Skip to main content
PMC home page
American Journal of Men's Health logoLink to American Journal of Men's Health
. 2017 Dec 8;12(2):229–240. doi: 10.1177/1557988317745910

Complex Relationships Among Masculine Norms and Health/Well-Being Outcomes: Correlation Patterns of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory Subscales

Zachary T Gerdes 1,✉, Ronald F Levant 1
PMCID: PMC5818131  PMID: 29219033

Abstract

The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) is a widely used multidimensional scale. Studies using the CMNI most often report only total scale scores, which are predominantly associated with negative outcomes. Various studies since the CMNI’s inception in 2003 using subscales have reported both positive and negative outcomes. The current content analysis examined studies (N = 17) correlating the 11 subscales with 63 criterion variables across 7 categories. Most findings were consistent with past research using total scale scores that reported negative outcomes. For example, conformity to masculine norms has been inversely related to help-seeking and positively correlated with concerning health variables, such as substance use. Nonetheless, past reliance on total scores has obscured the complexity of associations with the CMNI in that 30% of the findings in the present study reflected positive outcomes, particularly for health promotion. Subscales differed in their relationships with various outcomes: for one subscale they were predominantly positive, but six others were mostly negative. The situational and contextual implications of conformity to masculine norms and their relationships to positive and negative outcomes are discussed.

Keywords: Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) subscales, masculine norms, men’s health and well-being

In the last 30 years, research in men and masculinities has produced a body of literature that has found many negative outcomes correlated with masculine norms and related constructs (Wong & Wester, 2016). Notably, the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology, conformity to masculine norms, gender role conflict, and gender role stress have been related to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, stress, decreased relationship satisfaction, increased systolic blood pressure, aggression and violent behavior, substance abuse, alexithymia, negative attitudes toward help seeking, racial bias, sexism, and a number of other concerning variables (see Gerdes, Alto, Jadaszewski, D’Auria, & Levant, 2017; O’Neil, 2012; Wong, Ho, Wang, & Miller, 2016). Parallel to these trends in the literature, men’s health researchers have advocated for positive conceptions of masculinity (e.g., Kiselica, Benton-Wright, & Englar-Carlson, 2016; Kiselica & Englar-Carlson, 2010) and strengths-based approaches (e.g., Mahalik, Good, Tager, Levant, & Mackowiak, 2012; Wong, 2006) in order to be more effective in clinical work with men and to engage men in reconstructing their definition of manhood to be healthier (Levant & Kopecky, 1995).

At least 519 studies have shown relationships between total scale scores of multidimensional measures of masculinity in men and detrimental health and well-being outcomes (for reviews, see Gerdes et al., 2017; O’Neil, 2008; Wong et al., 2016). However, others have identified that specific masculine norms (i.e., subscales of multidimensional measures related to masculine norms) display both positive and negative outcomes (e.g., Hammer & Good, 2010; Levant, Wimer, & Williams 2011). For example, in the study introducing the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003), associations between CMNI total scores and specific subscale scores were inversely associated with seeking psychological help. On the other hand, conformity to masculine norms has been related to potentially beneficial outcomes, such as a negative correlation between certain CMNI subscale scores and substance use (Levant et al., 2011) and positive correlations with strengths such as courage, endurance, and other variables (Hammer & Good 2010). This raises the question of whether studies using total CMNI scale scores obscure more complex relationships between conformity to specific masculine norms and men’s health and well-being, and whether specific norms differ in whether they are related to positive or negative outcomes.

Two conceptual perspectives have been proposed which may account for the variability in outcomes associated with conformity to masculine norms: the variable-centered perspective (also known as the predictor-centered perspective; Wong et al., 2016) and the person-centered perspective (Wong, Owen, & Shea, 2012). The variable- or predictor-centered perspective posits that conformity or nonconformity to particular masculine norms may be adaptive or maladaptive depending on the masculine norm being conformed to or resisted. For example, this perspective might encompass the proposition that self-reliance will consistently be related to difficulty with interpersonal relationships (Mahalik, Talmadge, Locke, & Scott, 2005). The person-centered perspective, in contrast, suggests that the (mal)adaptiveness related to conformity to particular masculine norms can vary based on cultural differences (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, religious identity, sexual orientation). That is, negative consequences of conforming or not conforming to the masculine norm of emotional control (EC) can vary depending on how congruent conformity to this masculine norm is with other identities. For example, there may be fewer negative consequences for Asian American men of EC if controlling one’s emotions aligns with Asian American values (Wong et al., 2016). This perspective aligns closely with recent scholarship suggesting the health outcomes related to conformity to masculine norms are largely culturally, situationally, and contextually dependent (e.g., Addis, Mansfield, & Syzdek, 2010; O’Neil, 2015; Vogel & Health, 2016; Way et al., 2014; Wester, 2008).

Other studies have examined meta-analytic results associated with conformity to masculine norms and mental health outcomes (Wong et al., 2016) as well as reliability generalization (the meta-analytic procedure for synthesizing reliability evidence) of the CMNI (Kivisalu, King, Phillips, & O’Toole, 2015). Limited attention has been given to studies which have focused explicitly on how the correlates of the subscales of the CMNI may display complex, and potentially inconsistent, positive and negative relationships with various outcome variables. Examining patterns of correlational findings using the CMNI subscales can provide a nuanced fund of information that can help tease out how the person-centered perspective in men and masculinities research may relate to health outcomes.

The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory

The CMNI (Mahalik et al., 2003) is a widely used measure (O’Neil, 2012) that assesses conformity to 11 masculine norms of hegemonic masculine culture in the United States: Winning, Emotional Control, Risk-Taking, Violence, Dominance, Playboy, Self-Reliance, Primacy of Work, Power over Women, Disdain for Homosexuality, and Pursuit of Status. The original 94-item CMNI (Mahalik et al., 2003) uses a 4-point Likert scale (0 = Strongly Disagree to 3 = Strongly Agree). Factor analyses have supported the 11-factor structure, and psychometric analyses, including evidence for validity and reliability, have been reported (Kivisalu et al., 2015; Mahalik et al., 2003).

Although the CMNI is a multidimensional measure of 11 specific masculine norms, in the only meta-analysis of the CMNI in relationship to men’s health conducted to date, less than half of the included studies reported subscale results (Wong et al., 2016). Studies of other masculinity constructs have reported similar results (e.g., Gerdes et al., 2017). This is notable considering that although the dimensionality of the CMNI has been established using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), it has not yet been assessed whether a more general construct corresponding to the total scale score also could be represented in the CFA model of the CMNI using either a bifactor or a hierarchical model (Kline, 2016). A 46-item shortened version of the CMNI (Parent & Moradi, 2011) has been subjected to such analyses, and the investigators concluded: “…although we found that the bifactor model fit significantly better than the hierarchical model for this instrument, the fit of the bifactor model was borderline adequate in an absolute sense, suggesting that the CMNI-46 could benefit from further psychometric investigation” (Levant, Hall, Weigold, & McCurdy, 2015, p. 499). Total score use for other measures of masculinity has been empirically supported using CFA (e.g., the Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form; Levant, Hall, & Rankin, 2013), but the empirical basis for relying on total scale score use with the CMNI has not been established. That is a glaring limitation in the studies that rely solely on total (or mean) CMNI scores. Further investigation is thus needed for how CMNI subscale-specific findings are related to outcomes.

This study is designed to fill this gap in the literature by conducting a content analysis of relationships that have been reported between the 11 subscales of the CMNI and dozens of health and well-being variables. The aim is to elucidate both the impact of CMNI subscales on specific categories of outcomes and the meanings of the CMNI subscales. Particularly, results from subscale-specific associations with the CMNI are analyzed, lending empirically derived insight that may add to our knowledge of the outcome-centered, person-centered, and/or situational and contextual nature of masculinities.

Procedure

Assembling the Domain

The PsycInfo, PsycNET, and PsycArticles databases were used to assemble the domain of published studies using the CMNI. The search terms “Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory*” and “CMNI*” were used. Inclusion criteria for studies were studies must have: (a) used the original (94-item) CMNI; shorter versions (e.g., CMNI-46; Parent & Moradi, 2011) were excluded due to the lack of comparability of the subscale structures and recent findings suggesting psychometric limitations, particularly with the CMNI-46 (see Levant et al., 2015); (b) examined correlations with variables other than masculinity measures, as this has been studied elsewhere (Gerdes et al., 2017; O’Neil, 2012); (c) used at least 4 of the 11 subscales of the CMNI in order to maintain some consistency in reporting across studies. Seventeen published studies were identified which met the selection criteria, which included correlates with 63 variables. N-sizes ranged from 20 to 1,600. Most studies used samples of university students and/or community members. All studies used either correlation or regression analyses; correlational results were used here. Characteristics of each study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Studies Using the Subscales of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory.

Author(s) (publication year) Sample N-Size Variable(s) used
Amato (2012) New England prisoners and detainees 1,600 (men) Prison inmate violence
Backus and Mahalik (2011) Self-identified heterosexual women 183 (women) Feminist identity—revelation
Feminist identity—synthesis
Feminist identity—active commitment
Feminist identity—passive acceptance
Feminist identity—embeddedness
Burns, Hough, Boyd, and Hill (2010) Men with spinal cord injury 116 Erectile functioning
Age
Depression
Social support
Burn and Ward (2005) College men and women 170 (men) Relationship satisfaction
Hammer and Good (2010) Community men 250 Courage
Grit
Personal control
Autonomy
Endurance
Resilience
Self-esteem
Life satisfaction
Kahn, Brett, and Holmes (2011) College men 164 Internal motivation to know
Intrinsic motivation to accomplish
Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation
External motivation introjected
Extrinsic motivation external
External motivation identified
Keiller (2010) College men identified as “completely heterosexual” 104 Attitudes toward gay men
Religious fundamentalism
Attitudes toward lesbian women
Levant et al. (2011) College men (2011) 323 Avoidance of anger/stress
Avoidance of substance use
Proper use of health care resources
Limiñana-Gras, Sánchez-López, Saavedra-San, and Corbalán-Berná (2013) Male nurses 98 Alcohol consumption
Medical ailments
Self-perceived poor health
Medicine consumption
Doctor visits
Work satisfaction
Liu and Iwamoto (2007) Asian American men from the community 154 Alcohol use
Binge drinking
Marijuana use
Cocaine use
Other substance use
Peer substance use
Locke and Mahalik (2005) College men 254 Sexually aggressive behavior
Rape myth acceptance
Athletic involvement
Alcohol use
Mahalik, Levi-Minzi, and Walker (2007) Australian men 253 Health promoting behavior
Mahalik and Rochlen (2006) College men 153 Talk to partner (response to depression)
Talk to mental health professional (response to depression)
Exercise or workout (response to depression)
Have a few drinks (response to depression)
Sánchez-López, Cuellar-Flores, and Dresch (2012) College men from Madrid, Spain 226 Alcohol consumption
Schopp, Good, Mazurek, Barker, and Stucky (2007) Male spinal cord injury patients 20 Satisfaction with life
Functional independence
Tager and Good (2005) Italian male college students in Italy 152 Self-acceptance
Positive relations with others
Ward and Cook (2011) College men 154 Religious commitment
Religious fundamentalism
Intrinsic religious orientation
Extrinsic religious orientation
Open in a new tab

Content Analysis

After variables were identified, content analysis (Krippendorff, 2003) was used to code correlates and group them into the following categories: Substance Use, Health Promotion, Religiousness, Motivation, Attitudes and Beliefs about Gender, Sex, and Sexual Orientation, Character Strengths and Satisfaction, and Interpersonal Variables. Finally, drawing on categorizations used in reviews of other measures of masculinity-related constructs (e.g., O’Neil, 2008), results were labeled as showing “positive,” “negative,” or “other” outcomes related to men’s health and well-being.

Results

As reported in Table 2, there were 219 significant findings, with 12 to 31 findings per subscale and 13 to 47 findings per criterion category. There were mixed correlational patterns for most categories and subscales. Attitudes and beliefs about gender, sex, and sexual orientation, substance use, and interpersonal variables had the greatest percentages of negative outcomes (76.5–100%). In contrast, health promotion and religiousness had greater percentages of positive outcomes (53.8–61.8%). A large minority of findings (66, 30%) identified CMNI subscales positively associated with character strengths and satisfaction, progressive views of gender, motivation, religiousness, health promotion, and negatively associated with problematic substance use. A discussion of results with each subscale follows.

Table 2.

Male Participants’ Correlates of Conformity to Masculine Norms With Criterion Variables.

CMNI subscale findings Winning Emotional Control Risk-Taking Violence Power Over Women Dominance Playboy Self-Reliance Primacy of Work Disdain for Homosexuals Pursuit of Status Total findings
Substance use
Alcohol use10 .20* −.20* .17* .17* .20* .29**
Binge drinking10 .19* −.18* .29** .23**
Alcohol use11 .28*** .16* .26*** .29*** .33*** .26*** .41*** .27*** .23*** .25***
Alcohol consumption14 .13* .20**
Alcohol consumption (nurses)9 .21* .32** .23*
Cigarette use14 −.15*
Marijuana use10 .18* .17*
Cocaine use10 .18*
Other substance use10 .19*
Peer substance use10 −.19* .37** .21** −.24** .23**
Avoidance of substance use8 .21** −.25***
Have a few drinks (response to depression)13 .21** .30*** .22** .32***
Positive associations with substance use 3 1 3 4 2 3 11 1 2 5 35
Negative associations with substance use 2 2 1 1 6
Health Promotion Winning Emotional Control Risk-Taking Violence Power Over Women Dominance Playboy Self-Reliance Primacy of Work Disdain for Homosexuals Pursuit of Status Total findings
Medical ailments (nurses)9 −.27**
Self-perceived poor health (nurses)9 −.30**
Functional independence (spinal cord injury patients)15 .57* .54*
Avoidance of anger/stress8 .18* −.22*** .14**
Preventative self-care8 .12*
Proper use of health-care resources8 −.13* −.17**
Athletic involvement11 .27***
Erectile functioning3 .23*
Medicine consumption (nurses)9 −.20*
Doctor visits (nurses)9 −.20* .24* −.20*
Age3 −.28** −.28**
Depression3 .27** .43**
Talk to mental health professional (response to depression)13 −.22** −.20* −.19*
Exercise or workout (response to depression)13 .34*** .27** .19* .21**
Health promoting behavior12 .16** .15* .22*** .26*** .21*** .16* .29*** .24***
Positive associations with health promotion 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 21
Negative associations with health promotion 4 1 1 0 1 2 4 13
Religiousness Winning Emotional Control Risk-Taking Violence Power Over Women Dominance Playboy Self-Reliance Primacy of Work Disdain for Homosexuals Pursuit of Status Total findings
Religious commitment17 −.31*** −.24** −.36*** .26***
Religious fundamentalism17 .28*** −.24* .46***
Religious fundamentalism7 .28**
Intrinsic religious orientation17 −.32*** −.29*** .36***
Extrinsic religious orientation17 .22* .26***
Positive associations with religiousness 1 1 5 7
Negative associations with religiousness 2 1 3 6
Motivation Winning Emotional Control Risk-Taking Violence Power Over Women Dominance Playboy Self-Reliance Primacy of Work Disdain for Homosexuals Pursuit of Status Total findings
Internal motivation to know6 −.22** −.23** −.15* −.31** .31**
Intrinsic motivation to accomplish6 −.15* −.19* −.18* −.20* −.26** .37**
Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation6 −.17* −.23** −.24** −.19* .34**
External motivation introjected6 −.20** .21** −.27** .20**
Extrinsic Motivation external6 .32**
External motivation identified6 −.20* .21** −.15* −.16* .19*
Positive associations with motivation 3 5 8
Negative associations with motivation 1 3 1 4 2 2 5 18
Attitudes and beliefs about gender, sex and sexual orientation Winning Emotional Control Risk-Taking Violence Power Over Women Dominance Playboy Self-Reliance Primacy of Work Disdain for Homosexuals Pursuit of Status Total findings
Feminist identity-revelation2 −.29*** −.20** −.24*** −.19*
Feminist identity-synthesis2 −.23** −.22** −.37*** −.27*** −.27*** −.19* .19**
Feminist identity-active commitment2 −.32*** −.28*** −.49*** −.25*** −.19** −.36*** −.15* −.19*
Feminist identity-passive acceptance2 .24*** .23** −.18* .46*** .28*** .23** .36***
Feminist identity-embeddedness2 −.19* −.16* −.23** −.21** −.19*
Attitudes toward gay men7 .34*** .44***
Attitudes toward lesbian women7 −.29* −.21* −.29** −.21* .34***
Rape myth acceptance11 .16* .16* .20** .41*** .28*** .26*** .14* .13* .33***
Associations with traditional and regressive views of gender, sex, and sexual orientation 2 5 4 6 3 3 4 3 6 36
Associations with progressive views of gender, sex, and sexual orientation 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 11
Character strengths and satisfaction Winning Emotional Control Risk-Taking Violence Power Over Women Dominance Playboy Self-Reliance Primacy of Work Disdain for Homosexuals Pursuit of Status Total findings
Courage5 −.16* .32*** .14* .15* −.15* .17**
Grit5 −.14* −.18**
Personal control5 −.14* −.21** −.28***
Autonomy5 −.17** −.15* −.25***
Endurance5 .17** .22***
Resilience5 −.26*** .19** −.26*** .18**
Self-esteem5 −.27*** −.30** .15*
Life satisfaction5 .19** −.17**
Satisfaction with life (spinal cord injury patients)15 .52*
Self-acceptance16 .20* −.17* .18*
Work satisfaction (nurses)9 −.24* −.23*
Positive associations with strengths/satisfaction 2 1 3 2 1 4 13
Negative associations with strengths/satisfaction 2 5 1 1 7 2 18
Interpersonal variables Winning Emotional Control Risk-Taking Violence Power Over Women Dominance Playboy Self-Reliance Primacy of Work Disdain for Homosexuals Pursuit of Status Total findings
Positive relations with others16 −.46** −.32**
Relationship satisfaction4 −.40***
Prison inmate violence1 .36** .25** .43** .55** .29** .36** .36** .40** .29** .21**
Sexually aggressive behavior11 .20** .27*** .17** .33*** .24*** .37*** .15* .21**
Social support3 −.32** −.39**
Talk to partner (response to depression)13 −.25** −.27** −.18* −.19*
Associations with positive interpersonal relationships/behavior 0
Associations with negative interpersonal relationships/behavior 2 4 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 1 27
Summary Winning Emotional Control Risk-Taking Violence Power Over Women Dominance Playboy Self-Reliance Primacy of Work Disdain for Homosexuals Pursuit of Status Total findings
Total findings per subscale 18 31 14 23 16 17 27 29 12 19 13 219
Findings of negative outcomes 9 24 7 17 13 11 25 25 3 10 8 153
Findings of positive outcomes 8 7 7 6 3 6 2 4 9 9 5 66
Other (motivation variables) 1 3 1 4 2 0 2 5 0 0 0 18
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Winning

The relationship between Winning and substance use is somewhat unclear. It was positively associated not only with increased alcohol use and binge drinking but also with avoidance of substance use and negatively with peer substance use. These conflicting findings may reflect design and sample differences across multiple studies. Winning was positively associated with endurance and self-acceptance, as well as athletic involvement and exercise. Results indicate that a competitive mindset may foster exercise and endurance. On the other hand winning was negatively associated with personal control, autonomy, and positively associated with rape myth acceptance and sexually aggressive behavior.

Emotional Control

EC had mixed findings in health promotion and substance use. EC was negatively related to alcohol use and binge drinking. It was also related to the avoidance of anger/stress and to depression, suggesting that controlling one’s emotions can contribute to the control of anger and stress, but that this might lead to depression. This is notable since EC was negatively related to talking to a mental health professional in response to depression. In addition, considering that conforming to the norm of EC may make men “emotionally distant” (Mahalik et al., 2005, p. 662), it is not surprising that it would be related to fewer positive relations with others and decreased communication with one’s partner. EC was inversely related to many positive variables, such as courage, autonomy, resilience, self-esteem, and personal control, yet curiously, it also related positively to life satisfaction. The inverse relationship between emotional control and personal control is puzzling.

Risk Taking

Findings associated with Risk-Taking were largely mixed. For example, it was related not only to alcohol use and not using health care resources properly but also to health promotion. Risk-Taking was positively associated with three strength variables: courage, endurance, and resilience. On the other hand, it was associated with sexually aggressive behavior.

Violence

Violence was associated with alcohol use, courage, and exercising in response to depression, suggesting violence requires courage and may be abetted by alcohol use. Violence had inverse relationships with variables that imply an involvement with more vulnerable emotional processes: religious commitment, self-acceptance, and talking to a mental health professional in response to depression. This suggests that conforming to the violence norm may be a way of denying vulnerability. Violence was not only related to less motivation, but also to health-promoting behavior.

Power Over Women and Disdain for Homosexuals

Power Over Women and Disdain for Homosexuals were most prominently associated with regressive views of gender, sex, and sexual orientation. These two subscales also had the largest correlations with rape myth acceptance across subscales (r = .41 and .33, p < .001, respectively). Both were related to sexually aggressive behavior. Disdain for Homosexuals was the only subscale to be positively correlated with all four aspects of religiousness, including Religious Fundamentalism, which is consistent with research finding a relationship between religious fundamentalism and sexual prejudice (McCleary, Quillivan, Foster, & Williams, 2011; Mellinger & Levant, 2014; Rowatt et al., 2013).

Dominance

Dominance was associated with courage, rape myth acceptance, sexually aggressive behavior, external motivation, and prison inmate violence. This subscale also had an inverse relationship to work satisfaction for male nurses and talking with one’s partner in response to depression. Dominance was positively related to three indices of alcohol use. Besides courage, Dominance was related to few positive outcomes.

Playboy

Playboy was associated with 11 indices of substance use, increased rape myth acceptance, sexually aggressive behavior, prison inmate violence, and decreased relationship satisfaction and talking with one’s partner. The Playboy subscale was predominantly associated with negative outcomes.

Self-Reliance

Self-reliance was related to a total of 29 variables—16 of which were negative associations with character strengths and satisfaction (7), motivation (5), and negative aspects of interpersonal relationships (4). Five findings linked Self-Reliance positively with substance use and negatively with health promotion, but two findings (decreased peer substance use and increased health promoting behavior) countered this. In short, correlates of Self-Reliance seem largely negative with few exceptions.

Primacy of Work and Pursuit of Status

Primacy of Work and Pursuit of Status were associated with the fewest significant findings across all subscales. Primacy of Work had only positive outcomes; it was positively correlated with five motivation variables and with four indices of health promotion. Pursuit of status was associated with five indices of substance use, and negatively associated with grit and work satisfaction. However, it was also related to courage, resilience, self-esteem, self-acceptance, and feminist identity–synthesis.

Discussion

Results from the present study indicate that subscale findings should always be reported in studies examining conformity to masculine norms, as they reveal complex relationships that may be masked when only total scores are reported, which (as discussed above) does not have empirical support. Nonetheless, prior research using total scores which report predominantly negative outcomes is supported by this content analysis of subscale scores, in that most of the present findings reflected negative outcomes (153, 69.9%). This is clearer for some health and well-being outcome criteria than for others: regressive views of gender, sex, and sexual orientation (76.6% of the findings reflected negative outcomes), substance use (82.9%), and less positive interpersonal relationships (100%). Nonetheless, reliance on total scores has obscured part of the picture, in that 66 findings (30%) in the present study reflected positive outcomes. For example, the relationship between the CMNI subscales and health promotion is largely positive.

Subscales also differed in terms of their outcomes. While one subscale (Primacy of Work) was predominantly associated with positive outcomes, four others had a fairly equal balance of positive and negative outcomes (Winning, Risk-Taking, Pursuit of Status, and Disdain for Homosexuals). However, six subscales were mostly associated with negative outcomes (Emotional Control, Violence, Power over Women, Dominance, Playboy, and Self-Reliance).

While relationships between some subscales and outcome areas are fairly clear, others defy immediate explanation. In these cases, the contradictory results could be further investigated by drawing on the contingent and contextual nature of masculine norms (Addis et al., 2010).

The outcome for any man who conforms to particular masculine norms may be situationally dependent (Isacco, 2015). Hence, one way to explicate seemingly contradictory findings (such as Winning being positively associated with increased alcohol use but also negatively associated with avoidance of substance use) would be to manipulate the directions for completing the scale by referencing specific situations. This would require identifying the contexts in which conforming to certain masculine norms may be beneficial or detrimental. The present findings may provide a point of departure for research examining masculinity-in-context, in which contextual variables may moderate the relationships between conformity to masculine norms and various outcomes. In the meantime, conformity to masculine norms must not be regarded as wholly negative.

These results also inform considerations of the harmful associations with masculine norms as either variable-centered (i.e., particular masculine norms being associated consistently with either positive or negative outcomes) or person-centered (i.e., positive or negative outcomes related to masculine norms vary depending on individual differences, contextual influences, and cultural factors). If outcomes associated with subscale scores display relationships that differ from total score findings, the differential impacts that particular masculine norms are having on men’s health may be overlooked when only total scores are considered. Researchers should be encouraged to report and compare subscale findings related to conformity to masculine norms.

More specifically, future research must examine two things: (a) how individual differences, contextual influences, and cultural factors moderate and/or mediate associations between masculine norms and outcomes (Wong et al., 2016) and (b) the ways in which men actually perceive their conformity to particular norms as “masculine” (Isacco, 2015). Regarding the former, more experimental studies as well as moderation and mediation analyses in correlational studies are warranted. Qualitative research is also needed which examines how and why men perceive particular beliefs or behaviors as personally masculine to them. In addition, more meta-analyses in the psychological study of men and masculinities are required to further illuminate patterns of health outcomes that are related to total and subscale scores of various masculinity measures. Meta-analyses for the most commonly used constructs using of masculinity-related measures may be good places to start—namely with gender role conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale (O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986), conformity to masculine norms (examined here) with the CMNI (Mahalik et al., 2003), and “traditional” masculinity ideology with the Male Role Norms Inventory (Levant et al., 1992). While one meta-analysis has been completed on the CMNI to date (Wong et al., 2016), it was limited to mental health-related outcomes. Future meta-analyses should be more comprehensive in scope. Results from the current study suggest future studies and meta-analyses using the CMNI should examine and compare total and subscale scores alike.

The crux of improving men’s mental and physical health relies on men’s ability to do two things simultaneously: increase beliefs and behaviors that promote health (Wong et al., 2016) while performing their gender identity in positive ways (Burkley, Wong, & Bell, 2016). In other words, men must be able to “feel like a man” in ways congruent with beliefs and behaviors that promote health. If studies on men and masculinities continue to rely on total scores of measures of masculine norms, solutions for creating pathways that can catalyze this congruence will be stymied.

Limitations

The following limitations of the present content analysis must be noted. First, as this study was meant to only summarize previous findings, the methodological adequacy of the included studies was not critically assessed. Thus, findings of studies are compared in which participants and procedures may differ across studies. For example, results from studies using community participants were compared to results using college students. Further, demographic diversity of participants was not analyzed outside of identifying the type of sample (e.g., college or community). In addition, only correlational data was used in this study for the sake of clarity and brevity. However, findings in the original studies included additional results using multiple linear regression. Of course, correlational relationships cannot be assumed to be causal. Lastly, because the current study examined results specific to the subscales on the original 94-item version of the CMNI for psychometric reasons, findings cannot be generalized to other forms of the CMNI. In addition, this analysis was intentionally limited to published studies which used the 94-item CMNI and 4 or more CMNI subscales, but future investigation might examine studies which used other versions of the CMNI, fewer subscales, and are unpublished, including dissertations and theses.

Conclusion

Over 500 studies conducted over at least three decades have examined outcomes related to conformity to and belief in specific identified masculine norms and related constructs in men (Wong & Wester, 2016). Hundreds of findings have evidenced harmful health outcomes associated with masculine norms (Gerdes et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2016). However, knowing how and in what ways these relationships serve to promote or risk health will depend on future research that compares total scores to subscale scores of measures of masculine norms while diversifying research methods and statistical analyses (Wong & Horn, 2016). Experimental methods, mediation and moderation regression studies, meta-analyses, and qualitative research will further illuminate the complex relationship between masculine norms and men’s health.

With this growing foundation, preventive and therapeutic interventions can be designed for men that will aid them to authentically perform their personal masculinities while maintaining their health. Men can feel like men while being mentally and physically healthier. Norms, situations, and contexts influencing the relationship between certain masculine norms and harmful or health-promoting factors must be further explored.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Addis M. E., Mansfield A. K., Syzdek M. R. (2010). Is masculinity a problem? Framing the effects of gendered social learning in men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 11(2), 77–90. doi: 10.1037/a0018602 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amato F. J. (2012). The relationship of violence to gender role conflict and conformity to masculine norms in a forensic sample. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 20(3), 187–208. doi: 10.3149/jms.2003.187 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Backus F. R., Mahalik J. R. (2011). The masculinity of Mr. Right: Feminist identity and heterosexual women’s ideal romantic partners. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 318–326. doi: 10.1177/0361684310392357 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Burkley M., Wong Y. J., Bell A. C. (2016). The Masculinity Contingency Scale (MCS): Scale development and psychometric properties. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(2), 113–125. doi: 10.1037/a0039211 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Burn S. M., Ward A. Z. (2005). Men’s conformity to traditional masculinity and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(4), 254–263. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.6.4.254 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burns S. M., Hough S., Boyd B. L., Hill J. (2010). Men’s adjustment to spinal cord injury: The unique contributions of conformity to masculine gender norms. American Journal of Men’s Health, 4(2), 157–166. doi: 10.1177/1557988309332690 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gerdes Z. T., Alto K. M., Jadaszewski S., D’Auria F., Levant R. F. (2017). A content analysis of research on masculinity ideologies using all forms of the Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI). Psychology of Men & Masculinity (Advance online publication). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000134
  8. Hammer J. H., Good G. E. (2010). Positive psychology: An empirical examination of beneficial aspects of endorsement of masculine norms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(4), 303–318. doi: 10.1037/a0019056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Isacco A. (2015). Measuring masculinity: Developmental contexts, men’s health, and qualitative research. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 141–144. doi: 10.1037/a0039018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kahn J. S., Brett B. L., Holmes J. R. (2011). Concerns with men’s academic motivation in higher education: An exploratory investigation of the role of masculinity. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 19(1), 65–82. doi: 10.3149/jms.1901.65 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Keiller S. W. (2010). Masculine norms as correlates of heterosexual men’s attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(1), 38–52. doi: 10.1037/a0017540 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kiselica M. S., Benton-Wright S., Englar-Carlson M. (2016). Accentuating positive masculinity: A new foundation for the psychology of boys, men, and masculinity. In Wong Y. J., Wester S. R. (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 51–79). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kiselica M. S., Englar-Carson M. (2010). Identifying, affirming, and building upon male strengths: The positive psychology/positive masculinity model of psychotherapy with boys and men. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(3), 276–287. doi: 10.1037/a0021159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kivisalu T. M., King C., Phillips C. E., O’Toole S. K. (2015). Reliability generalization of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI). Race, Gender, & Class, 22, 173–188. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kline R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Krippendorff K. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  17. Levant R. F., Hall R. J., Rankin T. J. (2013). Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF): Development, confirmatory factor analytic investigation of structure, and measurement invariance across gender. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(32), 228–238. doi: 10.1037/a0031545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Levant R. F., Hall R. J., Weigold I., McCurdy E. R. (2015). Construct distinctiveness and variance composition of multi-dimensional instruments: Three short-form masculinity measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 488–502. doi: 10.1037/cou0000092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Levant R. F., Hirsch L., Celentano E., Cozza T., Hill S., MacEachern M., … Schnedeker J. (1992). The male role: An investigation of norms and stereotypes. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325–337. [Google Scholar]
  20. Levant R. F., Kopecky G. (1995). Masculinity reconstructed. New York, NY: Dutton. [Google Scholar]
  21. Levant R. F., Wimer D. J., Williams C. M. (2011). An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Health Behavior Inventory-20 (HBI-20) and its relationships to masculinity and attitudes towards seeking psychological help among college men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 12(1), 26–41. doi: 10.1037/a0021014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Limiñana-Gras R. M., Sánchez-López M. P., Saavedra-San R. A. I., Corbalán-Berná F. J. (2013). Health and gender in female-dominated occupations: The case of male nurses. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 21(2), 135–148. doi: 10.3149/jms.2102.135 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu W. M., Iwamoto D. K. (2007). Conformity to masculine norms, Asian values, coping strategies, peer group influences and substance use among Asian American men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(1), 25–39. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.8.1.25 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Locke B. D., Mahalik J. R. (2005). Examining masculinity norms, problem drinking, and athletic involvement as predictors of sexual aggression in college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 279–283. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mahalik J. R., Good G. E., Tager D., Levant R. F., Mackowiak C. (2012). Developing a taxonomy of helpful and harmful practices for clinical work with boys and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(4), 591–603. doi: 10.1037/a0030130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mahalik J. R., Levi-Minzi M., Walker G. (2007). Masculinity and health behaviors in Australian men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(4), 240–249. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.8.4.240 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Mahalik J. R., Locke B. D., Ludlow L. H., Diemer M. A., Scott R. J., Gottfried M., Freitas G. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3–25. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mahalik J. R., Rochlen A. B. (2006). Men’s likely responses to clinical depression: What are they and do masculinity norms predict them? Sex Roles, 55(9–10), 659–667. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9121-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mahalik J. R., Talmadge W. T., Locke B. D., Scott R. J. (2005). Using the conformity to masculine norms inventory to work with men in a clinical setting. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 661–674. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McCleary D. F., Quillivan C. C., Foster L. N., Williams R. L. (2011). Meta-analysis of correlational relationships between perspectives of truth in religion and major psychological constructs. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(3), 163–180. doi: 10.1037/a0022208 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mellinger C. L., Levant R. F. (2014). Moderators of the relationship between masculinity and prejudice against sexual minorities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 519–530. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0220-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. O’Neil J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the gender role conflict scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(3), 358–445. doi: 10.1177/0011000008317057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Neil J. M. (2012). The psychology of men. In Altmaier E. M., Hansen J. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 375–408). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. O’Neil J. M. (2015). Men’s gender role conflict: Psycho-logical costs, consequences, and an agenda for change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14501-000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Neil J. M., Helms B., Gable R., David L., Wrightsman L. (1986). Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS): College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14(5–6), 335–350. [Google Scholar]
  36. Parent M. C., Moradi B. (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to masculine norms: Psychometric properties of the conformity to masculine norms inventory-46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(4), 339–353. doi: 10.1037/a0021904 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rowatt W. C., Shen M., LaBouff J. P., Gonzalez A. (2013). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and prejudice: Insights from meta-analyses, implicit social cognition, and social neuroscience. In Paloutzian R. F., Park C. L. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd ed., pp. 457–475). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sánchez–López M., Cuellar–Flores I., Dresch V. (2012). The impact of gender roles on health. Women & Health, 52(2), 182–196. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2011.652352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schopp L. H., Good G. E., Mazurek M. O., Barker K. B., Stucky R. C. (2007). Masculine role variables and outcomes among men with spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation: An International, Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(8), 625–633. doi: 10.1080/09638280600902620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tager D., Good G. E. (2005). Italian and American masculinities: A comparison of masculine gender role norms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(4), 264–274. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.6.4.264 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ward Z. A., Cook S. W. (2011). The complex associations between conforming to masculine norms and religiousness in men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(1), 42–54. doi: 10.1037/a0020003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Way N., Cressen J., Bodian S., Preston J., Nelson J., Hughes D. (2014). ‘It might be nice to be a girl… Then you wouldn’t have to be emotionless’: Boys’ resistance to norms of masculinity during adolescence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 241–252. doi: 10.1037/a0037262 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wester S. R. (2008). Thinking complexly about men, gender role conflict, and counseling psychology. The Counseling Psycho-logist, 36(3), 462–468. doi: 10.1177/0011000007310971 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wong Y. J. (2006). Strength-centered therapy: A social constructionist, virtues-based psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 43, 133–146. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.62 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wong Y. J., Ho R. M.-H., Wang S.-Y., Miller K. (2016). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the conformity to masculine norms inventory and mental health related outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology (Advance online publication). doi: 10.1037/cou0000176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wong Y. J., Horn A. J. (2016). Enhancing and diversifying research methods in the psychology of men and masculinities. In Wong Y. J., Wester S. R., Wong Y. J., Wester S. R. (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 231–255). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14594-011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wong Y. J., Owen J., Shea M. (2012). A latent class regression analysis of men’s conformity to masculine norms and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 176–183. doi: 10.1037/a0026206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wong Y. J., Wester S. R. (2016). APA handbook of men and masculinities. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14594-011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Men's Health are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES