

Beck Anxiety Inventory [43]. This inventory evaluates the frequency with which an individual experiences common somatic and cognitive symptom of anxiety. It consists of 21 items, and respondents rate the items on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not affected) to 3 (severely affected).

Positive Psychological Functioning Scale (PPF) [44]. This scale evaluates various psychological resources essential for people’s psychological well-being including Autonomy, Resilience, Self-esteem, Purpose in life, Enjoyment, Optimism, Curiosity, Creativity, Sense of humor, Mastery of the environment and Vitality. The scale comprises eleven subscales, each consisting of three items. The score can be calculated for each subscale and for the overall total of all items. Participants provided responses on a Likert-type scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

Data analysis

Initially, we calculated descriptive statistics for the sociodemographic variables, including measures of central tendency (such as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range) and the cumulative percentage frequency of last grade of studies, employment status, locality and marital status. As was expected, people with children were found to be older and had higher education levels compared to those without children. Consequently, age and education level were incorporated as covariates in association analyses to control for these demographic differences.

To achieve the primary aim of the Study 3, which is to examine the association between the new versions of ATGRS and MBS, as well as their correlation with measures of mental health, we conducted partial correlation analyses using Spearman’s non-parametric method to examine the relationships between the different scales while controlling for the effects of covariates, namely age and education level. To account for multiple correlations and reduce the risk of Type I errors, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Additionally, as a complement analysis, using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method, we conducted multiple linear regressions to predict a dependent variable from a set of factors on a scale. For instance, to predict scores on the Social Duty factor of the MBS scale, all factors from the ATGRS scale were used as predictor variables. In all cases, the interaction with sex and parental status was calculated, and adjustments were made for age and educational level.

In addition to the main objective, we aimed to assess these variables concerning sex and parental status: ATGRS and MBS in Study 3.2 and measures of mental health in Study 3.4. To achieve this, we utilized the Mann-Whitney test for independent samples to compare the scores of all scales based on parenting status and sex. To mitigate the possibility of Type I errors resulting from multiple comparisons, we applied the Holm correction. All statistical analyses were performed using R Studio software, version 4.1.1 [36], with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

Below are the results presented according to specific objectives, including the objective itself, sample details, expected hypotheses, and the corresponding results.

Study 3.1

As the first objective of this study, we examined the relationship between ATGRS and MBS in the sample of 685 volunteers, with and without children.

According to previous studies which report that people who hold traditional beliefs in one area of society tend to also hold traditional attitudes in other areas, and conversely, non-traditional attitudes are generally prevalent across various social domains [45], we hypothesized that higher scores on traditional attitudes towards gender roles (Traditional factor) would be associated with higher scores on the more traditional factors of the MBS scale: Social duty, Sense of life, and Hegemonic stereotypes. Additionally, we expected that higher scores on non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles (Egalitarian success factor, Gender equity factor, and Non-traditional factor) would be related to higher scores in the non-traditional factors of the MBS scale: Negative emotions and Motherhood as a decision.

Results

The sample for Study 3 consisted of 685 participants, including 465 women (67.88%, mean age = 24.95, sd = 9.44, range = 18–67 years), 207 men (30.21%, mean age = 24.43, sd = 9.27, range = 18–71 years), and 13 non-binary individuals (1.89%, mean age = 22.00, sd = 7.06, range = 18–45 years). Table 3 shows demographic data grouped by parenting status and sex.

Table 3. Demographic data of participants of study 3 grouped by parenting status and by sex.
  PARENTING STATUS
Without children With children
n = 577 n = 108
SEX SEX
  Women Men Non-binary Women Men Non-binary
  n = 373 n = 192 n = 12 n = 92 n = 15 n = 1
  Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)
Age 21.23 (4.04) 22.64 (6.30) 20.08 (1.51) 40.04 (10.01) 47.27 (11.00) 45 (—)
Last grade of studies n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
none 0 0 0 1 (1.09) 0 0
primary school 0 0 0 3 (3.26) 0 0
secondary school 10 (2.62) 5 (2.60) 0 14 (15.22) 3 (20.00) 0
high school 263 (70.51) 117 (60.94) 9 (75) 26 (28.26) 3 (20.00) 0
bachelor’s degree 92 (24.66) 66 (34.38) 3 (25) 44 (47.83) 6 (40.00) 0
postgraduate degree 8 (2.14) 4 (2.08) 0 4 (4.35) 3 (20.00) 1 (100)
Employment status n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Student 318 (85.25) 131 (68.23) 10 (83.33) 2 (2.17) 0 0
Part-time job 17 (4.56) 16 (8.33) 2 (16.67) 17 (18.48) 2 (13.33) 0
Full-time job 23 (6.17) 35 (18.23) 0 37 (40.22) 8 (53.33) 1 (100)
Unpaid job 12 (3.22) 3 (1.56) 0 29 (31.52) 1 (6.67) 0
Other 3 (0.80) 7 (3.65) 0 7 (7.61) 4 (26.67) 0
Locality n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Mexico City 279 (74.80) 146 (76.04) 8 (66.67) 65 (70.65) 10 (66.67) 0
Mexico state 77 (20.64) 41 (21.35) 3 (25.00) 21 (22.83) 3 (20) 1 (100)
Other state 17 (4.56) 5 (2.60) 1 (8.33) 6 (6.52) 2 (13.33) 0
Marital Status n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Single 359 (96.25) 174 (90.63) 12 (100) 38 (41.30) 5 (33.33) 1 (100)
Married 12 (3.22) 15 (7.81) 0 54 (58.70) 10 (66.67) 0
Engagement 2 (0.54) 3 (1.56) 0 0 0 0
Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)
Depression 19.35 (12.48) 13.95 (11.29) 32.83 (15.42) 12.91 (11.56) 8.93 (8.94) 4
Anxiety 19.13 (13.26) 12.43 (12.27) 26.92 (14.85) 12.72 (12.36) 9.47 (9.83) 1
PPF 133.14 (29.48) 142.79 (32.21) 114.58 (26.09) 141.14 (36.44) 155.93 (25.54) 130
ATGRS Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)
Traditional 15.96 (4.61) 19.78 (5.08) 17.42 (3.40) 16.83 (5.36) 19.87 (4.55) 12
Egalitarian success 57.42 (4.71) 53.83 (9.05) 57.33 (3.23) 55.34 (5.99) 50.53 (11.04) 49
Gender equity 8.00 (3.01) 8.58 (3.42) 5.92 (2.07) 9.22 (3.54) 11.07 (3.37) 6
Non-traditional 19.51 (5.48) 19.23 (4.70) 20.00 (2.92) 17.52 (5.34) 17.6 (3.78) 26
MBS Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)
Social Duty 0.26 (1.24) 0.34 (1.49) 0.08 (0.29) 0.63 (1.94) 1.13 (3.02) 0
Sense of life 2.17 (3.91) 4.32 (5.68) 1.50 (1.57) 7.71 (8.65) 5.87 (7.8) 0
Hegemonic stereotypes 9.23 (4.67) 9.43 (5.34) 11.17 (5.83) 9.52 (5.69) 9.13 (5.84) 13
Negative emotions 7.83 (2.33) 7.23 (2.49) 6.92 (2.27) 6.61 (3.28) 5.6 (3.27) 10
Motherhood as a decision 36.62 (5.60) 33.96 (8.19) 37.67 (2.06) 33.63 (6.84) 30.53 (8.67) 40

According to expectations, we observed significant positive correlations between the Traditional and Egalitarian success factors of ATGRS with the traditional factors of the MBS scale (Social duty, Sense of life, and Hegemonic stereotypes). The Gender equity factor of ATGRS showed a significant positive correlation with the non-traditional factors of the MBS scale (Negative emotions and Motherhood as a decision). Additionally, the Non-traditional factor of ATGRS exhibited significant positive correlations with the Hegemonic stereotypes and Negative emotions factors of MBS. Conversely, we found significant negative correlations between the Gender equity factor of ATGRS and the traditional factors of the MBS scale (Social duty, Sense of life, and Hegemonic stereotypes), as well as between the Traditional and Egalitarian success of ATGRS and the Motherhood as a decision of MBS (Table 4). These findings were similar when dividing the total sample into subsamples, that is, in the subsample of individuals without children, including both women and men; however, for the subsample of individuals with children, only some of these correlations remained (Table 4).

Table 4. Spearman partial correlation coefficients between ATGRS and MBS, adjusted for age and educational level.

Positive correlations are indicated in red, while negative correlations are indicated in blue.

ATGRS
Traditional Egalitarian success Gender equity Non-traditional
MBS total sample, n = 685
Social duty 0.17 0.19 -0.21
Sense of life 0.30 0.22 -0.17
Hegemonic stereotypes 0.18 0.16 -0.13 0.13
Negative emotions 0.18 0.14
Motherhood as a decision -0.19 -0.25 0.28
without children sample, n = 577
Social duty 0.14 0.15 -0.19
Sense of life 0.32 0.20 -0.17
Hegemonic stereotypes 0.17 0.15 -0.13
Negative emotions 0.17 0.13
Motherhood as a decision -0.17 -0.24 0.26
with children sample, n = 108
Social duty 0.30 0.38
Sense of life 0.31
Motherhood as a decision -0.29 0.37
women without children sample, n = 373
Social duty 0.17 -0.17
Sense of life 0.26
Hegemonic stereotypes 0.20
Negative emotions 0.17
Motherhood as a decision -0.18 0.24
men without children sample, n = 192
Social duty -0.25
Sense of life 0.28 0.36 -0.23
Motherhood as a decision -0.31 0.24
women with children sample, n = 92
Social duty 0.40
Sense of life 0.36
Motherhood as a decision 0.39

All coefficients shown in the table were significant at p < 0.05 adjusted using the Bonferroni method.

Specifically, in the sample of women without children, positive correlations were found between the Traditional factor of ATGRS and traditional factors of MBS, and the Gender equity factor of ATGRS showed a positive correlation with Motherhood as a decision. In men without children, positive correlations were observed between the Traditional factor of ATGRS and one traditional factor of MBS (Sense of life), as well as between the Egalitarian success factor of ATGRS and Sense of life. Negative correlations were found between the Egalitarian success factor of ATGRS and Motherhood as a decision, and between the Gender equity factor of ATGRS and traditional factors of MBS (Table 4). For samples with children, significant positive correlations were found only in the sample of women with children, particularly between the Egalitarian success factor of ATGRS and traditional factors of MBS, as well as between the Gender equity factor of ATGRS and Motherhood as a decision (Table 4).

To confirm and complement these findings, we employed a multiple linear regression model to explore how all factors from the ATGRS scale influence each component of the MBS (Table 5). Moreover, we investigated the interaction of these factors with sex and parenthood status, while controlling for age and educational level. Regarding Social duty, the model demonstrated an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 (F(13, 671) = 7.71, p < 0.001). For the Sense of life, the model exhibited an adjusted R2 value of 0.21 (F(13, 671) = 15.48, p < 0.001). Concerning Hegemonic stereotypes, the model indicated an adjusted R2 value of 0.06 (F(13, 671) = 4.46, p < 0.001). For Negative emotions, the model displayed an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(13, 671) = 5.39, p < 0.001). Regarding Motherhood as a decision, the model revealed an adjusted R2 value of 0.17 (F(13, 671) = 12.29, p < 0.001). No interactions with sex and parenthood status were detected in any model.

Table 5. Multiple lineal model from ATGRS factors for each factor of MBS, adjusted for age and educational level.
Estimate SE t-value p-value
Social duty Traditional 0.05 0.01 3.67 p < 0.001
Egalitarian success 0.05 0.02 2.71 p < 0.01
Gender equity -0.05 0.01 -5.95 p < 0.001
Non-traditional -0.05 0.02 -2.11 p < 0.05
Sense of life Traditional 0.24 0.05 4.53 p < 0.001
Egalitarian success 0.41 0.07 6.12 p < 0.001
Gender equity -0.04 0.03 -1.33 N.S
Non-traditional -0.15 0.08 -1.72 N.S
Hegemonic stereotypes Traditional 0.15 0.05 2.88 p < 0.01
Egalitarian success 0.19 0.06 2.98 p < 0.01
Gender equity -0.04 0.03 -1.29 N.S
Non-traditional 0.01 0.08 0.07 N.S
Negative emotions Traditional -0.02 0.02 -0.85 N.S
Egalitarian success -0.06 0.03 -1.77 N.S
Gender equity 0.06 0.02 4.02 p < 0.001
Non-traditional 0.09 0.04 1.98 p < 0.05
Motherhood as a decision Traditional -0.06 0.06 -1.05 N.S
Egalitarian success -0.39 0.08 -4.84 p < 0.001
Gender equity 0.28 0.04 7.25 p < 0.001
Non-traditional 0.13 0.11 1.26 N.S

N.S., not significant

The results of the multiple linear regression are also in accordance with the hypotheses. Social duty, Sense of life, and Hegemonic stereotypes as motherhood beliefs were predicted positively by traditional factors of ATGRS (Table 5). Non-traditional factors of ATGRS predicted negatively Social duty, while a contrasting pattern was detected for the Negative emotions factor of the MBS scale, i.e., it was predicted positively. Motherhood as a decision was predicted positively by Gender equity and negatively by Egalitarian success.

Study 3.2

Then, we examined whether there were differences in ATGRS and MBS based on sex and parental status. As shown in Table 3 of demographic data, the number of people with and without children who participated in Study 3 was unequal, n = 108 and n = 577, respectively. To ensure equal sample sizes for the comparison based on Parenting status, we randomly selected 107 individuals without children while maintaining the proportion of women and men from the sample with children (92 women and 15 men) out of a total of 577 individuals. Additionally, for the between-group comparisons analysis based on Parenting status and Sex, we excluded the participant who identified as non-binary in the sex variable, resulting in a total of 107 participants with children.

It has been described that having children has a "traditionalizing" effect on social beliefs [13, 46], we hypothesized that individuals with children would exhibit higher scores in traditional attitudes towards gender roles and in beliefs of motherhood, while those without children would display higher scores in non-traditional attitudes and beliefs. Based on the privileges granted to men over women by hegemonic traditional beliefs about gender roles, we expected men to have higher scores in traditional attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood beliefs, whereas women were anticipated to have higher scores in non-traditional factors in both scales.

Results

In demographic data, we detected differences in age and education level between these subgroups; people with children were older than the group without children (W = 10727, p-value < 0.001), and people without children had more years of study, in proportion, to those with children (X-squared = 40.58, df = 5, p-value < 0.001, Table 6).

Table 6. Between-group comparisons based on Parenting status on the ATGRS and the MBS (n’s equal and standardized by sex).

The p- value was adjusted using the Holm method.

PARENTING STATUS
Without children With children
n = 107 n = 107
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) P-value
Age 21.94 (5.49) 41.05(10.40) < 0.001
Education n (%) n (%) < 0.001
none 0 1 (0.93)
primary school 0 3 (2.80)
secondary school 3 (2.80) 17 (15.88)
high school 73 (68.22) 29 (27.10)
bachelor’s degree 28 (26.16) 50 (46.72)
postgraduate degree 3 (2.80) 7 (6.54)
ATGRS Median (IQR) Median (IQR) P-value
Traditional 16 (5.5) 17 (7) N.S.
Egalitarian success 8 (4) 10 (6) 0.015
Gender equity 60 (3) 58 (10) 0.002
Non-traditional 21 (8) 17 (8) 0.007
MBS Median (IQR) Median (IQR) P-value
Social Duty 0 (0) 0 (0) N.S.
Sense of life 0 (3) 5 (12) < 0.001
Hegemonic stereotypes 9 (7) 9 (9) N.S.
Negative emotions 8 (4) 7 (5.5) N.S.
Motherhood as a decision 38 (5) 35 (9.5) 0.005

SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; N.S., not significant

Regarding the ATGRS, we found significant differences between the parenting status groups in all factors except for the Traditional factor. The Gender equity factor and Non-traditional factor had higher scores in the group without children compared to the group with children. On the other hand, the Egalitarian success factor showed higher scores in the group with children compared to the group without children (middle section of Table 6).

In terms of the MBS, our findings indicated that Sense of life factor scored higher in the group with children than in the without children group. Conversely, Motherhood as a decision factor had higher scores in the group without children compared to the group with children (lower section of Table 6).

Regarding the between-groups by sex analysis, we only compared people without children because the number of men with and without children was unequal, n = 15 and n = 192 respectively. To equalize the n’s of women and men without children, we randomly select a sample of 192 women from the total sample of women without children n = 373. Within these subsamples, we identified statistically significant differences in years of education (X-squared = 10.03, df = 3, p-value = 0.01) between women and men (Table 7).

Table 7. Between-group comparisons based on Sex on the ATGRS and the MBS in a sample of people without children.

The p- value was adjusted using the Holm method.

Sex
Women Men
n = 192 n = 192
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) P-value
Age 21.43 (4.39) 22.64 (6.30) N.S.
Education n (%) n (%) 0.01
none 0 0
primary school 0 0
secondary school 2 (1.04) 5 (2.60)
high school 144 (75) 117 (60.93)
bachelor’s degree 41 (21.35) 66 (34.37)
postgraduate degree 5 (2.60) 4 (2.08)
ATGRS Median (IQR) Median (IQR) P-value
Traditional 16 (7) 21 (7.25) < 0.001
Egalitarian success 8 (4) 8 (6) N.S.
Gender equity 59 (4) 58 (11) 0.001
Non-traditional 21 (7) 20 (5) N.S.
MBS Median (IQR) Median (IQR) P-value
Social Duty 0 (0) 0 (0) N.S.
Sense of life 0 (3.00) 2 (6.25) 0.001
Hegemonic stereotypes 9 (7) 9 (7) N.S.
Negative emotions 8 (3) 8 (4) 0.008
Motherhood as a decision 38 (4) 37 (8) 0.009

SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; N.S., not significant

Men scored higher in the Traditional factor, while women scored higher in the Gender equity factor compared to men (middle section of Table 7) on the ATGRS. In the MBS, we observed significant differences in three out of the five factors. Men had higher scores in the Sense of life factor, while women had higher scores in Negative emotions and Motherhood as a decision (lower section of Table 7).

Study 3.3

Next, in line with our primary objective of examining the association between attitudes toward gender roles, motherhood beliefs, and mental health, we conducted an analysis to explore the relationship between ATGRS and MBS with mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, and PPF) in a sample of 685 volunteers. We hypothesize that higher scores in the traditional factors of both scales (ATGRS and MBS) will be positively correlated with higher scores in depression and anxiety, but negatively correlated with PPF. We expected these correlations to remain significant in the subsamples of people with children and in the subsample of women. This is based on previous studies [23, 24, 26] that have reported elevated levels of stress, anger, shame, and guilt, primarily in women with children, due to unrealistic expectations related to traditional concepts of motherhood and gender roles. On the other hand, higher scores in non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood beliefs would be correlated with low levels of depression and anxiety, but positively correlated with PPF. We expected these correlations to remain significant in the subsamples of people without children and in the subsample of men.

Results

Contrary to expectation, a significant negative correlation between the Traditional factor of ATGRS and anxiety was detected. According to hypothesis, we found a significant positive correlation between the Gender equity factor of ATGRS and PPF. These findings were consistent across the total sample and the subsample including both women and men without children (Table 8).

Table 8. Age and educational level-adjusted Spearman partial correlation coefficients between ATGRS and MBS with mental health (depression, anxiety and PPF).
Mental health
Depression Anxiety PPF
ATGRS total sample, n = 685
Traditional -0.12
Gender equity 0.19
without children sample, n = 577
Traditional -0.14
Gender equity 0.18
women without children sample, n = 373
Egalitarian success -0.17
Gender equity 0.18
men without children sample, n = 192
Gender equity 0.29
MBS total sample, n = 685
Negative emotions 0.17
without children sample, n = 577
Negative emotions 0.14
with children sample, n = 108
Negative emotions 0.30

All coefficients shown in the table were significant at p < 0.05 adjusted using the Bonferroni method.

Regarding the MBS, we discovered a significant positive correlation between the Negative emotions and depression in the total sample, the sample of people without children, and the sample of people with children (Table 8).

To corroborate our findings, we employed a multiple linear regression model to analyze the impact of factors from both the ATGRS and the MBS on mental health measures. This analysis also considered the interaction of these factors with sex and parental status, while adjusting for age and educational level. The model that used ATGRS factors to predict depression yielded an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 (F(13, 671) = 5.63, p < 0.001). In the case of anxiety, the model demonstrated an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(13, 671) = 5.11, p < 0.001). Notably, there was a significant sex-related effect, with women showing higher anxiety scores (estimates = 10.12, SE = 4.69, t = 1.15, p < 0.05). Regarding PPF, the model revealed an adjusted R2 value of 0.08 (F(13, 671) = 5.09, p < 0.001). Traditional factors negatively predicted both depression and anxiety. Conversely, Non-traditional factor were positively associated with depression and Gender equity was negatively associated with PPF (Table 9).

Table 9. Multiple lineal model from ATGRS factors for depression, anxiety and PPF, adjusted for age and educational level.
Estimate SE t-value p-value
Depression Traditional -0.28 0.13 -2.15 p < 0.05
Egalitarian success 0.03 0.16 0.17 N.S.
Gender equity -0.01 0.07 -0.18 N.S.
Non-traditional 0.42 0.21 1.97 p < 0.05
Anxiety Traditional -0.38 0.14 -2.74 p < 0.01
Egalitarian success 0.05 0.17 0.31 N.S.
Gender equity -0.10 0.08 -1.12 N.S.
Non-traditional 0.05 0.02 1.01 N.S.
PPF Traditional 0.36 0.32 1.09 N.S.
Egalitarian success -0.39 0.40 -0.96 N.S.
Gender equity 0.93 0.18 4.94 p < 0.001
Non-traditional -0.89 0.54 -1.64 N.S.

N.S., not significant

In the multiple linear regression model where MBS factors served as predictors for depression, an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 was observed (F(14, 670) = 7.06, p < 0.001). Regarding anxiety, the model showed an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(14, 670) = 4.73, p < 0.001). For PPF, the adjusted R2 value was 0.04 (F(14, 670) = 3.51, p < 0.001). Notably, in these models, no interactions with sex and parental status were evident. Expanding upon the results of the correlation analysis, Negative emotions, as a belief related to motherhood, positively predicts both depression and anxiety. However, it had a negative predictive relationship with PPF (Table 10).

Table 10. Multiple lineal model from MBS factors for depression, anxiety and PPF, adjusted for age and educational level.
Estimate SE t-value p-value
Depression Social Duty 0.58 0.36 1.58 N.S.
Sense of life -0.17 0.11 -1.64 N.S.
Hegemonic stereotypes 0.03 0.11 0.33 N.S.
Negative emotions 0.85 0.19 4.43 p < 0.001
Motherhood as a decision -0.06 0.11 -0.63 N.S.
Anxiety Social Duty 0.41 0.40 1.04 N.S.
Sense of life -0.11 0.11 -1.03 N.S.
Hegemonic stereotypes 0.01 0.11 0.16 N.S.
Negative emotions 0.41 0.21 1.96 p < 0.05
Motherhood as a decision -0.13 0.11 -1.21 N.S.
PPF Social Duty -0.58 0.96 -0.61 N.S.
Sense of life 0.01 0.27 0.06 N.S.
Hegemonic stereotypes 0.42 0.26 1.61 N.S.
Negative emotions -1.41 0.50 -2.79 p < 0.01
Motherhood as a decision 0.70 0.27 2.52 p < 0.05

N.S., not significant

Study 3.4

Finally, to analyze potential differences in mental health variables based on parental status and sex, we applied the same randomization method as in Study 3.2 to ensure equal sample sizes between groups. Although there is no consensus in previous studies regarding mental health outcomes associated with parenthood [47, 48], and considering that parenting has been associated with stress [49], postpartum depression [50], and other mental health symptoms, our hypothesis was that individuals with children would have higher scores in depression, anxiety, and PPF compared to those without children, and that there would be sex differences, with women having higher scores in depression and anxiety but lower scores in PPF compared to men.

Results

Contrary to expected, we found that individuals without children had higher scores in depression and anxiety compared to those with children (Table 11). However, higher scores in PPF were observed in individuals with children compared to those without children (Table 11).

Table 11. Between-group comparisons based on parenting status on the depression, anxiety and PPF scales (n’s equal and standardized by sex).

The p- value was adjusted using the Holm method.

PARENTING STATUS
Without children With children
n = 107 n = 107
Median (IQR) Median (IQR) P—value
Depression 17 (14.5) 10 (17.5) < 0.001
Anxiety 15 (15) 9 (16) < 0.001
PPF 139 (44.5) 148 (47) 0.040

According to expectation, women had higher scores in all symptoms of depression and anxiety compared to men. While men had higher scores in PPF scale compared to women (Table 12).

Table 12. Between-group comparisons based on sex on the depression, anxiety and PPF scales in a sample of people without children.

The p- value was adjusted using the Holm method.

SEX
Women Men
n = 192 n = 192
Median (IQR) Median (IQR) P—value
Depression 17 (15.5) 12 (15) < 0.001
Anxiety 18 (17.25) 9 (16) < 0.001
PPF 132.5 (40.50) 149.5 (43.25) < 0.001

General discussion

This research aimed to analyze the relationship between attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood beliefs and mental health measures such as depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and psychological well-being. To achieve this, we initially expanded two key scales: the scale for Attitudes Towards Gender Roles (ATGRS) in Study 1, and the scale for Motherhood Beliefs (MBS) in Study 2. The modifications included the addition of new items to both scales, updating and aligning the concepts of gender ideology and motherhood beliefs with contemporary perspectives. This approach was designed to mitigate the traditionalist bias inherent in the original versions of these scales. Subsequent to these enhancements, a thorough psychometric validation was conducted for both the ATGRS and MBS scales. The validation process affirmed the overall reliability of the scales. However, it was observed that some of the newly introduced factors exhibited lower levels of consistency compared to the original factors. This difference in consistency may be attributed to the fact that the original factors, which focus on assessing traditional attitudes and beliefs, are more deeply entrenched in our Mexican society [28]. As a result, these traditional factors tend to demonstrate higher consistency, reflecting their more established and widely accepted nature within the societal framework.

This extension of both scales offers two key advantages. The first one is to demonstrate that the study of everyday social phenomena, such as attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood beliefs, is often approached from a traditional and normative perspective, highlighting the need for studies from non-hegemonic approaches on these social phenomena. The second benefit is to have psychometric instruments that assess both traditional and non-hegemonic positions regarding attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood beliefs, allowing us to better understand their relationship with people’s mental health.

Utilizing the expanded versions of both scales, our analysis focused on exploring the potential relationship between attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood beliefs. Consistent with our expectations, we found positive correlations between traditional attitudes towards gender roles and the conventional factors of the MBS, namely Social Duty, Sense of Life, and Hegemonic Stereotypes. This relation was further substantiated through linear regression analysis, which revealed that traditional attitudes towards gender roles positively predicted these traditional MBS factors, even after controlling for age and education level. Our findings are in line with previous studies [45, 51], which indicate that individuals who endorse traditional beliefs in one area are likely to uphold similar attitudes in other social realms. This tendency can potentially restrict opportunities for personal growth, as it often involves conforming to societal expectations, many of which may be unrealistic or unattainable.

On the other hand, the findings pertaining to the non-hegemonic factors showed that individuals with higher scores in non-hegemonic attitudes towards gender roles also exhibited higher scores in non-hegemonic motherhood beliefs. This is evident in the positive association observed between Gender equity and Non-traditional factor of the ATGRS with the non-traditional factors of the MBS scale: Negative emotions, and Motherhood as a decision. Moreover, individuals who embraced gender equity and non-traditional gender roles were more inclined to challenge traditional notions of motherhood, especially the concept of motherhood as a Social Duty, and were more supportive of viewing motherhood as a personal decision. In contrast, those with traditional gender role attitudes frequently minimized the concept of motherhood as a choice.

However, it is important to recognize that a non-traditional perspective on motherhood can sometimes portray it as a negative or oppressive experience, potentially conflicting with the notion of women’s liberation. Ironically, this perspective might also limit the perception of motherhood as a personal choice. Notably, in our study, the Non-traditional factor of the ATGRS was not associated with the idea of motherhood as a decision. This observation opens up new avenues for future research to investigate the connection between non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles and the perception of motherhood as a personal choice more deeply.

Next, we examined whether attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood beliefs varied between individuals with and without children. In line with our hypothesis, the results showed that the without children subsample were more inclined towards non-hegemonic beliefs in both gender roles and motherhood. On the other hand, those with children scored higher on traditional attitudes about gender roles, supporting the idea that having a child primarily had a ’traditionalizing’ effect, particularly in women [13, 46]. Likewise, our results reflected that people with children consider that motherhood provides a sense of life, a perspective possibly influenced by their experiences as parents [13, 24, 50]. It is noteworthy that the childless individuals in our study were generally younger than those with children, indicating a potential generational shift in attitudes. This age difference might contribute to a decreased adherence to traditional societal norms. Future research should aim to disentangle the effects of age and parenthood status on gender role and motherhood beliefs more comprehensively, providing further insights into these complex dynamics.

Interestingly, we observed a notable inclination towards traditional beliefs in both the ATGRS and MBS scales among men, as compared to women. Conversely, women scored higher on non-hegemonic beliefs in both scales, on Gender equity of the ATGRS and on Negative emotions and Motherhood as a decision in the MBS. These findings underscore that women oppose traditional gender roles likely because they are the ones who experience the disadvantages and inequalities as a result of gender stereotypes. In contrast, men, benefiting from the privileges offered by patriarchy, do exhibit agreement with traditional gender roles.

These gender-based inequalities extend beyond mere power dynamics and political representation. They manifest in wage disparities, employment opportunities, sexual and reproductive rights, household responsibilities, access to education, and healthcare resources [52]. Women today face the dual challenge of meeting traditional gender role expectations while striving for academic and professional success, in addition to managing domestic duties. This creates a unique set of hurdles for women that their male counterparts, particularly heterosexual men, do not typically encounter [53].

Even when parental roles conform to the gender equity model, there are situations that contribute to the maintenance of traditional parenthood dynamics based on gender. For instance, while women increasingly participate in the workforce, they continue to shoulder the bulk of reproductive work, leading to an often socially invisible double workload [2]. The disparity in time allocation to unpaid work between men and women is still prominent, even in urban areas where women’s professional and labor participation has grown. Women spend more than double the time on domestic tasks (such as food preparation, cleaning, caregiving, and voluntary work) compared to men [54]. Furthermore, as men increasingly engage in household chores and parenting [55], they may face discrimination for seeking work flexibility for childcare, along with ridicule and stigmatization from peers [14].

The finding in our study that men favor traditional gender roles raises significant social concerns. This preference contributes to sustaining inequality and hinders the progress of equal rights and opportunities for women. Our results highlight the critical need to challenge and transform gender role hegemony by integrating egalitarian practices into daily life, aiming to eradicate gender-based inequality. However, this transformation is not without its challenges, as evidenced by the correlations we found between the ATGRS and MBS scales and mental health. Addressing these issues is crucial for moving towards a more equitable and just society.

Our initial expectation was that higher scores in traditional gender roles would be linked to increased symptoms of depression and anxiety, as individuals might feel restricted in their expression of behaviors. Contrary to our expectations, we found that individuals with stronger beliefs in traditional gender roles exhibited lower levels of anxiety. This unexpected relationship was further substantiated through linear model analysis, which not only confirmed a negative correlation between traditional gender role beliefs and anxiety but also with depression. Furthermore, the analysis revealed a positive association between non-traditional gender beliefs and depression. These results suggest a complex interplay between gender role beliefs and mental health, challenging our initial assumptions and pointing towards nuanced dynamics in how these beliefs impact psychological well-being.

The Congruence Hypothesis possibly explains our findings; it suggests that individuals adhering to stereotypical gender roles (e.g., highly masculine men and highly feminine women) generally experience better mental health. This is attributed to their behaviors and attitudes being in line with cultural norms, which may offer protection from social pressures [6] and related mental health challenges. This hypothesis is particularly applicable in societies where individuals prioritize external social demands over their own interests and desires [29]. In such societies, including Mexico, adherence to established norms can offer a sense of security and stability, thereby alleviating the stress and challenges tied to societal expectations.

Regarding psychological well-being, as measured by the PPF scale, our study found that higher endorsements of gender equity attitudes were associated with improved psychological well-being across all subgroups, with the exception of people with children. This exception may be attributed to the heightened social pressure faced by parents when attempting to adopt gender equity attitudes, owing to the strong presence of traditional beliefs about childcare. This pressure can create a conflict for parents between embracing progressive attitudes and adhering to entrenched societal norms regarding parenting.

Women who step away from traditional motherhood roles to pursue employment often encounter mental health challenges due to the dual demands of professional and domestic responsibilities. Parenthood can potentially diminish the mental health benefits usually derived from other life experiences, such as career development, particularly for women with young children [56]. The pressure to meet the ideal of a perfect mother can be overwhelming, and even without fully internalizing this standard, women may still face adverse mental health effects, including stress, anxiety, and reduced self-efficacy.

In contrast, men who deviate from conventional paternalistic roles—often characterized by emotional inexpressiveness and the expectation to be the primary providers [29]—and participate more actively in childcare and nurturing may experience increased satisfaction and fulfillment. This shift from traditional roles can be particularly rewarding [12]. This dynamic aligns with observations in countries with high gender equality, where mothers are more susceptible to depression, while in countries with lower gender equality, unemployed women often face the opposite trend. For men, the influence of children on mental health appears to be less significant, irrespective of the country’s level of gender equality [57]. This highlights the differential impact of parenting roles on mental health across genders and cultural contexts.

Our research also identified a significant positive correlation between believing that motherhood can generate negative emotions such as fear and anxiety, with a higher level of depression. This finding persisted in the subsamples with and without children. Additionally, linear model analysis revealed that this factor, negative emotions, positively predicted higher rates of depression and anxiety, while inversely predicting psychological well-being.

In addition, we observed that a strong belief in motherhood as a personal choice correlated with higher levels of positive psychological functioning. This indicates that attitudes of gender equity and viewing motherhood as a personal decision positively impact psychological health. These findings underscore the significance of advocating for predominantly egalitarian practices in daily life, contributing to promote parenthood practices not grounded on traditional gender mandates and societal impositions. Such endeavors may play a pivotal role in enhancing the mental health of individuals.

Our findings suggest that it is not simply the status of being a parent that affects mental health, but rather the underlying beliefs about parenting and motherhood. The mental health outcomes of individuals seem to be significantly influenced by their attitudes and beliefs regarding motherhood, highlighting the complex interplay between personal beliefs and psychological well-being.

Finally, we evaluated mental health measures in relation to sex and parental status. Contrary to our initial hypotheses, we found that individuals with children reported lower levels of depression and anxiety, and higher levels of psychological well-being, compared to those without children. This observation is consistent with the parental well-being model [47], which posits that despite the challenges of parenting, fulfilling the societal role of a parent can have a positive impact on mental health. It’s also noted that parents often experience a heightened sense of purpose, given their responsibility for someone else, which can foster resilience and a more optimistic outlook [13].

In essence, our findings suggest that individuals with children are likely to perceive a stronger sense of purpose in their lives, i.e. sense of life. For instance, people with children view motherhood or parenthood not just as a life-enriching experience but also as a social duty, a perspective not as prevalent among those without children. Additionally, in a cultural context like Mexico’s, where parenthood is highly esteemed and embodies collectivist values, it might serve as a mental health protective factor. This cultural esteem for parenthood could alleviate social pressures and distribute the demands of child-rearing more evenly within extended family and community networks.

Our findings regarding mental health scores in women and men without children align with previous research. Women had higher depression and anxiety scores compared to men, while men had higher psychological well-being scores compared to women. There is extensive evidence supporting the reasons behind the lower mental health scores in women, including societal pressure related to bodily appearance, behavior, and motherhood stereotypes, as well as issues like machismo, gender violence, and the burden of double work shifts involving both employment outside the home and domestic responsibilities such as childcare, housework, and caring for sick or elderly family members [53, 58, 59].

Another possible explanation for lower depression and anxiety scores in men could be their adherence to traditional masculinity stereotypes, where characteristics such as strength, bravery, and maintaining control are valued. Mahalik and Dagirmanjian [60] propose that stigma and the threat to their masculine identity can negatively influence men’s willingness to seek help for depression and sadness. Seidler et al. [61] conducted a review of recommendations for involving men in psychological treatment and found that most of the articles they reviewed took a universal perspective on masculinity, which often resulted in poor outcomes for men by encouraging them to avoid seeking psychological help. The authors emphasize the impact of gender norms on clinical engagement and the results of psychological treatment for men.

In conclusion, our study revealed a significant association between higher levels of traditional attitudes towards gender roles and traditional motherhood beliefs, while conversely, higher levels of non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles were correlated with non-traditional motherhood beliefs. Interestingly, we observed that traditional attitudes toward gender roles were associated with lower anxiety and depression scores, while non-traditional attitudes were associated with higher levels of depression. Furthermore, individuals who embraced non-traditional attitudes towards both gender roles and motherhood beliefs tended to exhibit better psychological well-being. These trends were consistent across various demographics, including men and women, and those with and without children. Notably, our findings revealed that women generally showed lesser alignment with traditional attitudes towards both gender roles and motherhood beliefs compared to men. However, women reported higher rates of depression and anxiety, alongside lower psychological well-being scores, than their male counterparts. This highlights the significant influence that traditional cultural norms about gender roles and motherhood have on women’s mental health. These norms contribute to increased anxiety and depression among women and adversely affect their overall psychological well-being, underscoring the need for a deeper understanding and reevaluation of these traditional constructs in society.

Limitations

One significant limitation of our study was the restricted range of instruments available for precisely measuring motherhood beliefs. Moreover, despite the large sample sizes, there was an overrepresentation of women (67.88%), individuals of younger age (averaging 21 years old), and those without children. This uneven representation introduces a potential bias in the data, underscoring the need for caution in interpreting the results. For future studies, it would be beneficial to aim for a sample more reflective of the Mexican population’s demographics, where women constitute 51.2% and the median age is 29 years, as per INEGI’s 2021 data [62]. Furthermore, the proportion of participants with children in our study was relatively small (15.77%). Although we assessed the interaction of gender and parental status in Study 3, the findings should be interpreted with care due to the aforementioned biases in sample representativeness regarding these variables. Further research is warranted to delve into the influence of social constructs on gender roles and motherhood, utilizing larger and more diverse samples of men and women with children. Incorporating additional variables, such as marital status, family structure, and pre-parenthood attitudes towards gender roles, could also enhance the depth of our understanding of the attitudes and beliefs examined in this study.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our appreciation to all people that participated in our study.

Data Availability

All database files are available from the OSF database in the project "Relationship between gender roles, motherhood beliefs and mental health". You can find them at https://osf.io/md48n/.

Funding Statement

This project was supported by UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT with the number: IN215521 for the corresponding author ARA. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://dgapa.unam.mx/index.php/impulso-a-la-investigacion/papiit.

References

  • 1.Bourdieu P. La domination masculine. Anagrama; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Carrasquer P, Torns T, Tejero E, Romero A. El trabajo reproductivo. Papers. 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Díaz-Loving R. Ethnopsychology Pieces from the Mexican Research Gallery. Springer, editor. 2019. 10.1007/978-3-030-26604-2_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Martin CL, Ruble DN, Szkrybalo J. Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychol Bull. 2002;128: 903–933. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shifren K, Bauserman RL. The Relationship Between Instrumental and Expressive Traits, Health Behaviors, and Perceived Physical Health 1. Sex Roles. 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lin J, Zou L, Lin W, Becker B, Yeung A, Cuijpers P, et al. Does gender role explain a high risk of depression? A meta-analytic review of 40 years of evidence. Journal of Affective Disorders. Elsevier B.V.; 2021. pp. 261–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.07.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Arcand M, Juster RP, Lupien SJ, Marin MF. Gender roles in relation to symptoms of anxiety and depression among students and workers. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2020;33: 661–674. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2020.1774560 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mayor E. Gender roles and traits in stress and health. Front Psychol. 2015;6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bromberger JT, Matthews KA. ’Feminine" Model of Vulnerability to Depressive Symptoms: A Longitudinal Investigation of Middle-Aged Women. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Seedat S, Kate;, Scott M, Angermeyer MC, Berglund P, Bromet EJ, et al. Cross-National Associations Between Gender and Mental Disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.36 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vespa J. Gender ideology construction: A life course and intersectional approach. Gender and Society. 2009;23: 363–387. doi: 10.1177/0891243209337507 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Evenson RJ, Simon RW. Clarifying the Relationship Between Parenthood and Depression*. J Health Soc Behav. 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Endendijk JJ, Derks B, Mesman J. Does Parenthood Change Implicit Gender-Role Stereotypes and Behaviors? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2018;80: 61–79. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12451 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Coltrane S, Miller EC, Dehaan T, Stewart L. Fathers and the Flexibility Stigma. Journal of Social Issues. 2013. doi: 10.1111/(ISSN)1540-4560 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grinza E, Devicienti F, Rossi M, Vannoni D. How Entry into Parenthood Shapes Gender Role Attitudes: New Evidence from Longitudinal UK Data. 2017. Available: www.iza.org [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Katz-Wise SL, Priess HA, Hyde JS. Gender-Role Attitudes and Behavior Across the Transition to Parenthood. Dev Psychol. 2010;46: 18–28. doi: 10.1037/a0017820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Perales F, Jarallah Y, Baxter J. Men’s and women’s gender-role attitudes across the transition to parenthood: Accounting for child’s gender. Social Forces. 2018;97: 251–276. doi: 10.1093/SF/SOY015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Iverson H, Lindsay B, MacInnis CC. You don’t want kids?!: Exploring evaluations of those without children. Journal of Social Psychology. 2020;160: 719–733. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2020.1742080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gordon AR, Krieger N, Okechukwu CA, Haneuse S, Samnaliev M, Charlton BM, et al. Decrements in health-related quality of life associated with gender nonconformity among U.S. adolescents and young adults. Quality of Life Research. 2017;26: 2129–2138. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1545-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ávila GY. Mujeres frente a los espejos de la maternidad: las que eligen no ser madres. Desacatos. 2005;17: 107–126. Available: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=13901707 [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Castañeda-Rentería LI, Contreras K. Apuntes para el estudio de las identidades femeninas. El desafío entre el modelo hegemónico de feminidad y las experiencias subjetivas. Intersticios Sociales. 2017;13: 1–19. Available: http://www.observatoriola- [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hays S. The cultural contradictions of modern motherhood. Yale University Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Warner J. Perfect Madness. Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety. Penguin Group. New York; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Henderson A, Harmon S, Newman H. The Price Mothers Pay, Even When They Are Not Buying It: Mental Health Consequences of Idealized Motherhood. Sex Roles. 2016;74: 512–526. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0534-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Meeussen L, VanLaar C. Feeling pressure to be a perfect mother relates to parental burnout and career ambitions. Front Psychol. 2018;9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rizzo KM, Schiffrin HH, Liss M. Insight into the Parenthood Paradox: Mental Health Outcomes of Intensive Mothering. J Child Fam Stud. 2013;22: 614–620. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9615-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fonseca A, Monteiro F, Canavarro MC. Dysfunctional beliefs towards motherhood and postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms: Uncovering the role of experiential avoidance. J Clin Psychol. 2018;74: 2134–2144. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22649 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Díaz-Loving R, Rivera-Aragón S, Villanueva GBT, Cruz LM. Las premisas histórico-socioculturales de la familia mexicana: su exploración desde las creencias y las normas. Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología. 2011;3: 128–142. Available: www.revistamexicanadeinvestigacionenpsicologia.com [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hietanen A-E, Pick S. Gender Stereotypes, Sexuality, and Culture in Mexico. Psychology of Gender Through the Lens of Culture: Theories and Applications. Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 1–410. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14005-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Oudhof H, Mercado A, Robles E. Cultura, diversidad familiar y su efecto en la crianza de los hijos. Estudios sobre las Culturas Contemporáneas. 2019;XIV: 65–82. Available: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=31657676005 [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cienfuegos-Martínez YI, Saldívar-Garduño A, Díaz-Loving R, Avalos-Montoya AD. Individualismo y colectivismo: caracterización y diferencias entre dos localidades mexicanas. Acta Investig Psicol. 2016;6: 2534–2543. doi: 10.1016/j.aipprr.2016.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Collins PH. Black feminist thought. Second. Taylor & Francis, editor. New York; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rocha-Sánchez TE, Díaz-Loving R. Development of multifactorial gender identity scale for Mexican population. International Journal of Social Psychology. 2011;26: 191–206. doi: 10.1174/021347411795448965 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mota GC, Calleja N, Sánchez BC, Carreño MJ. Maternity beliefs scale: Construction and validation in mexican women. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnostico y Evaluacion Psicologica. 2019;51: 163–172. doi: 10.21865/RIDEP50.1.13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mackey A, Petrucka P. Technology as the key to women’s empowerment: a scoping review. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01225-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.; 2020. Available: URL https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Olalde-Mathieu VE, Licea-Haquet GL, Reyes-Aguilar A. Motherhood beliefs across sex, age, education and parenthood. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2024;9: 100783. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100783 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hu L, Bentler PM, Kano Y. Can Test Statistics in Covariance Structure Analysis Be Trusted? Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112: 351–362. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Verniers C, Vala J. Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths. PLoS One. 2018;13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Verniers C, Bonnot V, Assilaméhou-Kunz Y. Intensive mothering and the perpetuation of gender inequality: Evidence from a mixed methods research. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2022;227. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Carvalho JM das N, Gaspar MFRF, Cardoso AMR. Challenges of motherhood in the voice of primiparous mothers: Initial difficulties. Invest Educ Enferm. 2017;35: 285–294. doi: 10.17533/udea.iee.v35n3a05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Beck AI, Steer RA, Carbin MC. PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF EVALUATION. Clin Psychol Rev. 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Beck AT, Brown G, Epstein N, Steer RA. An Inventory for Measuring Clinical Anxiety: Psychometric Properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.56.6.893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dolores Merino M, Privado J. Funcionamiento psicológico positivo. Evidencia para un nuevo constructo y su medición. Anales de Psicologia. 2015;31: 45–54. doi: 10.6018/analesps.31.1.171081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Scarborough WJ, Sin R, Risman B. Attitudes and the Stalled Gender Revolution: Egalitarianism, Traditionalism, and Ambivalence from 1977 through 2016. Gender and Society. 2019;33: 173–200. doi: 10.1177/0891243218809604 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Boehnke M. Gender role attitudes around the globe: Egalitarian vs. Traditional views. Asian J Soc Sci. 2011;39: 57–74. doi: 10.1163/156853111X554438 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nelson SK, Kushlev K, Lyubomirsky S. The pains and pleasures of parenting: When, why, and how is parenthood associated with more or less well-being? Psychol Bull. 2014;140: 846–895. doi: 10.1037/a0035444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Figueiredo B, Canário C, Tendais I, Pinto TM, Kenny DA, Field T. Couples’ relationship affects mothers’ and fathers’ anxiety and depression trajectories over the transition to parenthood. J Affect Disord. 2018;238: 204–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Parfitt Y, Ayers S. Transition to parenthood and mental health in first-time parents. Infant Ment Health J. 2014;35: 263–273. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gross CL, Marcussen K. Postpartum Depression in Mothers and Fathers: The Role of Parenting Efficacy Expectations During the Transition to Parenthood. Sex Roles. 2017;76: 290–305. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0629-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Barnett RC, Hyde JS. Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist. 2001;56: 781–796. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Newman C. Time to address gender discrimination and inequality in the health workforce. Hum Resour Health. 2014;12: 1–11. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-12-25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Barreto M, Doyle DM. Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context. Nature Reviews Psychology. 2022;2: 98–111. doi: 10.1038/s44159-022-00136-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.INEGI. INEGI. Encuesta Nacional sobre el Uso del Tiempo (ENUT) 2019. 2019. [cited 19 Dec 2023]. Available: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/enut/2019/doc/enut_2019_presentacion_resultados.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Martínez M, Rojas OL. Una nueva mirada a la participación masculina en el trabajo doméstico y el cuidado de los hijos en México. Estud Demogr Urbanos Col Mex. 2016;31: 635–662. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Leupp K. Depression, Work and Family Roles, and the Gendered Life Course. J Health Soc Behav. 2017;58: 422–441. doi: 10.1177/0022146517737309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hopcroft RL, McLaughlin J. Why is the sex gap in feelings of depression wider in high gender equity countries? The effect of children on the psychological well-being of men and women. Soc Sci Res. 2012;41: 501–513. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Matud MP, López-Curbelo M, Fortes D. Gender and psychological well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Andermann L. Culture and the social construction of gender: Mapping the intersection with mental health. International Review of Psychiatry. 2010. pp. 501–512. doi: 10.3109/09540261.2010.506184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Mahalik JR, Dagirmanjian FR. Working-Class Men’s Constructions of Help-Seeking When Feeling Depressed or Sad. Am J Mens Health. 2019;13. doi: 10.1177/1557988319850052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Seidler ZE, Rice SM, Ogrodniczuk JS, Oliffe JL, Dhillon HM. Engaging Men in Psychological Treatment: A Scoping Review. American Journal of Men’s Health. SAGE Publications Inc.; 2018. pp. 1882–1900. doi: 10.1177/1557988318792157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.INEGI. INEGI, 25 de enero de 2021, Comunicado de Prensa Núm. 24/21. 2021 [cited 19 Dec 2023]. Available: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2021/EstSociodemo/ResultCenso2020_Nal.pdf (fecha de consulta: 5 de febrero de 2021).

Decision Letter 0

Sergi Fàbregues

30 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-22025Relationship between gender roles, motherhood beliefs and mental healthPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reyes-Aguilar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 14 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sergi Fàbregues

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

Additional Editor Comments:

This paper has been reviewed by two experts in the field who recognized the contribution of the paper to the literature but, at the same time, identified a number of major issues that need to be addressed by the author before submitting the paper for a second round of peer review. Among the issues raised by the reviewers, with which I agree, are the need to add key literature on the topic of the study (reviewer 1 suggests some references), to provide a more elaborate contextualization of the topic of the study and key concepts, to better explain some elements of the methodology, to clarify various parts of the results, and to acknowledge some study limitations. Although reviewer 2 questions the current organization of the article, I think it already works well in its current form. Please address the reviewers' comments and write a response to each of them, indicating how you have addressed them (or provide a justification if you have not).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this ambitious series of studies, this paper expanded two measures, the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale (ATGRS) and the Motherhood Beliefs Scale (MBS), to capture more contemporary and diverse perspectives on gender roles and motherhood beliefs. After assessing the psychometric properties of both extended versions of these scales (in Studies 1 and 2), their associations with three indicators of mental health (i.e., depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and positive psychological functioning) were assessed (Study 3). In addition to examining the relationship between the newly developed versions of ATGRS and MBS and mental health, sex and parental status differences in these associations were also investigated. Overall the study produced updated versions of ATGRS and MBS that capture both traditional and non-hegemonic attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood. These scales have the potential for use in future research on these topics. Regarding results from Study 3, which focused on mental health, the authors found evidence that espousing more traditional views on gender roles and motherhood were associated with better mental health (i.e., fewer depressive and anxiety symptoms, higher scores on positive psychological functioning). The study has several strengths, including the careful consideration of new items for two previously validated scales and establishing that these measures are related to mental health. However, there are some limitations and areas of needed clarification for the study in its current form. I have attempted to organize my comments by section (e.g., Introduction, Discussion) and study (1, 2, or 3).

1) Introduction: The discussion of gender roles, motherhood beliefs, and mental health is missing some key literature on the topic. Perhaps these papers can help the authors to better contextualize their study findings in the Introduction and Discussion sections:

Evenson, R. J., & Simon, R. W. (2005). Clarifying the relationship between parenthood and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(4), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650504600403

Leupp, K. (2017). Depression, work and family roles, and the gendered life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146517737309

Vespa, J. (2009). Gender ideology construction: A life course and intersectional approach. Gender & Society, 23(3), 363–387. doi:10.1177/0891243209337507.

2) Recruitment of study participants for Studies 1, 2, and 3: It appears that participants were recruited from social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram). Given the recruitment strategy, the sample may be biased towards younger and more tech-savvy individuals. Could the authors speak to this issue?

3) Study 1: Though the mean and SD for age was reported, what was the age range?

4) Study 2: I appreciate the authors’ expansion of items for the Motherhood Belief Scale. However, the low alpha reliability score (.54) for Hegemonic Stereotypes is a concern, particularly because the alpha reliability scores for the other factors are .77 or higher. Why do the authors believe the alpha was particularly low for hegemonic stereotypes, and what might future research do to further refine this factor of the MBS?

5) Study 2: Related to the previous point, the alpha reliability scores for the newly added factors (i.e., hegemonic stereotypes, negative emotions, and motherhood as a decision) are all lower compared to the previously established factors (Social duty, sense of life). Why might this be the case?

6) Study 2: The “Negative emotions” factor for the new version of MBS only has two items. Why weren’t the range of emotions captured in the items developed for this factor? As currently constructed, the negative emotions factor only captures “scary” and “anxiety”, but in the discussion of this factor, the authors note that “fatigue” and “anguish” are also emotions associated with motherhood. It seems like a missed opportunity to not include other items that capture other “negative” emotions that have been linked to motherhood.

7) Study 3: The seemingly strong positive correlation between age and parental status are concerning because it is difficult to determine if the results are driven by parental status or actual age. For instance, in Table 3, respondents without children are in their early 20s in terms of age while those with children are in their 40s (on average). The authors note that both parental status and age/generation have been shown to be related to gender role and motherhood beliefs. Given the significant overlap between age and parental status in these data, it seems difficult to determine if being a parent or being younger/older is driving differences in gender roles and motherhood beliefs.

8) Study 3: It’s not clear why Spearmon’s non-parametric method was used to assess the association between gender role/motherhood beliefs and mental health. Why would the authors not use OLS regression analysis that would allow for adjustments for age, education level, and other sociodemographic characteristics? With OLS regression, the authors could also test for gender and parental status moderation by testing for statistical interactions between gender and gender role beliefs/motherhood beliefs, and statistical interactions between parental status and gender role beliefs/motherhood beliefs.

9) Study 3: The randomization technique for making the sample sizes conquerable for individuals with and without children is concerning (e.g., this is mentioned on page 35, lines 643-645 page 36, lines 663-665, page 40, lines 732-734). This seems to be a “waste” of perfectly analyzable data. At the least, the authors could report how the results compare when the full sample is utilized? Also, is there a citation or reference for establishing precedence in the quantitative methodological literature for this decision to remove a significant portion (N =470) of the sample from the analysis?

10) Though three measures of mental health were included in Study 3, other mental health problems associated with externalizing behaviors (e.g., substance use, anti-social behavioral disorders) are more common among men, as masculinity is associated with increased risk-taking behavior. Perhaps the associations between gender role beliefs and mental health would look different for men if other measures of mental health were assessed (e.g., substance abuse disorders). This is not necessarily a limitation of the study, but should be noted as an area for future research. For citations on this topic, see:

Smith, D. T., Mouzon, D. M., & Elliott, M. (2018). Reviewing the assumptions about men’s mental health: An exploration of the gender binary. American journal of men's health, 12(1), 78-89.

Rosenfield, Sarah, and Dawne Mouzon. (2013). "Gender and mental health." Handbook of the sociology of mental health pp. 277-296.

11) Discussion: The discussion section is very well-written and thoughtful. However, the issue of employment continued to come into focus. Are there any data on employment status and/or occupation for Study 3? The authors are theorizing that gender roles/motherhood beliefs will be dependent on gender, parental status, and employment status. The literature they have cited also seems to strongly suggest this is the case as well.

12) Discussion: Given that the data were collected in Mexico and in the Spanish language, could the authors speak more about how this particular context (i.e., Mexico) may be relevant in terms of discussing the study findings? They start to do this somewhat on page 46 (when discussing Hopcroft and McLaughlin), but more could be stated about gender dynamics within Mexico and how those social dynamics could help with interpretation of the study results.

13) Discussion: Do the authors envision that the newly developed scales can be utilized in non-Spanish speaking countries and would there be any necessary adjustments to the scale if asked outside of Mexico?

Overall, the study makes an important contribution to the literature, particularly regarding advancements in the measurement of gender role attitudes as well as motherhood beliefs. Additional clarity on issues raised above will help to further clarify and contextualize the study findings.

Reviewer #2: The article presents a relevant topic with interesting findings. However, some issues prevent me from accepting it in its current form.

The article is divided into a general introduction, studies 1, 2, and 3, and a general discussion. Studies 1 and 2 are related to the validation of two scales used in the methodology of study 3. This structure makes it challenging to understand the research. Given that the abstract emphasizes study 3, I recommend concentrating on this study alone within the abstract and integrating a summarized version of the scale validation process in the methodology section. This reorganization will enhance clarity and overall understanding of the research.

The central concern of this study is related to the sample. In the abstract, a sample of 3,927 people is cited. However, a substantial portion of this sample was involved in validating the measurement instruments, leaving 685 participants for the study concerning the relationship between gender roles, conceptions of motherhood, and mental health. After stratifying by gender, this number dropped to 214 participants. This leads to questions about the study's validity and representativeness, which must be addressed in the text.

It is essential to provide details regarding the characteristics of the 685 participants. The majority of them were childless women with high levels of education. How representative are they of the broader population? How might selection biases be at play, and how were they controlled for? Furthermore, participants without children had a median age of 20, while those with children had a median age of 40. How might this age difference influence the study's results? Could generational factors confound the findings? Notably, the participants with children included only 15 men (constituting 14% of the group). How was this low number addressed?

Concerning the study's conceptual framework, there's a need to develop the concept of gender more comprehensively within the introduction, as explicitly addressed in the second paragraph. Mexico has a robust history of gender theory, including studies on masculinities. It is advisable to include references to the following:

* The concept of gender is multifaceted, historically contingent, and culturally shaped, and, therefore, is not static.

* One of the prevailing definitions of gender is the hegemonic model standard in Western societies, characterized by the sexual division of labor, which this study refers to as traditional gender roles. While the article references hegemonic gender roles, it lacks an explicit definition of sexual division of labor.

Moreover, it's essential to clarify that, in this article, the term "masculinity" pertains to the hegemonic model of masculinity. There are various models of masculinity, and this specificity should be underscored.

The introduction's fourth and fifth paragraphs discuss the challenges men and women face as they navigate the roles assigned by the sexual division of labor. It would be beneficial to provide context, highlighting that women have entered the workforce without a concurrent redistribution of responsibilities in the domestic sphere, which has implications for women's health.

From the introduction's 8th to 13th paragraph, methodological details are discussed, which would be more appropriate for the methods section rather than the introduction.

Lastly, in the final paragraph of the introduction, there is a notable absence of a reference to the gaps this study aims to address concerning the relationships between gender roles, conceptions of motherhood, and mental health within the study population.

As for the methods section, in addition to the previously mentioned general comments, the following is requested:

* To include more extensive information about the participants, such as their geographical diversity within Mexico.

* To include a synthesis of studies 1 and 2. The synthesis should demonstrate that the scales are appropriate for measuring what they intend to measure and valid for the Mexican context. If the scales were validated in populations with specific characteristics (e.g., more women, childless, educated, etc.), whether they are valid for the broader Mexican population should be clarified.

* Explain the study's independent, covariate, and outcome variables, and detail the instruments used to measure them. While the instruments used are listed, it is crucial to establish what constructs these scales are measuring, their origins, and whether they have been validated for use in Mexico.

* Link each analysis to its specific objective.

Within the results section:

* Include a descriptive table presenting the overall results of the measurement instruments used in the sample.

* Regarding the first objective (examining the relationship between the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale and the Motherhood Beliefs Scale, stratified by parental status), the results of the correlations between the scales are described. However, a comparison of the dimensions of these correlations needs to be included. Are specific correlations more significant than others?

* For the second objective (examining differences in ATGRS and MBS based on sex and parental status), it is noted that the sample was adjusted without controlling for age and education levels in people with and without children, as they were not the primary focus of the study. This explanation is considered insufficient. It is requested to include a clarification regarding this issue, especially regarding the low representation of men in the sample.

* The research's central focus is the third objective, which examines the relationship between ATGRS and MBS with mental health. However, the absence of a gender-based comparison and its implications for the results still need to be addressed.

In the general discussion, it is critical to recognize that the research methodology employed does not enable the establishment of causal relationships, for instance, about the idea that having a child primarily had a 'traditionalizing' effect. Even if the results show that childless people are more likely to hold non-hegemonic beliefs while individuals with children obtained higher scores in traditional attitudes about gender roles, it is unclear if there is a reverse causality. It could be that people with children have always been more conservative and, consequently, have children. Alternatively, generational variables may confound the results, given that the childless group is around 20 years old, while the group with children is around 40. Finally, in the last sentence of the discussion, it is possible to state that the study shows a correlation between these variables. Still, it cannot establish a causal relationship between them.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 20;19(3):e0298750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298750.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Dec 2023

Dear Mr. Sergi Fàbregues,

I am writing to inform you that we had carefully reviewed the feedback provided by the academic editor and reviewers regarding our manuscript titled "Relationship between gender roles, motherhood beliefs, and mental health," which was submitted to PLOS ONE under Manuscript No. PONE-D-23-22025.

We had taken the reviewers' comments carefully and had made the necessary revisions to address the points raised during the review process. The revisions were carried out with the aim of improving the overall quality and rigor of our research.

In response to your request, we have included the following items in the revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewers. This letter is included as a separate file labeled 'Response_to_Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of the manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file is labeled 'Revised_Manuscript_with_Track_Changes'

An unmarked version of the revised paper without tracked changes. This file is labeled 'Manuscript.'

We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work and thank you for providing us with this opportunity to make necessary improvements. We are committed to delivering a high-quality manuscript that aligns with the standards of PLOS ONE.

For reviewers:

Reviewer #1: In this ambitious series of studies, this paper expanded two measures, the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale (ATGRS) and the Motherhood Beliefs Scale (MBS), to capture more contemporary and diverse perspectives on gender roles and motherhood beliefs. After assessing the psychometric properties of both extended versions of these scales (in Studies 1 and 2), their associations with three indicators of mental health (i.e., depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and positive psychological functioning) were assessed (Study 3). In addition to examining the relationship between the newly developed versions of ATGRS and MBS and mental health, sex and parental status differences in these associations were also investigated. Overall the study produced updated versions of ATGRS and MBS that capture both traditional and non-hegemonic attitudes towards gender roles and motherhood. These scales have the potential for use in future research on these topics. Regarding results from Study 3, which focused on mental health, the authors found evidence that espousing more traditional views on gender roles and motherhood were associated with better mental health (i.e., fewer depressive and anxiety symptoms, higher scores on positive psychological functioning). The study has several strengths, including the careful consideration of new items for two previously validated scales and establishing that these measures are related to mental health. However, there are some limitations and areas of needed clarification for the study in its current form. I have attempted to organize my comments by section (e.g., Introduction, Discussion) and study (1, 2, or 3).

1) Introduction: The discussion of gender roles, motherhood beliefs, and mental health is missing some key literature on the topic. Perhaps these papers can help the authors to better contextualize their study findings in the Introduction and Discussion sections:

Evenson, R. J., & Simon, R. W. (2005). Clarifying the relationship between parenthood and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(4), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650504600403

Leupp, K. (2017). Depression, work and family roles, and the gendered life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146517737309

Vespa, J. (2009). Gender ideology construction: A life course and intersectional approach. Gender & Society, 23(3), 363–387. doi:10.1177/0891243209337507.

Response: We appreciate the suggestion and have incorporated additional literature into the introduction and discussion sections, using the references suggested by Evenson & Simon (2005), Leupp (2017), and Vespa (2009) to better contextualize our findings.

Now this integration can be read in the Introduction, line 76:

Vespa [11] contends that gender ideology is dynamic, evolving over time as individuals encounter diverse social environments that introduce them to gender expectations related to aspects like marriage, parenthood, and work. Various determinants, such as race, age of children, education, family type, and pre-parenthood attitudes toward gender roles, contribute to this organic nature [11–13]. Fatherhood, for instance, often entails the expectation of being the primary breadwinner, whereas motherhood encompasses responsibilities related to childcare, nurturing, and housework [14]. Nevertheless, diverse experiences of parenthood influence gender ideology, shaped by the specific gender expectations individuals encounter. For married couples, parenthood tends to be associated with less egalitarian gender ideologies, irrespective of gender and race [11]. Conversely, some studies suggest that parenthood may reinforce traditional gender role stereotypes when compared to childless individuals [13]. Moreover, there is evidence indicating that individuals may develop more traditional attitudes and behaviors regarding gender roles once they become parents [15–17].

In Discussion, it reads (line 895):

Women who step away from traditional motherhood roles to pursue employment often encounter mental health challenges due to the dual demands of professional and domestic responsibilities. Parenthood can potentially diminish the mental health benefits usually derived from other life experiences, such as career development, particularly for women with young children [56]. The pressure to meet the ideal of a perfect mother can be overwhelming, and even without fully internalizing this standard, women may still face adverse mental health effects, including stress, anxiety, and reduced self-efficacy.

In contrast, men who deviate from conventional paternalistic roles—often characterized by emotional inexpressiveness and the expectation to be the primary providers [29]—and participate more actively in childcare and nurturing may experience increased satisfaction and fulfillment. This shift from traditional roles can be particularly rewarding [12]. This dynamic aligns with observations in countries with high gender equality, where mothers are more susceptible to depression, while in countries with lower gender equality, unemployed women often face the opposite trend. For men, the influence of children on mental health appears to be less significant, irrespective of the country's level of gender equality [57]. This highlights the differential impact of parenting roles on mental health across genders and cultural contexts.

2) Recruitment of study participants for Studies 1, 2, and 3: It appears that participants were recruited from social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram). Given the recruitment strategy, the sample may be biased towards younger and more tech-savvy individuals. Could the authors speak to this issue?

Response: We have acknowledged the observation about recruitment and we are aware that our sample has a bias towards younger people and people who use technology. While our recruitment method allowed us to efficiently reach a diverse pool of participants, we recognize its limitations. However, we will make this issue explicit in the limitations section (line 980), as follows:

One significant limitation of our study was the restricted range of instruments available for precisely measuring motherhood beliefs. Moreover, despite the large sample sizes, there was an overrepresentation of women (67.88%), individuals of younger age (averaging 21 years old), and those without children. This uneven representation introduces a potential bias in the data, underscoring the need for caution in interpreting the results. For future studies, it would be beneficial to aim for a sample more reflective of the Mexican population's demographics, where women constitute 51.2% and the median age is 29 years, as per INEGI's 2021 data [62]. Furthermore, the proportion of participants with children in our study was relatively small (15.77%). Although we assessed the interaction of gender and parental status in Study 3, the findings should be interpreted with care due to the aforementioned biases in sample representativeness regarding these variables.

3) Study 1: Though the mean and SD for age was reported, what was the age range?

Response: We have added the following information about the age range in Study 1 (line 235):

The sample for Study 1 consisted of 2,677 participants, including 1,742 females (65.07%), 927 males (34.62%), and eight non-binary individuals (0.29%). The participants had a mean age of 23.36 years with a standard deviation of 7.76, and with an age range of 18 - 50 years.

In Study 3, it reads (line 582):

The sample for Study 3 consisted of 685 participants, including 465 women (67.88%, mean age = 24.95, sd = 9.44, range = 18 - 67 years), 207 men (30.21%, mean age = 24.43, sd = 9.27, range = 18 - 71 years), and 13 non-binary individuals (1.89%, mean age = 22.00, sd = 7.06, range = 18 - 45 years).

4) Study 2: I appreciate the authors’ expansion of items for the Motherhood Belief Scale. However, the low alpha reliability score (.54) for Hegemonic Stereotypes is a concern, particularly because the alpha reliability scores for the other factors are .77 or higher. Why do the authors believe the alpha was particularly low for hegemonic stereotypes, and what might future research do to further refine this factor of the MBS?

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your positive acknowledgment of the expansion of items for the Motherhood Belief Scale (MBS) in Study 2. Regarding your concern about the low alpha reliability score (.54) for the Hegemonic Stereotypes factor, we believe the lower alpha may be attributed to some aspects such as heterogeneity of context associated to motherhood (i.e. responsibility, happiness, breeding, needs, work performance) that include the six items in this factor. Although hegemonic stereotypes of motherhood are expressed in all these contexts, there may be differences among them. However, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses group these items into a single factor that we refer to by its common factor: Hegemonic Stereotypes. In the ongoing development of this scale, we will consider adding more items for each context to enhance the reliability of the scale.

For now, we began with a general search of the scientific literature on motherhood, and from there, the items were generated, as stated in the manuscript. It was only after the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis that these items were grouped into a factor we named: Hegemonic Stereotypes.

In study 2: Instruments and procedure, it reads (line 373):

To enhance the scale, we introduced additional items that more thoroughly examine various aspects of motherhood while avoiding gender stereotypes. These new items were derived from an extensive review of theoretical and scientific literature on motherhood from 2000 to 2021. This review led to the identification of a wide range of definitions, concepts, and beliefs about motherhood, which were then adapted into Likert-type statements. As a result, 16 new items were added to the MBS, covering areas such as female identity, decision-making, lifestyle, success, life plans, and emotions including love, frustration, pain, and passion. For example, new items included 'Maternity is a woman's decision' and 'Motherhood can generate anxiety,' as detailed in Table 2. Participants completed this extended version of the MBS via a Google Form.

In study 2: Results, it reads (line 426):

After confirming that the 28 items were allocated into five factors, we named and ordered them based on the degree of traditionalism, from most to least traditional: Factor 1, Social duty, included four items from original-MBS; Factor 2, Sense of life, comprised eight items from original-MBS; Factor 3, Hegemonic stereotypes comprised six new items; Factor 4, Negative emotions, included two new items; and, Factor 5, Motherhood as a decision, encompassed eight new items (Table 2).

In study 2: Discussion of study 2, it reads (line 447):

The third factor, named Hegemonic Stereotypes, aims to underscore the predominant beliefs about motherhood that reinforce the exclusive responsibility of mothers in child-rearing. It reflects societal expectations of full-time dedication as a criterion for being deemed a good mother, emphasizing complete responsibility and happiness in motherhood, absolute commitment to breeding, and the act of relinquishing one's own needs and the professional field. Although Hegemonic Stereotypes are expressed across these diverse contexts (responsibility, parenting style, professional work, personal needs). The inclusion of various contexts in the items of this factor may have contributed to its lower consistency. Future efforts could focus on refining this factor by either narrowing down the included contexts or incorporating more items for each context.

5) Study 2: Related to the previous point, the alpha reliability scores for the newly added factors (i.e., hegemonic stereotypes, negative emotions, and motherhood as a decision) are all lower compared to the previously established factors (Social duty, sense of life). Why might this be the case?

Response: We appreciate your attention to detail and your thoughtful comments. Regarding the alpha reliability scores for the newly added factors in Study 2, namely Hegemonic stereotypes, Negative emotions, and Motherhood as a decision, we acknowledge that they are lower compared to the previously established factors, Social duty and Sense of life.

As we mentioned in response to a similar point earlier, the lower alpha reliability scores for these newly added factors may stem from the limited number of items comprising in each factor, the diverse contexts explored by the items within each factor, which might have introduced more complexity and, consequently, resulted in lower internal consistency. We are aware of this limitation, and in our future work, we plan to explore ways to refine these factors, whether by narrowing down the included contexts or by adding more items for each factor.

In another possible consideration, which we do not rule out, it could be that these new factors, representing less hegemonic or traditional beliefs about motherhood, are present with less strength or consistency compared to traditionalist beliefs, that is, the perception of motherhood as a duty and a sense of life for women. We added this possible explanation in the General discussion of the manuscript, you can read it at line 781:

The modifications included the addition of new items to both scales, updating and aligning the concepts of gender ideology and motherhood beliefs with contemporary perspectives. This approach was designed to mitigate the traditionalist bias inherent in the original versions of these scales. Subsequent to these enhancements, a thorough psychometric validation was conducted for both the ATGRS and MBS scales. The validation process affirmed the overall reliability of the scales. However, it was observed that some of the newly introduced factors exhibited lower levels of consistency compared to the original factors. This difference in consistency may be attributed to the fact that the original factors, which focus on assessing traditional attitudes and beliefs, are more deeply entrenched in our Mexican society [28] . As a result, these traditional factors tend to demonstrate higher consistency, reflecting their more established and widely accepted nature within the societal framework.

6) Study 2: The “Negative emotions” factor for the new version of MBS only has two items. Why weren’t the range of emotions captured in the items developed for this factor? As currently constructed, the negative emotions factor only captures “scary” and “anxiety”, but in the discussion of this factor, the authors note that “fatigue” and “anguish” are also emotions associated with motherhood. It seems like a missed opportunity to not include other items that capture other “negative” emotions that have been linked to motherhood.

Response: We appreciate your insightful observation regarding the limited number of items in the "Negative emotions" factor in the new version of the MBS. We completely agree with your concern and acknowledge that the current construction of this factor captures only a subset of negative emotions associated with motherhood, specifically "scary" and "anxiety." We recognize that emotions such as "fatigue" and "anguish" are essential components of the emotional experience related to motherhood and were not explicitly included in our current set of items.

We want to emphasize that this limitation was not overlooked but rather a deliberate decision in the initial phase of scale development. The intention was to start with a more focused exploration and later expand the factor by including additional items that could better capture the diverse range of negative emotions associated with motherhood. We see your point as an opportunity to enhance the scale's comprehensiveness, and we are actively planning to include more items in this factor in our future work.

By expanding the range of emotions covered, we aim to create a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the emotional aspects of motherhood, considering both positive and negative dimensions. Your feedback aligns with our vision for refining the MBS, and we sincerely appreciate your valuable input.

In the manuscript, we discuss possible reasons for differences in alpha reliability and highlight the importance of future research to address these issues. You can read it at line 476:

Overall, the factors newly introduced displayed a comparatively lower level of internal consistency than the original, more traditional factors. This discrepancy can likely be attributed to the varied contexts of motherhood that these new factors explore, as previously mentioned. Another contributing factor could be the limited number of items for each new factor, such as only two items in the Negative Emotions factor. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the original factors, which are deeply rooted in tradition, exhibited higher consistency. This higher consistency may stem from their focus on beliefs that are more established and broadly accepted in our society, particularly those beliefs that correspond with traditional and hegemonic perspectives on motherhood.

7) Study 3: The seemingly strong positive correlation between age and parental status are concerning because it is difficult to determine if the results are driven by parental status or actual age. For instance, in Table 3, respondents without children are in their early 20s in terms of age while those with children are in their 40s (on average). The authors note that both parental status and age/generation have been shown to be related to gender role and motherhood beliefs. Given the significant overlap between age and parental status in these data, it seems difficult to determine if being a parent or being younger/older is driving differences in gender roles and motherhood beliefs.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our study. We acknowledge the concern you raised about the potential confounding effects of age and parental status on the observed results in Study 3. In response to this concern, we have conducted additional analyses to disentangle the influence of age and parental status on gender roles and motherhood beliefs. Specifically, we performed a lineal regression analysis with age and education as a covariate to control for its potential effects. The results of these analyses are presented in the revised version of the manuscript, and we discuss the nuanced interplay between age and parental status in shaping attitudes toward gender roles and motherhood. Now you can read it at line 836:

It is noteworthy that the childless individuals in our study were generally younger than those with children, indicating a potential generational shift in attitudes. This age difference might contribute to a decreased adherence to traditional societal norms. Future research should aim to disentangle the effects of age and parenthood status on gender role and motherhood beliefs more comprehensively, providing further insights into these complex dynamics.

8) Study 3: It’s not clear why Spearman's non-parametric method was used to assess the association between gender role/motherhood beliefs and mental health. Why would the authors not use OLS regression analysis that would allow for adjustments for age, education level, and other sociodemographic characteristics? With OLS regression, the authors could also test for gender and parental status moderation by testing for statistical interactions between gender and gender role beliefs/motherhood beliefs, and statistical interactions between parental status and gender role beliefs/motherhood beliefs.

Response: We thank you for your proposed statistical analysis. In the new version of the manuscript, we performed, as a complementary analysis, using the ordinary least squares (OLS) method, multiple linear regressions to predict as dependent variables the scores of all factors on one scale (e.g. Social Duty on the MBS scale) and all factors on the other scale (in this example, the ATGRS factors) as predictor variables. In all models, the interaction with sex and parental status was calculated, and adjustments were made for age and educational level. You can read the results of these analyses from Study 3.1 at line 617:

To confirm and complement these findings, we employed a multiple linear regression model to explore how all factors from the ATGRS scale influence each component of the MBS (Table 5). Moreover, we investigated the interaction of these factors with sex and parenthood status, while controlling for age and educational level. Regarding Social duty, the model demonstrated an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 (F(13, 671) = 7.71, p < 0.001). For the Sense of life, the model exhibited an adjusted R2 value of 0.21 (F(13, 671) = 15.48, p < 0.001). Concerning Hegemonic stereotypes, the model indicated an adjusted R2 value of 0.06 (F(13, 671) = 4.46, p < 0.001). For Negative emotions, the model displayed an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(13, 671) = 5.39, p < 0.001). Regarding Motherhood as a decision, the model revealed an adjusted R2 value of 0.17 (F(13, 671) = 12.29, p < 0.001). No interactions with sex and parenthood status were detected in any model.

Table 5. Multiple lineal model from ATGRS factors for each factor of MBS, adjusted for age and educational level.

Estimate SE t-value p-value

Social duty Traditional 0.05 0.01 3.67 p < 0.001

Egalitarian success 0.05 0.02 2.71 p < 0.01

Gender equity -0.05 0.01 -5.95 p < 0.001

Non-traditional -0.05 0.02 -2.11 p < 0.05

Sense of life Traditional 0.24 0.05 4.53 p < 0.001

Egalitarian success 0.41 0.07 6.12 p < 0.001

Gender equity -0.04 0.03 -1.33 N.S

Non-traditional -0.15 0.08 -1.72 N.S

Hegemonic stereotypes Traditional 0.151 0.05 2.88 p < 0.01

Egalitarian success 0.194 0.06 2.98 p < 0.01

Gender equity -0.04 0.03 -1.29 N.S

Non-traditional 0.01 0.08 0.074 N.S

Negative emotions Traditional -0.02 0.02 -0.85 N.S

Egalitarian success -0.06 0.03 -1.77 N.S

Gender equity 0.06 0.02 4.02 p < 0.001

Non-traditional 0.09 0.04 1.98 p < 0.05

Motherhood as a decision Traditional -0.06 0.06 -1.05 N.S

Egalitarian success -0.39 0.08 -4.84 p < 0.001

Gender equity 0.28 0.04 7.25 p < 0.001

Non-traditional 0.13 0.11 1.26 N.S

N.S., not significant

The results of the multiple linear regression are also in accordance with the hypotheses. Social duty, Sense of life, and Hegemonic stereotypes as motherhood beliefs were predicted positively by traditional factors of ATGRS (Table 5). Non-traditional factors of ATGRS predicted negatively Social duty, while a contrasting pattern was detected for the Negative emotions factor of the MBS scale, i.e., it was predicted positively. Motherhood as a decision was predicted positively by Gender equity and negatively by Egalitarian success.

And from Study 3.3 at line 723:

To corroborate our findings, we employed a multiple linear regression model to analyze the impact of factors from both the ATGRS and the MBS on mental health measures. This analysis also considered the interaction of these factors with sex and parental status, while adjusting for age and educational level. The model that used ATGRS factors to predict depression yielded an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 (F(13, 671) = 5.63, p < 0.001). In the case of anxiety, the model demonstrated an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(13, 671) = 5.11, p < 0.001). Notably, there was a significant sex-related effect, with women showing higher anxiety scores (estimates = 10.12, SE = 4.69, t = 1.15, p < 0.05). Regarding PPF, the model revealed an adjusted R2 value of 0.08 (F(13, 671) = 5.09, p < 0.001). Traditional factors negatively predicted both depression and anxiety. Conversely, Non-traditional factor were positively associated with depression and Gender equity was negatively associated with PPF (Table 9).

Table 9. Multiple lineal model from ATGRS factors for depression, anxiety and PPF, adjusted for age and educational level.

Estimate SE t-value p-value

Depression Traditional -0.28 0.13 -2.15 p < 0.05

Egalitarian success 0.03 0.16 0.17 N.S.

Gender equity -0.01 0.07 -0.18 N.S.

Non-traditional 0.42 0.21 1.97 p < 0.05

Anxiety Traditional -0.38 0.14 -2.74 p < 0.01

Egalitarian success 0.05 0.17 0.31 N.S.

Gender equity -0.10 0.08 -1.12 N.S.

Non-traditional 0.05 0.02 1. N.S.

PPF Traditional 0.36 0.32 1.09 N.S.

Egalitarian success -0.39 0.40 -0.96 N.S.

Gender equity 0.93 0.18 4.94 p < 0.001

Non-traditional -0.89 0.54 -1.64 N.S.

N.S., not significant

In the multiple linear regression model where MBS factors served as predictors for depression, an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 was observed (F(14, 670) = 7.06, p < 0.001). Regarding anxiety, the model showed an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(14, 670) = 4.73, p < 0.001). For PPF, the adjusted R2 value was 0.04 (F(14, 670) = 3.51, p < 0.001). Notably, in these models, no interactions with sex and parental status were evident. Expanding upon the results of the correlation analysis, Negative emotions, as a belief related to motherhood, positively predicts both depression and anxiety. However, it had a negative predictive relationship with PPF (Table 10).

Table 10. Multiple lineal model from MBS factors for depression, anxiety and PPF, adjusted for age and educational level.

Estimate SE t-value p-value

Depression Social Duty 0.58 0.36 1.58 N.S.

Sense of life -0.17 0.11 -1.64 N.S.

Hegemonic stereotypes 0.03 0.11 0.33 N.S.

Negative emotions 0.85 0.19 4.43 p < 0.001

Motherhood as a decision -0.06 0.11 -0.63 N.S.

Anxiety Social Duty 0.41 0.40 1.04 N.S.

Sense of life -0.11 0.11 -1.03 N.S.

Hegemonic stereotypes 0.01 0.11 0.16 N.S.

Negative emotions 0.41 0.21 1.96 p < 0.05

Motherhood as a decision -0.13 0.11 -1.21 N.S.

PPF Social Duty -0.58 0.96 -0.61 N.S.

Sense of life 0.01 0.27 0.06 N.S.

Hegemonic stereotypes 0.42 0.26 1.61 N.S.

Negative emotions -1.41 0.50 -2.79 p < 0.01

Motherhood as a decision 0.70 0.27 2.52 p < 0.05

N.S., not significant

9) Study 3: The randomization technique for making the sample sizes conquerable for individuals with and without children is concerning (e.g., this is mentioned on page 35, lines 643-645 page 36, lines 663-665, page 40, lines 732-734). This seems to be a “waste” of perfectly analyzable data. At the least, the authors could report how the results compare when the full sample is utilized? Also, is there a citation or reference for establishing precedence in the quantitative methodological literature for this decision to remove a significant portion (N =470) of the sample from the analysis?

Response: Thank you for your thorough review and insightful comments. We appreciate your concern regarding the undersampling issue raised in Study 3. We have carefully considered your suggestion and made significant revisions to address this concern.

In the revised manuscript, we have included an updated Table 3 that presents the scores of all variables measured in the research, stratified by sex and parenting status. The patterns observed in the data, including the higher scores in traditional beliefs for individuals with children, are now statistically substantiated through analyses conducted on the respective subsamples.

Regarding the decision to create subsamples, we aimed to ensure equal sample sizes across groups to facilitate a fair comparison, particularly in the presence of noticeable disparities in the sizes of some subsamples (e.g., the sample with children, n = 108, compared to the sample without children, n = 577). While we acknowledge the limitation of uneven sample distribution, we believe this approach allowed us to conduct meaningful analyses and draw valuable insights from the available data.

We have added a detailed discussion of this limitation in the revised Limitations section (line 986), acknowledging the trade-off between achieving equitable sample sizes and the potential loss of information. We believe that this transparency will enhance the interpretability of our study's findings. In limitations section, it reads (line 986):

Furthermore, the proportion of participants with children in our study was relatively small (15.77%). Although we assessed the interaction of gender and parental status in Study 3, the findings should be interpreted with care due to the aforementioned biases in sample representativeness regarding these variables. Further research is warranted to delve into the influence of social constructs on gender roles and motherhood, utilizing larger and more diverse samples of men and women with children. Incorporating additional variables, such as marital status, family structure, and pre-parenthood attitudes towards gender roles, could also enhance the depth of our understanding of the attitudes and beliefs examined in this study.

10) Though three measures of mental health were included in Study 3, other mental health problems associated with externalizing behaviors (e.g., substance use, anti-social behavioral disorders) are more common among men, as masculinity is associated with increased risk-taking behavior. Perhaps the associations between gender role beliefs and mental health would look different for men if other measures of mental health were assessed (e.g., substance abuse disorders). This is not necessarily a limitation of the study, but should be noted as an area for future research. For citations on this topic, see:

Smith, D. T., Mouzon, D. M., & Elliott, M. (2018). Reviewing the assumptions about men’s mental health: An exploration of the gender binary. American journal of men's health, 12(1), 78-89.

Rosenfield, Sarah, and Dawne Mouzon. (2013). "Gender and mental health." Handbook of the sociology of mental health pp. 277-296.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your insightful suggestion and your recognition of potential avenues for further research. Exploring additional measures of mental health, particularly those associated with externalizing behaviors such as substance use and anti-social behavioral disorders, is an excellent point. We acknowledge the importance of considering gender-specific aspects in mental health outcomes, as highlighted in the provided references. In our future research, we will carefully address this aspect to enrich our understanding of the subject. Thank you for your valuable input, and we look forward to enhancing the depth of our methodology in this regard.

11) Discussion: The discussion section is very well-written and thoughtful. However, the issue of employment continued to come into focus. Are there any data on employment status and/or occupation for Study 3? The authors are theorizing that gender roles/motherhood beliefs will be dependent on gender, parental status, and employment status. The literature they have cited also seems to strongly suggest this is the case as well.

Response: We express our gratitude for the question regarding employment and occupation data. In the new version of the manuscript, we included more information regarding the demographic data of the sample. You can review that information in new Table 3 (line 586).

Table 3. Demographic data of participants of study 3 grouped by parenting status and by sex.

PARENTING STATUS

Without children With children

n=577 n=108

SEX SEX

Women Men Non-binary Women Men Non-binary

n=373 n=192 n=12 n=92 n=15 n=1

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Age 21.23 (4.04) 22.64 (6.30) 20.08 (1.51) 40.04 (10.01) 47.27 (11.00) 45 (--)

Last grade of studies n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

none 0 0 0 1 (1.09) 0 0

primary school 0 0 0 3 (3.26) 0 0

secondary school 10 (2.62) 5 (2.60) 0 14 (15.22) 3 (20.00) 0

high school 263 (70.51) 117 (60.94) 9 (75) 26 (28.26) 3 (20.00) 0

bachelor’s degree 92 (24.66) 66 (34.38) 3 (25) 44 (47.83) 6 (40.00) 0

postgraduate degree 8 (2.14) 4 (2.08) 0 4 (4.35) 3 (20.00) 1 (100)

Occupation n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Student 318 (85.25) 131 (68.23) 10 (83.33) 2 (2.17) 0 0

Part-time job 17 (4.56) 16 (8.33) 2 (16.67) 17 (18.48) 2 (13.33) 0

Full-time job 23 (6.17) 35 (18.23) 0 37 (40.22) 8 (53.33) 1 (100)

Unpaid job 12 (3.22) 3 (1.56) 0 29 (31.52) 1 (6.67) 0

Other 3 (0.80) 7 (3.65) 0 7 (7.61) 4 (26.67) 0

Locality n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Mexico City 279 (74.80) 146 (76.04) 8 (66.67) 65 (70.65) 10 (66.67) 0

Mexico state 77 (20.64) 41 (21.35) 3 (25.00) 21 (22.83) 3 (20) 1 (100)

Other state 17 (4.56) 5 (2.60) 1 (8.33) 6 (6.52) 2 (13.33) 0

Marital Status n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Single 359 (96.25) 174 (90.63) 12 (100) 38 (41.30) 5 (33.33) 1 (100)

Married 12 (3.22) 15 (7.81) 0 54 (58.70) 10 (66.67) 0

Engagement 2 (0.54) 3 (1.56) 0 0 0 0

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Depression 19.35 (12.48) 13.95 (11.29) 32.83 (15.42) 12.91 (11.56) 8.93 (8.94) 4

Anxiety 19.13 (13.26) 12.43 (12.27) 26.92 (14.85) 12.72 (12.36) 9.47 (9.83) 1

PPF 133.14 (29.48) 142.79 (32.21) 114.58 (26.09) 141.14 (36.44) 155.93 (25.54) 130

ATGRS Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Traditional 15.96 (4.61) 19.78 (5.08) 17.42 (3.40) 16.83 (5.36) 19.87 (4.55) 12

Egalitarian success 57.42 (4.71) 53.83 (9.05) 57.33 (3.23) 55.34 (5.99) 50.53 (11.04) 49

Gender equity 8.00 (3.01) 8.58 (3.42) 5.92 (2.07) 9.22 (3.54) 11.07 (3.37) 6

Non-traditional 19.51 (5.48) 19.23 (4.70) 20.00 (2.92) 17.52 (5.34) 17.6 (3.78) 26

MBS Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Social Duty 0.26 (1.24) 0.34 (1.49) 0.08 (0.29) 0.63 (1.94) 1.13 (3.02) 0

Sense of life 2.17 (3.91) 4.32 (5.68) 1.50 (1.57) 7.71 (8.65) 5.87 (7.8) 0

Hegemonic stereotypes 9.23 (4.67) 9.43 (5.34) 11.17 (5.83) 9.52 (5.69) 9.13 (5.84) 13

Negative emotions 7.83 (2.33) 7.23 (2.49) 6.92 (2.27) 6.61 (3.28) 5.6 (3.27) 10

Motherhood as a decision 36.62 (5.60) 33.96 (8.19) 37.67 (2.06) 33.63 (6.84) 30.53 (8.67) 40

In addition, we added to the manuscript a more detailed discussion of the relationship between gender roles, motherhood beliefs and employment as it reads (line 855):

For instance, while women increasingly participate in the workforce, they continue to shoulder the bulk of reproductive work, leading to an often socially invisible double workload [2]. The disparity in time allocation to unpaid work between men and women is still prominent, even in urban areas where women's professional and labor participation has grown. Women spend more than double the time on domestic tasks (such as food preparation, cleaning, caregiving, and voluntary work) compared to men [54]. Furthermore, as men increasingly engage in household chores and parenting [55], they may face discrimination for seeking work flexibility for childcare, along with ridicule and stigmatization from peers [14].

12) Discussion: Given that the data were collected in Mexico and in the Spanish language, could the authors speak more about how this particular context (i.e., Mexico) may be relevant in terms of discussing the study findings? They start to do this somewhat on page 46 (when discussing Hopcroft and McLaughlin), but more could be stated about gender dynamics within Mexico and how those social dynamics could help with interpretation of the study results.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the suggestion to broaden the discussion in the Mexican context. In fact, guided by your comments, we decided that it was important to add information on the Mexican context in the introduction of the paper. In the new version of the introduction, we added (line 109):

In Mexico, family and gender roles adhere strictly to societal expectations, imposing significant pressure to conform. A central cultural aspect is affiliative obedience, where both men and women embody the distinct feature of Mexican culture: self-sacrifice. This implies a belief that prioritizing the needs of others over one's own is more important [28]. Mexicans frequently prioritize external social demands over their personal interests and desires [29].

The traditional Mexican family serves as an illustrative context to understand how gender roles are instilled and acquired in Mexico. According to Diaz-Loving et al. [28], Mexican families are guided by two main axes: a) the power and absolute supremacy of the father, and b) the love and essential sacrifice of the mother. This family structure is mirrored in normative traits of Mexicans, including the emphasis on obedience, the fear of family dishonor, and the magnification of virginity even among adolescents. Moreover, predominant beliefs in this culture include machismo, fear of parental authority, and the importance of respect.

Nevertheless, in Mexico there is a growing diversification of family structures, contemporary meanings related to the family are going beyond the exclusivity of the nuclear biparental model and there is greater openness and tolerance regarding possible alternative forms of coexistence and personal and family development [30]. Within this diversity, coupled with the collectivist character of Mexican society [31], is the participation of networks of women and extended family in the care of children, a term known as othermothers [32]. This could facilitate some conditions such as women having a support network that allows them to occupy other professional and work roles or to have time for self-care, reducing the parental burden.

In addition, in the General discussion section, we incorporated specific perspectives on gender dynamics in Mexico. It can be read at line 883:

This hypothesis is particularly applicable in societies where individuals prioritize external social demands over their own interests and desires [29]. In such societies, including Mexico, adherence to established norms can offer a sense of security and stability, thereby alleviating the stress and challenges tied to societal expectations.

And at line 937:

Additionally, in a cultural context like Mexico's, where parenthood is highly esteemed and embodies collectivist values, it might serve as a mental health protective factor. This cultural esteem for parenthood could alleviate social pressures and distribute the demands of child-rearing more evenly within extended family and community networks.

13) Discussion: Do the authors envision that the newly developed scales can be utilized in non-Spanish speaking countries and would there be any necessary adjustments to the scale if asked outside of Mexico?

Response: Thank you for raising the question regarding the applicability of our newly developed scales in non-Spanish speaking countries. We believe that these scales encompass a broad spectrum of conceptualizations about gender roles and motherhood beliefs that could potentially be relevant in diverse contexts (e.g. Western countries). However, we acknowledge that gender roles and motherhood beliefs, being social constructs, are dynamic and strongly influenced by the sociocultural context. As we noted at lines 164 (for the ATGRS):

The authors conducted an exploratory study prior to developing the scale to ensure its content was both culturally sensitive and had face validity. They used open questions to collect diverse conceptions -encompassing behaviors, traits, beliefs, etc.- that men and women have regarding their gender identity [33].

At line 374 for the MBS:

These new items were derived from an extensive review of theoretical and scientific literature on motherhood from 2000 to 2021. This review led to the identification of a wide range of definitions, concepts, and beliefs about motherhood, which were then adapted into Likert-type statements.

In response to your query, we have incorporated additional information in the introduction section (line 55) highlighting the key aspects of the context in which these scales were developed. We emphasize the importance of considering the sociocultural nuances specific to Mexico, and we note that adjustments may be necessary if the scales are applied in different cultural settings.

In Western societies, gender ideology is molded by traditional gender roles defined by the sexual division of labor, where specific tasks are strictly assigned based on gender [1]. Women are typically tasked with reproductive work within the home and family, involving domestic management, infrastructure maintenance, and the care of family members. Conversely, men are expected to engage in productive work, contributing to the production of public goods and services, with economic retribution and social recognition [2].

At line 115, we argue that Mexico is a society where family values are well established and highly esteemed:

According to Diaz-Loving et al. [28], Mexican families are guided by two main axes: a) the power and absolute supremacy of the father, and b) the love and essential sacrifice of the mother.

This is important and relevant for certain factors: Traditional attitudes towards gender roles and Non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles in the ATGRS and Sense of life and Social duty in the MBS.

Additionally, we emphasize that Mexico is currently undergoing a transformation in social dynamics, including shifts in family roles (line 121)

in Mexico there is a growing diversification of family structures, contemporary meanings related to the family are going beyond the exclusivity of the nuclear biparental model and there is greater openness and tolerance regarding possible alternative forms of coexistence and personal and family development [30]

Within this context lies the need of including the new factors that circumscribe to these transformations: Favorable attitude towards egalitarian success, Favorable attitude towards gender equity for the ATGRS and Motherhood as a decision, Negative Emotions, and Hegemonic Stereotypes factors of the MBS.

Overall, the study makes an important contribution to the literature, particularly regarding advancements in the measurement of gender role attitudes as well as motherhood beliefs. Additional clarity on issues raised above will help to further clarify and contextualize the study findings.

Response: We are deeply thankful for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions provided by Reviewer #1. Your insights have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The article presents a relevant topic with interesting findings. However, some issues prevent me from accepting it in its current form.

The article is divided into a general introduction, studies 1, 2, and 3, and a general discussion. Studies 1 and 2 are related to the validation of two scales used in the methodology of study 3. This structure makes it challenging to understand the research. Given that the abstract emphasizes study 3, I recommend concentrating on this study alone within the abstract and integrating a summarized version of the scale validation process in the methodology section. This reorganization will enhance clarity and overall understanding of the research.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your recommendation regarding the reorganization of the investigation. We agree that the summary emphasizes Study 3, which could have made it difficult to understand the structure of the research. However, we have reasons to approach the article with this structure, but thanks to your comments we realized that we did not make them clear in the previous version of the manuscript.

Although Study 3 is the central point of the entire investigation, if we had carried out the study with the psychological instruments validated in our country to date, we would have obtained biased results and with limited information, specifically with predominantly traditional ideas and biased towards gender stereotypes.

For this reason, it was strictly necessary to extend and psychometrically validate the instruments before conducting study 3. We consider that both validations deserve an independent section to highlight and discuss 1) the lack of more inclusive measurement instruments on these topics and 2) the importance to know the new factors that the confirmatory factor analysis reveals in each one, exposing the topics that have not yet been explored and the gaps in the research that remains to be carried out.

Following your recommendations, we propose to clarify these reasons in the following way. Firstly, we write a new abstract, it reads (line 26):

Gender roles, as social constructs, play a significant role in shaping individuals' beliefs and attitudes, influencing various aspects of life, including perceptions and expectations surrounding motherhood. These beliefs, acquired through culture and society, can have an impact on our mental well-being. This research consists of three independent studies. In the first and second studies, we extended the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale and Motherhood Beliefs Scale and performed psychometric validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The aim of including additional items in both scales was to update these attitudes and beliefs in Mexican culture to avoid the traditionalist bias in both instruments. Finally, the third study examined the relationship between the new versions of both scales and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and Positive Psychological Functioning as indicators of mental health in women and men with and without children. Our findings revealed a significant association between higher levels of traditional attitudes towards gender roles and traditional motherhood beliefs, as well as between non-traditional attitudes towards gender roles and non-traditional beliefs about motherhood. Interestingly, we observed that traditional attitudes toward gender roles were associated with lower anxiety and depression scores, while non-traditional attitudes were associated with higher levels of depression. Furthermore, individuals who embraced non-traditional attitudes towards both gender roles and motherhood beliefs tended to exhibit better psychological well-being in all subsamples. Additionally, women generally showed lesser alignment with traditional attitudes towards both gender roles and motherhood beliefs compared to men. However, women reported higher rates of depression and anxiety, along with lower psychological well-being scores, than their male counterparts. This highlights the significant influence that traditional cultural norms about gender roles and motherhood have on women's mental health, underscoring the need for a deeper understanding and reevaluation of these traditional constructs in society.

Secondly, we will clarify this point in more detail in the last part of Introduction, it reads (line 134):

To test this hypothesis, the first step would be to have updated instruments that probe attitudes towards gender roles today, otherwise the results between gender roles and mental health could be biased.

The present research was divided into three independent studies. In the first and second studies, we extended the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale (ATGRS) [33] and Motherhood Beliefs Scale (MBS) [34] and performed psychometric validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The aim of including additional items in both scales was to update attitudes and beliefs in Mexican culture in order to avoid the traditionalist bias in both instruments.

Third, we will highlight in the General discussion the relevance of the extension and validation of these instruments, it reads (line 779):

To achieve this, we initially expanded two key scales: the scale for Attitudes Towards Gender Roles (ATGRS) in Study 1, and the scale for Motherhood Beliefs (MBS) in Study 2. The modifications included the addition of new items to both scales, updating and aligning the concepts of gender ideology and motherhood beliefs with contemporary perspectives. This approach was designed to mitigate the traditionalist bias inherent in the original versions of these scales. Subsequent to these enhancements, a thorough psychometric validation was conducted for both the ATGRS and MBS scales. The validation process affirmed the overall reliability of the scales.

The central concern of this study is related to the sample. In the abstract, a sample of 3,927 people is cited. However, a substantial portion of this sample was involved in validating the measurement instruments, leaving 685 participants for the study concerning the relationship between gender roles, conceptions of motherhood, and mental health. After stratifying by gender, this number dropped to 214 participants. This leads to questions about the study's validity and representativeness, which must be addressed in the text.

Response: We sincerely believe that the study will be interpreted better after incorporating your suggestions. In this new version of the abstract, we mention that there are three studies and the importance of carrying them out independently, it reads (line 29):

This research consists of three independent studies. In the first and second studies, we extended the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale and Motherhood Beliefs Scale and performed psychometric validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The aim of including additional items in both scales was to update these attitudes and beliefs in Mexican culture to avoid the traditionalist bias in both instruments. Finally, the third study examined the relationship between the new versions of both scales and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and Positive Psychological Functioning as indicators of mental health in women and men with and without children.

And we aborded this issue on the Limitations section (line 981), as follows:

Moreover, despite the large sample sizes, there was an overrepresentation of women (67.88%), individuals of younger age (averaging 21 years old), and those without children. This uneven representation introduces a potential bias in the data, underscoring the need for caution in interpreting the results. For future studies, it would be beneficial to aim for a sample more reflective of the Mexican population's demographics, where women constitute 51.2% and the median age is 29 years, as per INEGI's 2021 data [62]. Furthermore, the proportion of participants with children in our study was relatively small (15.77%). Although we assessed the interaction of gender and parental status in Study 3, the findings should be interpreted with care due to the aforementioned biases in sample representativeness regarding these variables. Further research is warranted to delve into the influence of social constructs on gender roles and motherhood, utilizing larger and more diverse samples of men and women with children. Incorporating additional variables, such as marital status, family structure, and pre-parenthood attitudes towards gender roles, could also enhance the depth of our understanding of the attitudes and beliefs examined in this study.

It is essential to provide details regarding the characteristics of the 685 participants. The majority of them were childless women with high levels of education. How representative are they of the broader population? How might selection biases be at play, and how were they controlled for? Furthermore, participants without children had a median age of 20, while those with children had a median age of 40. How might this age difference influence the study's results? Could generational factors confound the findings? Notably, the participants with children included only 15 men (constituting 14% of the group). How was this low number addressed?

Response: Regarding your query about the characteristics of the participants, we acknowledge and fully understand the importance of providing a detailed description of the sample (Table 3). The participants in our Study 3, numbering 685, primarily consisted of childless women with elevated levels of education. We agree that this demographic composition raises questions about the representativeness of our sample in relation to the broader population. To address this concern, we have now included additional information on the characteristics of our participants, emphasizing the prevalence of childless women with high education levels (Table 3 and 6). Furthermore, we have conducted a lineal regression analysis, incorporating age and education level as covariables (Tables 5, 9, and 10). This analysis aims to account for potential biases introduced by the demographic composition of the sample (i.e. age and education).

It is essential to note that we recognize the limitations of our study, particularly the biases introduced by the overrepresentation of childless women and the age disparity between participants with and without children. We have explicitly described these limitations in the revised manuscript to provide transparency and context for our findings.

Now, Limitation reads (line 980):

… there was an overrepresentation of women (67.88%), individuals of younger age (averaging 21 years old), and those without children. This uneven representation introduces a potential bias in the data, underscoring the need for caution in interpreting the results. For future studies, it would be beneficial to aim for a sample more reflective of the Mexican population's demographics, where women constitute 51.2% and the median age is 29 years, as per INEGI's 2021 data [62]. Furthermore, the proportion of participants with children in our study was relatively small (15.77%). Although we assessed the interaction of gender and parental status in Study 3, the findings should be interpreted with care due to the aforementioned biases in sample representativeness regarding these variables.

Concerning the study's conceptual framework, there's a need to develop the concept of gender more comprehensively within the introduction, as explicitly addressed in the second paragraph. Mexico has a robust history of gender theory, including studies on masculinities. It is advisable to include references to the following:

* The concept of gender is multifaceted, historically contingent, and culturally shaped, and, therefore, is not static.

Response: We express gratitude for the guidance on developing the concept of gender within the introduction. The manuscript was revised to include references and provide a more comprehensive definition of gender, incorporating the multifaceted and culturally shaped nature of the concept in the context of the relationship between gender and parenthood (line 76):

Vespa [11] contends that gender ideology is dynamic, evolving over time as individuals encounter diverse social environments that introduce them to gender expectations related to aspects like marriage, parenthood, and work. Various determinants, such as race, age of children, education, family type, and pre-parenthood attitudes toward gender roles, contribute to this organic nature [11–13].

* One of the prevailing definitions of gender is the hegemonic model standard in Western societies, characterized by the sexual division of labor, which this study refers to as traditional gender roles. While the article references hegemonic gender roles, it lacks an explicit definition of sexual division of labor.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the suggestion to revisit the concept of the sexual division of labor, as it is a crucial aspect of social organization that profoundly influences family dynamics in Mexico. In the revised version of the introduction, you will find a clear and explicit definition of the concept (line 55):

In Western societies, gender ideology is molded by traditional gender roles defined by the sexual division of labor, where specific tasks are strictly assigned based on gender [1]. Women are typically tasked with reproductive work within the home and family, involving domestic management, infrastructure maintenance, and the care of family members. Conversely, men are expected to engage in productive work, contributing to the production of public goods and services, with economic retribution and social recognition [2].

It also helped us later in the General Discussion to better contextualize our findings, where we argue that this sexual division of labor could be one of the explanations for the disparities in the mental health outcomes regarding sex and parental status. You can find these insights at line 858:

The disparity in time allocation to unpaid work between men and women is still prominent, even in urban areas where women's professional and labor participation has grown. Women spend more than double the time on domestic tasks (such as food preparation, cleaning, caregiving, and voluntary work) compared to men [54]. Furthermore, as men increasingly engage in household chores and parenting [55], they may face discrimination for seeking work flexibility for childcare, along with ridicule and stigmatization from peers [14].

And line 895:

Women who step away from traditional motherhood roles to pursue employment often encounter mental health challenges due to the dual demands of professional and domestic responsibilities. Parenthood can potentially diminish the mental health benefits usually derived from other life experiences, such as career development, particularly for women with young children [56].

Moreover, it's essential to clarify that, in this article, the term "masculinity" pertains to the hegemonic model of masculinity. There are various models of masculinity, and this specificity should be underscored.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your comment regarding the different concepts of masculinity, in fact, the term we are referring to is traditional masculinity. You can read this clarification in the new version of the manuscript at line 61:

This societal structure gives rise to traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, representing the accepted beliefs about suitable characteristics for men and women [3]. Masculinity often involves traits like dominance, leadership, and competitiveness, while femininity is associated with qualities such as understanding, warmth, and compassion. These learned behaviors gradually become ingrained expectations, influencing individuals' actions and earning societal approval or disapproval [4], ultimately impacting their mental health and overall well-being.

In general, traditional masculinity traits have been associated with better physical health [5] and mental well-being. Specifically, traditional masculinity has shown a negative association with depression [6] and anxiety symptoms [7]. The influence of femininity traits on mental health remains inconclusive [8], as different studies have presented conflicting results. Some research suggests that femininity traits may increase the risk of depression in women [9], whereas other studies show a weak negative correlation between femininity and depression [6,7]. In addition, there is evidence of a positive correlation between femininity traits and anxiety symptoms [7]. Notably, women experience higher rates of physical and mental health problems than men in different age groups and regions around the world [10].

The introduction's fourth and fifth paragraphs discuss the challenges men and women face as they navigate the roles assigned by the sexual division of labor. It would be beneficial to provide context, highlighting that women have entered the workforce without a concurrent redistribution of responsibilities in the domestic sphere, which has implications for women's health.

Response: We provided an idea about women navigating through motherhood with a particular and more demanding context due to the sexual division of labor in the introduction section at line 99:

For women, motherhood carries a unique context in which it is seen as both a gender-based obligation and a defining aspect of identity [20,21]. Moreover, motherhood, unlike fatherhood, is often described as intensive, meaning that it is seen as the most significant and valuable role a woman can assume. At the same time, it imposes strict demands and sets unattainable standards, such as the invisible double workload involving both productive and reproductive work [22, 2].

However, we address the topic in a more elaborate way in the discussion section (line 855):

Even when parental roles conform to the gender equity model, there are situations that contribute to the maintenance of traditional parenthood dynamics based on gender. For instance, while women increasingly participate in the workforce, they continue to shoulder the bulk of reproductive work, leading to an often socially invisible double workload [2]. The disparity in time allocation to unpaid work between men and women is still prominent, even in urban areas where women's professional and labor participation has grown. Women spend more than double the time on domestic tasks (such as food preparation, cleaning, caregiving, and voluntary work) compared to men [54]. Furthermore, as men increasingly engage in household chores and parenting [55], they may face discrimination for seeking work flexibility for childcare, along with ridicule and stigmatization from peers [14].

From the introduction's 8th to 13th paragraph, methodological details are discussed, which would be more appropriate for the methods section rather than the introduction.

Response: Following your recommendation, we moved paragraphs 8 to 13 to the Method section of study 1 and 2.

Now, Instruments and procedure of Study 1 reads (line 162):

We selected the ATGRS for our study as it is the sole scale developed in Mexico specifically designed to evaluate the construct it measures: an individual's perception based on societal norms and expectations related to traditional and non-traditional gender roles in men and women [33]. The authors conducted an exploratory study prior to developing the scale to ensure its content was both culturally sensitive and had face validity. They used open questions to collect diverse conceptions -encompassing behaviors, traits, beliefs, etc.- that men and women have regarding their gender identity [33]. The scale's validation process involved 120 men and 224 women, with an average age of 30 years (SD = 9.91). The educational background of the participants was varied: 40% had an education level of high school or less, while 60% had attained at least a bachelor's degree. All participants belonged to a medium socioeconomic stratum.

ATGRS comprises 21 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1= I like it very much, 5=I dislike it very much). The scale is structured around three factors, collectively accounting for 46% of the variance. The first factor, Traditional Attitudes Towards Gender Roles, includes statements that endorse the continuation of conventional gender roles. The second factor, Favorable Attitudes Towards Gender Equity, reflects a supportive view of equal rights and opportunities for both men and women. The third factor, Favorable Attitudes Towards Female Empowerment, consists of items that positively assess the progress and emancipation of women. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, which measure internal consistency, were high, indicating strong reliability: 0.86 for the first factor, 0.85 for the second, and 0.76 for the third.

Our analysis identified several issues with the composition of the factors within the ATGRS. Firstly, the scale includes items that are anchored in hegemonic gender roles. Even the second factor, which is intended to assess favorable attitudes towards gender equity, does so within a traditional framework. For instance, the item "That the man participates in the care of the children" reflects the conventional view that caregiving is primarily a woman's role. Thus, within the scale, male involvement in childcare is seen as an equitable attitude. However, in a modern context, true equity in childcare would mean recognizing both parents' rights and responsibilities in child-rearing. This suggests a need for additional items in this factor to more accurately encapsulate the essence of gender equity.

Another issue is with the third factor, Favorable Attitude Towards Female Empowerment. Most of its items seem to focus more on gender equity rather than on female empowerment. Take, for example, "That women have the same freedom as men" (Item 3 in the original scale) and "That men and women perform the same tasks" (Item 6 in the original scale). Considering empowerment as a process enabling women, particularly those who have faced oppression, to make independent and strategic life choices based on their personal priorities [35], it becomes evident that the items in this third factor fall short of adequately capturing the concept of female empowerment.

To address these issues, we modified the items that make up factor 1 of the original scale, Favorable attitude towards traditional roles, but with reversed roles. For instance, the original item "That the man establishes the rules of the home" was complemented with "That the woman establishes the rules of the home." In the second factor, Favorable Attitude Towards Gender Equity, we introduced role-reversed items such as "That the woman expresses her emotions just like the man" and "That the man focuses on personal and professional self-improvement." Additionally, we incorporated two items related to maternity/paternity to address specific gender role stereotypes associated with women [21]. These items were "That the success of being a woman lies in being a mother" and "That the success of being a man lies in being a father." This inclusion acknowledges the gendered expectations surrounding parenting roles. In total, 13 new items were added to the scale, bringing the total number of items in the extended version of the ATGRS to 34. All participants in our study responded to this expanded scale via a Google Form.

And, Instruments and procedure of Study 2 reads (line 337):

In Mexico there is just one validated scale that evaluates Motherhood Beliefs, i.e. MBS [34]. This scale was developed through interviews with three distinct groups of women: 1) those receiving gynecological care at a reproductive health hospital, 2) mothers of preschool children, and 3) university students. These women were asked about their perceptions of what it means to be a mother. Based on their responses, 17 items were written with Likert-type responses ranging from 0 = disagree to 5 = totally agree belonging to two dimensions: 1) Sense of Life, which assesses statements related to motherhood as a woman's life purpose, something that brings her happy and fulfilled; and 2) Social Duty, which includes statements about motherhood as an obligation to society, with a woman's value being diminished if she does not fulfill this duty. After initial development, three judges assessed how well each item aligned with the definitions of these proposed dimensions, leading to the elimination of two items.

The scale's validation involved a sample of 545 women, aged between 17 and 52 years (Mean=30.97; SD=7.54). To establish concurrent validity, the study included women with varying maternal statuses: those who experienced perinatal loss (35.8%), those undergoing infertility treatments or with high-risk pregnancies (10.8%), mothers of preschool-age children (36.6%), and female university students without children (17.1%). Educational background varied, with 64.7% having at least a secondary school education. Only 38.2% were employed, and about 40% were single. Approximately 40% of the participants had between one and five children.

Two additional items were excluded due to their factor loadings being less than 0.40 in the exploratory analysis, resulting in the final scale comprising 13 items. Again, the scale was categorized into two factors: 1) Sense of Life, and 2) 'Social Duty. The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 for the total scale, 0.91 for the Sense of Life factor, and 0.83 for the Social Duty factor.

During the validation of the Motherhood Belief Scale, groups were contrasted based on maternal status. Findings revealed that women who had experienced perinatal loss or infertility issues exhibited more favorable beliefs towards motherhood on both subscales than did mothers and university students.

Although the initial validation included women with diverse motherhood statuses, we consider that the 13 items across just two factors are insufficient for a comprehensive assessment of motherhood in our society [37]. The original scale's items also displayed a significant bias towards hegemonic gender stereotypes, exemplified by statements like "A woman is complete until she is a mother".

To enhance the scale, we introduced additional items that more thoroughly examine various aspects of motherhood while avoiding gender stereotypes. These new items were derived from an extensive review of theoretical and scientific literature on motherhood from 2000 to 2021. This review led to the identification of a wide range of definitions, concepts, and beliefs about motherhood, which were then adapted into Likert-type statements. As a result, 16 new items were added to the MBS, covering areas such as female identity, decision-making, lifestyle, success, life plans, and emotions including love, frustration, pain, and passion. For example, new items included 'Maternity is a woman's decision' and 'Motherhood can generate anxiety,' as detailed in Table 2. Participants completed this extended version of the MBS via a Google Form.

Lastly, in the final paragraph of the introduction, there is a notable absence of a reference to the gaps this study aims to address concerning the relationships between gender roles, conceptions of motherhood, and mental health within the study population.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We sincerely believe that the introduction will be better interpreted after your suggestions. In this new version of the introduction, we have added the requested information.

First, we added information referring to the study population (line 109):

In Mexico, family and gender roles adhere strictly to societal expectations, imposing significant pressure to conform. A central cultural aspect is affiliative obedience, where both men and women embody the distinct feature of Mexican culture: self-sacrifice. This implies a belief that prioritizing the needs of others over one's own is more important [28]. Mexicans frequently prioritize external social demands over their personal interests and desires [29].

The traditional Mexican family serves as an illustrative context to understand how gender roles are instilled and acquired in Mexico. According to Diaz-Loving et al. [28], Mexican families are guided by two main axes: a) the power and absolute supremacy of the father, and b) the love and essential sacrifice of the mother. This family structure is mirrored in normative traits of Mexicans, including the emphasis on obedience, the fear of family dishonor, and the magnification of virginity even among adolescents. Moreover, predominant beliefs in this culture include machismo, fear of parental authority, and the importance of respect.

Nevertheless, in Mexico there is a growing diversification of family structures, contemporary meanings related to the family are going beyond the exclusivity of the nuclear biparental model and there is greater openness and tolerance regarding possible alternative forms of coexistence and personal and family development [30]. Within this diversity, coupled with the collectivist character of Mexican society [31], is the participation of networks of women and extended family in the care of children, a term known as othermothers [32]. This could facilitate some conditions such as women having a support network that allows them to occupy other professional and work roles or to have time for self-care, reducing the parental burden.

And later we argue the importance of addressing the relationship between gender roles and motherhood beliefs and mental health specifically in the study population (line 129):

Despite current changes in parenting roles and parenting decisions, it seems that there is an underlying maintenance of traditional gender roles, and if so, it would be important to know their relationship with mental health in both people with and without children. Furthermore, there is a lack of research on what this relationship would be like in a society where traditional family and gender beliefs are highly esteemed, and where women, due to the conventional family structure, are engaged in childcare collectively rather than individually. To test this hypothesis, the first step would be to have updated instruments that probe attitudes towards gender roles today, otherwise the results between gender roles and mental health could be biased.

As for the methods section, in addition to the previously mentioned general comments, the following is requested:

* To include more extensive information about the participants, such as their geographical diversity within Mexico.

Response: Thank you for your comment, in response to your request we have added demographic information of the participants such as their last grade of studies, occupation, locality and marital status.

In the Study 3 participants section, you can read (line 505):

Participants were native-Spanish speakers of Mexican nationality, and all signed a written privacy notice and an informed consent form. Demographic data were anonymously collected including age, last grade of studies, occupation, locality, and marital status.

You can find all demographic data in new Table 3 (line 586):

PARENTING STATUS

Without children With children

n=577 n=108

SEX SEX

Women Men Non-binary Women Men Non-binary

n=373 n=192 n=12 n=92 n=15 n=1

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Age 21.23 (4.04) 22.64 (6.30) 20.08 (1.51) 40.04 (10.01) 47.27 (11.00) 45 (--)

Last grade of studies n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

none 0 0 0 1 (1.09) 0 0

primary school 0 0 0 3 (3.26) 0 0

secondary school 10 (2.62) 5 (2.60) 0 14 (15.22) 3 (20.00) 0

high school 263 (70.51) 117 (60.94) 9 (75) 26 (28.26) 3 (20.00) 0

bachelor’s degree 92 (24.66) 66 (34.38) 3 (25) 44 (47.83) 6 (40.00) 0

postgraduate degree 8 (2.14) 4 (2.08) 0 4 (4.35) 3 (20.00) 1 (100)

Occupation n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Student 318 (85.25) 131 (68.23) 10 (83.33) 2 (2.17) 0 0

Part-time job 17 (4.56) 16 (8.33) 2 (16.67) 17 (18.48) 2 (13.33) 0

Full-time job 23 (6.17) 35 (18.23) 0 37 (40.22) 8 (53.33) 1 (100)

Unpaid job 12 (3.22) 3 (1.56) 0 29 (31.52) 1 (6.67) 0

Other 3 (0.80) 7 (3.65) 0 7 (7.61) 4 (26.67) 0

Locality n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Mexico City 279 (74.80) 146 (76.04) 8 (66.67) 65 (70.65) 10 (66.67) 0

Mexico state 77 (20.64) 41 (21.35) 3 (25.00) 21 (22.83) 3 (20) 1 (100)

Other state 17 (4.56) 5 (2.60) 1 (8.33) 6 (6.52) 2 (13.33) 0

Marital Status n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Single 359 (96.25) 174 (90.63) 12 (100) 38 (41.30) 5 (33.33) 1 (100)

Married 12 (3.22) 15 (7.81) 0 54 (58.70) 10 (66.67) 0

Engagement 2 (0.54) 3 (1.56) 0 0 0 0

* To include a synthesis of studies 1 and 2. The synthesis should demonstrate that the scales are appropriate for measuring what they intend to measure and valid for the Mexican context. If the scales were validated in populations with specific characteristics (e.g., more women, childless, educated, etc.), whether they are valid for the broader Mexican population should be clarified.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We consider that the section corresponding to measuring instruments will be more complete by adding your recommendations. We add the information required in Study 1 to the line 161:

Instruments and procedure

We selected the ATGRS for our study as it is the sole scale developed in Mexico specifically designed to evaluate the construct it measures: an individual's perception based on societal norms and expectations related to traditional and non-traditional gender roles in men and women [33]. The authors conducted an exploratory study prior to developing the scale to ensure its content was both culturally sensitive and had face validity. They used open questions to collect diverse conceptions -encompassing behaviors, traits, beliefs, etc.- that men and women have regarding their gender identity [33]. The scale's validation process involved 120 men and 224 women, with an average age of 30 years (SD = 9.91). The educational background of the participants was varied: 40% had an education level of high school or less, while 60% had attained at least a bachelor's degree. All participants belonged to a medium socioeconomic stratum.

ATGRS comprises 21 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1= I like it very much, 5=I dislike it very much). The scale is structured around three factors, collectively accounting for 46% of the variance. The first factor, Traditional Attitudes Towards Gender Roles, includes statements that endorse the continuation of conventional gender roles. The second factor, Favorable Attitudes Towards Gender Equity, reflects a supportive view of equal rights and opportunities for both men and women. The third factor, Favorable Attitudes Towards Female Empowerment, consists of items that positively assess the progress and emancipation of women. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, which measure internal consistency, were high, indicating strong reliability: 0.86 for the first factor, 0.85 for the second, and 0.76 for the third.

And in study 2, in the line 336:

Instruments and procedure

In Mexico there is just one validated scale that evaluates Motherhood Beliefs, i.e. MBS [34]. This scale was developed through interviews with three distinct groups of women: 1) those receiving gynecological care at a reproductive health hospital, 2) mothers of preschool children, and 3) university students. These women were asked about their perceptions of what it means to be a mother. Based on their responses, 17 items were written with Likert-type responses ranging from 0 = disagree to 5 = totally agree belonging to two dimensions: 1) Sense of Life, which assesses statements related to motherhood as a woman's life purpose, something that brings her happy and fulfilled; and 2) Social Duty, which includes statements about motherhood as an obligation to society, with a woman's value being diminished if she does not fulfill this duty. After initial development, three judges assessed how well each item aligned with the definitions of these proposed dimensions, leading to the elimination of two items.

The scale's validation involved a sample of 545 women, aged between 17 and 52 years (Mean=30.97; SD=7.54). To establish concurrent validity, the study included women with varying maternal statuses: those who experienced perinatal loss (35.8%), those undergoing infertility treatments or with high-risk pregnancies (10.8%), mothers of preschool-age children (36.6%), and female university students without children (17.1%). Educational background varied, with 64.7% having at least a secondary school education. Only 38.2% were employed, and about 40% were single. Approximately 40% of the participants had between one and five children.

Two additional items were excluded due to their factor loadings being less than 0.40 in the exploratory analysis, resulting in the final scale comprising 13 items. Again, the scale was categorized into two factors: 1) Sense of Life, and 2) 'Social Duty. The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 for the total scale, 0.91 for the Sense of Life factor, and 0.83 for the Social Duty factor.

During the validation of the Motherhood Belief Scale, groups were contrasted based on maternal status. Findings revealed that women who had experienced perinatal loss or infertility issues exhibited more favorable beliefs towards motherhood on both subscales than did mothers and university students.

Although the initial validation included women with diverse motherhood statuses, we consider that the 13 items across just two factors are insufficient for a comprehensive assessment of motherhood in our society [37]. The original scale's items also displayed a significant bias towards hegemonic gender stereotypes, exemplified by statements like "A woman is complete until she is a mother".

To enhance the scale, we introduced additional items that more thoroughly examine various aspects of motherhood while avoiding gender stereotypes. These new items were derived from an extensive review of theoretical and scientific literature on motherhood from 2000 to 2021. This review led to the identification of a wide range of definitions, concepts, and beliefs about motherhood, which were then adapted into Likert-type statements. As a result, 16 new items were added to the MBS, covering areas such as female identity, decision-making, lifestyle, success, life plans, and emotions including love, frustration, pain, and passion. For example, new items included 'Maternity is a woman's decision' and 'Motherhood can generate anxiety,' as detailed in Table 2. Participants completed this extended version of the MBS via a Google Form.

* Explain the study's independent, covariate, and outcome variables, and detail the instruments used to measure them. While the instruments used are listed, it is crucial to establish what constructs these scales are measuring, their origins, and whether they have been validated for use in Mexico.

Response: Following your recommendation, we added information about the study's independent, covariate, and outcome variables. You can read this at line 538:

Data analysis

Initially, we calculated descriptive statistics for the sociodemographic variables, including measures of central tendency (such as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range) and the cumulative percentage frequency of last grade of studies, occupation, locality and marital status. As was expected, people with children were found to be older and had higher education levels compared to those without children. Consequently, age and education level were incorporated as covariates in association analyses to control for these demographic differences.

Next, we conducted partial correlation analyses using Spearman's non-parametric method to examine the relationships between the different scales while controlling for the effects of covariates, namely age and education level. To account for multiple correlations and reduce the risk of Type I errors, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Additionally, as a complement analysis, using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method, we conducted multiple linear regressions to predict a dependent variable from a set of factors on a scale. For instance, to predict scores on the Social Duty factor of the MBS scale, all factors from the ATGRS scale were used as predictor variables. In all cases, the interaction with sex and parental status was calculated, and adjustments were made for age and educational level.

Moreover, we extended the information about the instruments, for Study 1 you can read (line 161):

Instruments and procedure

We selected the ATGRS for our study as it is the sole scale developed in Mexico specifically designed to evaluate the construct it measures: an individual's perception based on societal norms and expectations related to traditional and non-traditional gender roles in men and women [33]. The authors conducted an exploratory study prior to developing the scale to ensure its content was both culturally sensitive and had face validity. They used open questions to collect diverse conceptions -encompassing behaviors, traits, beliefs, etc.- that men and women have regarding their gender identity [33]. The scale's validation process involved 120 men and 224 women, with an average age of 30 years (SD = 9.91). The educational background of the participants was varied: 40% had an education level of high school or less, while 60% had attained at least a bachelor's degree. All participants belonged to a medium socioeconomic stratum.

ATGRS comprises 21 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1= I like it very much, 5=I dislike it very much). The scale is structured around three factors, collectively accounting for 46% of the variance. The first factor, Traditional Attitudes Towards Gender Roles, includes statements that endorse the continuation of conventional gender roles. The second factor, Favorable Attitudes Towards Gender Equity, reflects a supportive view of equal rights and opportunities for both men and women. The third factor, Favorable Attitudes Towards Female Empowerment, consists of items that positively assess the progress and emancipation of women. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, which measure internal consistency, were high, indicating strong reliability: 0.86 for the first factor, 0.85 for the second, and 0.76 for the third.

For Study 2, we added the requested information at line 336:

Instruments and procedure

In Mexico there is just one validated scale that evaluates Motherhood Beliefs, i.e. MBS [34]. This scale was developed through interviews with three distinct groups of women: 1) those receiving gynecological care at a reproductive health hospital, 2) mothers of preschool children, and 3) university students. These women were asked about their perceptions of what it means to be a mother. Based on their responses, 17 items were written with Likert-type responses ranging from 0 = disagree to 5 = totally agree belonging to two dimensions: 1) Sense of Life, which assesses statements related to motherhood as a woman's life purpose, something that brings her happy and fulfilled; and 2) Social Duty, which includes statements about motherhood as an obligation to society, with a woman's value being diminished if she does not fulfill this duty. After initial development, three judges assessed how well each item aligned with the definitions of these proposed dimensions, leading to the elimination of two items.

The scale's validation involved a sample of 545 women, aged between 17 and 52 years (Mean=30.97; SD=7.54). To establish concurrent validity, the study included women with varying maternal statuses: those who experienced perinatal loss (35.8%), those undergoing infertility treatments or with high-risk pregnancies (10.8%), mothers of preschool-age children (36.6%), and female university students without children (17.1%). Educational background varied, with 64.7% having at least a secondary school education. Only 38.2% were employed, and about 40% were single. Approximately 40% of the participants had between one and five children.

Two additional items were excluded due to their factor loadings being less than 0.40 in the exploratory analysis, resulting in the final scale comprising 13 items. Again, the scale was categorized into two factors: 1) Sense of Life, and 2) 'Social Duty. The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 for the total scale, 0.91 for the Sense of Life factor, and 0.83 for the Social Duty factor.

During the validation of the Motherhood Belief Scale, groups were contrasted based on maternal status. Findings revealed that women who had experienced perinatal loss or infertility issues exhibited more favorable beliefs towards motherhood on both subscales than did mothers and university students.

Although the initial validation included women with diverse motherhood statuses, we consider that the 13 items across just two factors are insufficient for a comprehensive assessment of motherhood in our society [37]. The original scale's items also displayed a significant bias towards hegemonic gender stereotypes, exemplified by statements like "A woman is complete until she is a mother".

To enhance the scale, we introduced additional items that more thoroughly examine various aspects of motherhood while avoiding gender stereotypes. These new items were derived from an extensive review of theoretical and scientific literature on motherhood from 2000 to 2021. This review led to the identification of a wide range of definitions, concepts, and beliefs about motherhood, which were then adapted into Likert-type statements. As a result, 16 new items were added to the MBS, covering areas such as female identity, decision-making, lifestyle, success, life plans, and emotions including love, frustration, pain, and passion. For example, new items included 'Maternity is a woman's decision' and 'Motherhood can generate anxiety,' as detailed in Table 2. Participants completed this extended version of the MBS via a Google Form.

* Link each analysis to its specific objective.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. In the Data Analysis section of Study 3, we added its corresponding statistical analysis to each specific objective, you can read it at line 546:

To achieve the primary aim of the Study 3, which is to examine the association between the new versions of ATGRS and MBS, as well as their correlation with measures of mental health, we conducted partial correlation analyses using Spearman's non-parametric method to examine the relationships between the different scales while controlling for the effects of covariates, namely age and education level. To account for multiple correlations and reduce the risk of Type I errors, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Additionally, as a complement analysis, using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method, we conducted multiple linear regressions to predict a dependent variable from a set of factors on a scale. For instance, to predict scores on the Social Duty factor of the MBS scale, all factors from the ATGRS scale were used as predictor variables. In all cases, the interaction with sex and parental status was calculated, and adjustments were made for age and educational level.

In addition to the main objective, we aimed to assess these variables concerning sex and parental status: ATGRS and MBS in Study 3.2 and measures of mental health in Study 3.4. To achieve this, we utilized the Mann-Whitney test for independent samples to compare the scores of all scales based on parenting status and sex. To mitigate the possibility of Type I errors resulting from multiple comparisons, we applied the Holm correction. All statistical analyses were performed using R Studio software, version 4.1.1 [36], with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

Within the results section:

* Include a descriptive table presenting the overall results of the measurement instruments used in the sample.

Response: You can find this information at the bottom of new Table 3 (line 586)

PARENTING STATUS

Without children With children

n=577 n=108

SEX SEX

Women Men Non-binary Women Men Non-binary

n=373 n=192 n=12 n=92 n=15 n=1

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Age 21.23 (4.04) 22.64 (6.30) 20.08 (1.51) 40.04 (10.01) 47.27 (11.00) 45 (--)

Last grade of studies n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

none 0 0 0 1 (1.09) 0 0

primary school 0 0 0 3 (3.26) 0 0

secondary school 10 (2.62) 5 (2.60) 0 14 (15.22) 3 (20.00) 0

high school 263 (70.51) 117 (60.94) 9 (75) 26 (28.26) 3 (20.00) 0

bachelor’s degree 92 (24.66) 66 (34.38) 3 (25) 44 (47.83) 6 (40.00) 0

postgraduate degree 8 (2.14) 4 (2.08) 0 4 (4.35) 3 (20.00) 1 (100)

Occupation n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Student 318 (85.25) 131 (68.23) 10 (83.33) 2 (2.17) 0 0

Part-time job 17 (4.56) 16 (8.33) 2 (16.67) 17 (18.48) 2 (13.33) 0

Full-time job 23 (6.17) 35 (18.23) 0 37 (40.22) 8 (53.33) 1 (100)

Unpaid job 12 (3.22) 3 (1.56) 0 29 (31.52) 1 (6.67) 0

Other 3 (0.80) 7 (3.65) 0 7 (7.61) 4 (26.67) 0

Locality n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Mexico City 279 (74.80) 146 (76.04) 8 (66.67) 65 (70.65) 10 (66.67) 0

Mexico state 77 (20.64) 41 (21.35) 3 (25.00) 21 (22.83) 3 (20) 1 (100)

Other state 17 (4.56) 5 (2.60) 1 (8.33) 6 (6.52) 2 (13.33) 0

Marital Status n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Single 359 (96.25) 174 (90.63) 12 (100) 38 (41.30) 5 (33.33) 1 (100)

Married 12 (3.22) 15 (7.81) 0 54 (58.70) 10 (66.67) 0

Engagement 2 (0.54) 3 (1.56) 0 0 0 0

Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Depression 19.35 (12.48) 13.95 (11.29) 32.83 (15.42) 12.91 (11.56) 8.93 (8.94) 4

Anxiety 19.13 (13.26) 12.43 (12.27) 26.92 (14.85) 12.72 (12.36) 9.47 (9.83) 1

PPF 133.14 (29.48) 142.79 (32.21) 114.58 (26.09) 141.14 (36.44) 155.93 (25.54) 130

ATGRS Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Traditional 15.96 (4.61) 19.78 (5.08) 17.42 (3.40) 16.83 (5.36) 19.87 (4.55) 12

Egalitarian success 57.42 (4.71) 53.83 (9.05) 57.33 (3.23) 55.34 (5.99) 50.53 (11.04) 49

Gender equity 8.00 (3.01) 8.58 (3.42) 5.92 (2.07) 9.22 (3.54) 11.07 (3.37) 6

Non-traditional 19.51 (5.48) 19.23 (4.70) 20.00 (2.92) 17.52 (5.34) 17.6 (3.78) 26

MBS Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Social Duty 0.26 (1.24) 0.34 (1.49) 0.08 (0.29) 0.63 (1.94) 1.13 (3.02) 0

Sense of life 2.17 (3.91) 4.32 (5.68) 1.50 (1.57) 7.71 (8.65) 5.87 (7.8) 0

Hegemonic stereotypes 9.23 (4.67) 9.43 (5.34) 11.17 (5.83) 9.52 (5.69) 9.13 (5.84) 13

Negative emotions 7.83 (2.33) 7.23 (2.49) 6.92 (2.27) 6.61 (3.28) 5.6 (3.27) 10

Motherhood as a decision 36.62 (5.60) 33.96 (8.19) 37.67 (2.06) 33.63 (6.84) 30.53 (8.67) 40

* Regarding the first objective (examining the relationship between the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale and the Motherhood Beliefs Scale, stratified by parental status), the results of the correlations between the scales are described. However, a comparison of the dimensions of these correlations needs to be included. Are specific correlations more significant than others?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge the importance of providing a comprehensive analysis of the correlations between the Attitudes Towards Gender Roles Scale (ATGRS) and the Motherhood Beliefs Scale (MBS) adjusted by parental status. In our updating revision, we have included multiple lineal models adjusted by age and education, and we explored the interaction with sex and parental status. This additional analysis enhances the clarity and depth of our findings, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the association between gender roles and motherhood beliefs. Your suggestion is valuable in presenting a more robust interpretation of our results. At line 617:

To confirm and complement these findings, we employed a multiple linear regression model to explore how all factors from the ATGRS scale influence each component of the MBS (Table 5). Moreover, we investigated the interaction of these factors with sex and parenthood status, while controlling for age and educational level. Regarding Social duty, the model demonstrated an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 (F(13, 671) = 7.71, p < 0.001). For the Sense of life, the model exhibited an adjusted R2 value of 0.21 (F(13, 671) = 15.48, p < 0.001). Concerning Hegemonic stereotypes, the model indicated an adjusted R2 value of 0.06 (F(13, 671) = 4.46, p < 0.001). For Negative emotions, the model displayed an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(13, 671) = 5.39, p < 0.001). Regarding Motherhood as a decision, the model revealed an adjusted R2 value of 0.17 (F(13, 671) = 12.29, p < 0.001). No interactions with sex and parenthood status were detected in any model.

Table 5. Multiple lineal model from ATGRS factors for each factor of MBS, adjusted for age and educational level.

Estimate SE t-value p-value

Social duty Traditional 0.05 0.01 3.67 p < 0.001

Egalitarian success 0.05 0.02 2.71 p < 0.01

Gender equity -0.05 0.01 -5.95 p < 0.001

Non-traditional -0.05 0.02 -2.11 p < 0.05

Sense of life Traditional 0.24 0.05 4.53 p < 0.001

Egalitarian success 0.41 0.07 6.12 p < 0.001

Gender equity -0.04 0.03 -1.33 N.S

Non-traditional -0.15 0.08 -1.72 N.S

Hegemonic stereotypes Traditional 0.151 0.05 2.88 p < 0.01

Egalitarian success 0.194 0.06 2.98 p < 0.01

Gender equity -0.04 0.03 -1.29 N.S

Non-traditional 0.01 0.08 0.074 N.S

Negative emotions Traditional -0.02 0.02 -0.85 N.S

Egalitarian success -0.06 0.03 -1.77 N.S

Gender equity 0.06 0.02 4.02 p < 0.001

Non-traditional 0.09 0.04 1.98 p < 0.05

Motherhood as a decision Traditional -0.06 0.06 -1.05 N.S

Egalitarian success -0.39 0.08 -4.84 p < 0.001

Gender equity 0.28 0.04 7.25 p < 0.001

Non-traditional 0.13 0.11 1.26 N.S

N.S., not significant

The results of the multiple linear regression are also in accordance with the hypotheses. Social duty, Sense of life, and Hegemonic stereotypes as motherhood beliefs were predicted positively by traditional factors of ATGRS (Table 5). Non-traditional factors of ATGRS predicted negatively Social duty, while a contrasting pattern was detected for the Negative emotions factor of the MBS scale, i.e., it was predicted positively. Motherhood as a decision was predicted positively by Gender equity and negatively by Egalitarian success.

* For the second objective (examining differences in ATGRS and MBS based on sex and parental status), it is noted that the sample was adjusted without controlling for age and education levels in people with and without children, as they were not the primary focus of the study. This explanation is considered insufficient. It is requested to include a clarification regarding this issue, especially regarding the low representation of men in the sample.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your attention to detail. In response to your concern, we have revised our approach. In this new version, we provide more detailed information about the demographic characteristics of the participants. Since older individuals tend to have higher education levels and are more likely to be parents than younger ones, it has been challenging to disentangle the effects of these variables. Although for the analyses of the association between variables we controlled age and educational level, in the comparison analyses it was not possible due to the characteristics of the subsamples. However, we explicitly include results regarding these differences to add more transparency to our findings. We consider that it is necessary to address this issue of analyzing the individual effects of the age and education variables in future studies.

At line 541:

As was expected, people with children were found to be older and had higher education levels compared to those without children. Consequently, age and education level were incorporated as covariates in association analyses to control for these demographic differences.

At line 658:

In demographic data, we detected differences in age and education level between these subgroups; people with children were older than the group without children (W = 10727, p-value < 0.001), and people without children had more years of study, in proportion, to those with children (X-squared = 40.58, df = 5, p-value < 0.001, Table 6).

Additionally, we explicitly address as limitations the issue of the low representation of men in the sample, offering insights into how this may influence the generalizability of our findings. Your input has contributed to a more thorough and transparent presentation of our methodology.

At line 980:

… there was an overrepresentation of women (67.88%), individuals of younger age (averaging 21 years old), and those without children. This uneven representation introduces a potential bias in the data, underscoring the need for caution in interpreting the results. For future studies, it would be beneficial to aim for a sample more reflective of the Mexican population's demographics, where women constitute 51.2% and the median age is 29 years, as per INEGI's 2021 data [62]. Furthermore, the proportion of participants with children in our study was relatively small (15.77%). Although we assessed the interaction of gender and parental status in Study 3, the findings should be interpreted with care due to the aforementioned biases in sample representativeness regarding these variables. Further research is warranted to delve into the influence of social constructs on gender roles and motherhood, utilizing larger and more diverse samples of men and women with children.

* The research's central focus is the third objective, which examines the relationship between ATGRS and MBS with mental health. However, the absence of a gender-based comparison and its implications for the results still need to be addressed.

Response: We appreciate your valuable feedback and agree that a gender-based comparison is crucial to enhance the interpretation of our results. In the revised version, we have incorporated a multiple lineal model analysis to explore potential interaction in the relationship between ATGRS, MBS, and mental health with sex and parental status, which can be found at tables 9 and 10 (line 723):

To corroborate our findings, we employed a multiple linear regression model to analyze the impact of factors from both the ATGRS and the MBS on mental health measures. This analysis also considered the interaction of these factors with sex and parental status, while adjusting for age and educational level. The model that used ATGRS factors to predict depression yielded an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 (F(13, 671) = 5.63, p < 0.001). In the case of anxiety, the model demonstrated an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(13, 671) = 5.11, p < 0.001). Notably, there was a significant sex-related effect, with women showing higher anxiety scores (estimates = 10.12, SE = 4.69, t = 1.15, p < 0.05). Regarding PPF, the model revealed an adjusted R2 value of 0.08 (F(13, 671) = 5.09, p < 0.001). Traditional factors negatively predicted both depression and anxiety. Conversely, Non-traditional factor were positively associated with depression and Gender equity was negatively associated with PPF (Table 9).

Table 9. Multiple lineal model from ATGRS factors for depression, anxiety and PPF, adjusted for age and educational level.

Estimate SE t-value p-value

Depression Traditional -0.28 0.13 -2.15 p < 0.05

Egalitarian success 0.03 0.16 0.17 N.S.

Gender equity -0.01 0.07 -0.18 N.S.

Non-traditional 0.42 0.21 1.97 p < 0.05

Anxiety Traditional -0.38 0.14 -2.74 p < 0.01

Egalitarian success 0.05 0.17 0.31 N.S.

Gender equity -0.10 0.08 -1.12 N.S.

Non-traditional 0.05 0.02 1. N.S.

PPF Traditional 0.36 0.32 1.09 N.S.

Egalitarian success -0.39 0.40 -0.96 N.S.

Gender equity 0.93 0.18 4.94 p < 0.001

Non-traditional -0.89 0.54 -1.64 N.S.

N.S., not significant

In the multiple linear regression model where MBS factors served as predictors for depression, an adjusted R2 value of 0.11 was observed (F(14, 670) = 7.06, p < 0.001). Regarding anxiety, the model showed an adjusted R2 value of 0.07 (F(14, 670) = 4.73, p < 0.001). For PPF, the adjusted R2 value was 0.04 (F(14, 670) = 3.51, p < 0.001). Notably, in these models, no interactions with sex and parental status were evident. Expanding upon the results of the correlation analysis, Negative emotions, as a belief related to motherhood, positively predicts both depression and anxiety. However, it had a negative predictive relationship with PPF (Table 10).

Table 10. Multiple lineal model from MBS factors for depression, anxiety and PPF, adjusted for age and educational level.

Estimate SE t-value p-value

Depression Social Duty 0.58 0.36 1.58 N.S.

Sense of life -0.17 0.11 -1.64 N.S.

Hegemonic stereotypes 0.03 0.11 0.33 N.S.

Negative emotions 0.85 0.19 4.43 p < 0.001

Motherhood as a decision -0.06 0.11 -0.63 N.S.

Anxiety Social Duty 0.41 0.40 1.04 N.S.

Sense of life -0.11 0.11 -1.03 N.S.

Hegemonic stereotypes 0.01 0.11 0.16 N.S.

Negative emotions 0.41 0.21 1.96 p < 0.05

Motherhood as a decision -0.13 0.11 -1.21 N.S.

PPF Social Duty -0.58 0.96 -0.61 N.S.

Sense of life 0.01 0.27 0.06 N.S.

Hegemonic stereotypes 0.42 0.26 1.61 N.S.

Negative emotions -1.41 0.50 -2.79 p < 0.01

Motherhood as a decision 0.70 0.27 2.52 p < 0.05

N.S., not significant

This addition contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how sex interacts with the dynamics between gender roles, motherhood beliefs, and mental health outcomes. Thank you for pointing out this important aspect, and we are committed to addressing it in our revised manuscript.

In the general discussion, it is critical to recognize that the research methodology employed does not enable the establishment of causal relationships, for instance, about the idea that having a child primarily had a 'traditionalizing' effect. Even if the results show that childless people are more likely to hold non-hegemonic beliefs while individuals with children obtained higher scores in traditional attitudes about gender roles, it is unclear if there is a reverse causality. It could be that people with children have always been more conservative and, consequently, have children. Alternatively, generational variables may confound the results, given that the childless group is around 20 years old, while the group with children is around 40. Finally, in the last sentence of the discussion, it is possible to state that the study shows a correlation between these variables. Still, it cannot establish a causal relationship between them.

Response: We appreciate the thoughtful consideration of causal relationships in the general discussion. The manuscript was revised to explicitly acknowledge the limitations in establishing causal relationships and address the potential confounding factors and reverse causality.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

pone.0298750.s001.docx (71.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Sergi Fàbregues

30 Jan 2024

Relationship between gender roles, motherhood beliefs and mental health

PONE-D-23-22025R1

Dear Dr. Reyes-Aguilar,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sergi Fàbregues

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1 has pointed out a few minor comments that the authors should take into account in the final version of the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded thoroughly and graciously to all my previous concerns regarding the manuscript. My remaining comments are minor.

1) It may be helpful for potential readers if the title includes that the study was conducted in Mexico.

2) The term “breeding” could be replaced with an academic term applicable to humans in particular (e.g., “procreation”, “reproduction”, or “bearing children”).

3) The authors have now included information on employment, but I would not describe it as data on “occupation” per se. The data reported Table 3 for Study 3 is more appropriately referred to as “employment status.” On the other hand, occupational data would, for instance, distinguish between professional or “white collar” occupations and “blue collar” occupations.

4) After thoughtful incorporation of reviewers’ feedback, with revisions, the paper is now 70 pages long. The detailed attention to the reviewer feedback is laudable. However, I might suggest moving some tables to an online Appendix section if the paper’s length becomes an issue.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this important work.

Reviewer #2: The article is a contribution to the literature on gender and mental health. The authors are thanked for their contributions to the problematization of gender normativity in aspects such as people's mental health and in validating scales to measure it.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Review RR-1-21-24.docx

pone.0298750.s002.docx (13.4KB, docx)

Acceptance letter

Sergi Fàbregues

22 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-22025R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reyes-Aguilar,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sergi Fàbregues

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    pone.0298750.s001.docx (71.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Review RR-1-21-24.docx

    pone.0298750.s002.docx (13.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All database files are available from the OSF database in the project "Relationship between gender roles, motherhood beliefs and mental health". You can find them at https://osf.io/md48n/.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES