Understanding the Man Box: the link between gender socialization and domestic violence in Jordan

Abstract

The “Man Box” refers to a rigid set of expectations, perceptions, and behaviors that are considered “manly” and/or a “real man's” behavior, imposed on men by the society, such as superiority, cruelty, emotional suppression, lack of physical intimacy with other men, and expectations of socially aggressive and/or dominant behavior. Gender-based types of aggression and violence are central in the production of dominant heterosexual masculinities and male superiority that impose the dominating and violating behavior on men, and make these behaviors acceptable and naturalized. Therefore, adherence to the Man Box is one of the causes of violence against women, and to the creation and reinforcement of social environments conducive to domestic violence. This study shows how Jordanian males internalize and agree with “Man Box” beliefs and how these meanings affect their lives and behavioral patterns. Perceptions of Jordanian women on these issues were also included in the data collected through a survey distributed to 1,029 participants (525 men and 504 women) who live in Amman, Jordan. The results show that Man Box beliefs still prevail in Jordanian culture, promoted by parents, partners, and acquaintances. A total of 49.9% of the respondents show agreement with Man Box ideas. Jordanian men believe that society imposes rigid masculine gender roles, views on heterosexuality and homophobia, and expectations of aggression and control. Their personal attitudes, however, rejected the dictates of solving their own personal problems without help and fighting back when they were threatened. Most Jordanian women reported personal agreement with Man Box ideals for men, particularly in the areas of self-sufficiency, acting tough, and control, all of which can prevent men from breaking out of the Man Box. Our results also show that life inside the Man Box can impede men's formation of emotionally connected friendships and encourage them to show transgressive emotional behaviors. Furthermore, some men were more probable to violate the Man Box rules, such as being likely to talk to friends about something deeply emotional and feeling comfortable crying in front of them, or continuing to rely primarily on their mothers and romantic partners for emotional support. Additionally, inside the Man Box, men are more likely to experience physical and online bullying and perpetrate verbal and physical bullying; however, they are also more likely to attempt to intervene to stop violence.

Domestic violence; Man box; Gender socialization; Toxic masculinity; Promundo method; Jordan.

1. Introduction

According to the gender stereotypes perspective of domestic abuse, violence toward women is an extension of patriarchal dominance [1, 2]. Patriarchal cultures determine gender roles that lead to the victimization of women [3], and violence and aggressive behavior are often accepted from men because they are congruent with the cultural script for masculinity [4].

Women and men experience different forms of socialization in which they learn culturally defined gender roles. In the primary and secondary stages of socialization, men learn to be male, and women learn to be female [5, 6, 7, 8]. In these stages, parents encourage their children to adopt behaviors and attitudes that are considered appropriate for each gender and impart to them the cultural expectations and ideals of gender roles and gendered behavior [7, 9]. Consequently, men learn how to practice their authority over females and how to be “men” via adherence to a cultural ideal of manliness, which society measures by strength, dominance, authority, sex, brutality, status, aggression, and violence [10]. Women, meanwhile, learn to be subservient and accept inferiority to men [11]. They are encouraged to be deferential to men, focus their capacities on establishing romantic relationships, and curb their sexual urges [9]. Stereotypes of womanhood are typically related to emotions, interpersonal sensitivity, expressiveness, and affiliation [12].

Gender socialization produces a patriarchal system that acts to explain and justify the dominance of masculinities based on biological and innate differences between men and women. This system enables men to determine values through which society is organized in gender-unequal ways, such as a hierarchy of masculinities, control of leadership and property, and social privilege [13, 14]. In this way, women are deprived of or have unequal access to productive resources, nutrition, healthcare, and education when compared with men [15]. The system of patriarchy reinforces hegemonic masculinity, which manifests as a cultural ideal of manhood for both men and women [13, 14].

Gender stereotypes produce prejudices that lead to forms of social injustice and gender inequality because of self-categorization processes. Such processes occur when women evaluate themselves in terms of their gender capabilities, social groups, gender roles, and the way society perceives their gender (whether positive or negative) and holds them to account for “deviant” behavior, such as engaging in violence and crime, stereotypically male activities [12]. Threats to social or group identity can contribute to social deviance, attitudes, and behaviors that diverge from what is deemed suitable and acceptable by a group or social system [16]. The self-categorization in which women are always victims provides justification for the male discourse that permits abuse of women and pardons male offenders from guilt [17].

Gendered asymmetries that establish coercive control practices [18] can explain why women's self-esteem diminishes and why they constantly struggle to regain their personal strength. Women tend to recognize that violent behavior violates their socially prescribed gender role and readily confess to their transgressions, while men are more likely to minimize their violence against female partners and/or blame the victims, reflecting a greater sense of entitlement to such behavior than their female counterparts [19]. Spousal abuse is often characterized by female victims as part of the “normal” interaction of intimate couples [20]. According to feminist criminologists, because of gender inequalities, women adapt to traumas and stress with limited opportunities to cope openly; they are socialized to accept, tolerate, and even rationalize gender-based violence and to remain silent about such experiences [21].

Moreover, gender roles may be rejected or artfully exploited to achieve a variety of goals [22] where men's and women's roles and perceptions of their own abusive behaviors fundamentally differ [19]. In marital relationships in Jordan, Alsawalqa [23] confirmed that the clan's traditional ideas, norms, patriarchal structures, and the masculine standards that society imposes on men, to be a “real man,” led to divorce or staying put in an abusive relationship. These specific expectations and imposed behaviors — such as superiority, cruelty, emotional suppression, lack of physical intimacy with other men, and socially aggressive and/or dominant behavior — to be considered real men are defined as the “Man Box” [24, 25]. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to interpret the role of socialization and the patriarchal system in Jordan, based on the perspective of the “Man Box,” as it produces cultural acceptance of the use of violence to control others and create and reinforce a social environment conducive to domestic violence. The Man Box together with adherence to stereotypes of masculinity, that embed practices of inequality between genders, changed how domestic violence is traditionally thought of to account for social pressures imposed on men to be a “real man”. Gender-based types of aggression and violence are central in the production of dominant heterosexual masculinities [26] and male superiority that impose the dominating and violating behavior on men, and make these behaviors acceptable and naturalized [8, 27]. According to the relational approach, violence in intimate relationships does not depend on the sex of the actor. It is a product of the couple's dynamics, and both partners can contribute to its production through argumentation, humiliation, emotional appeals, manipulation, and blackmail [28, 29]. Relational approach refers to the belief that individuals can gain a greater feeling of empowerment and self-understanding by creating meaningful and mutual connections with others. While in non-mutual personal and professional relationships, that involve some form of exploited power differential because of diverse cultural, family, and/or personal reasons, one individual suppresses or negates the feelings and abilities of another. Therefore, that suppressed individual may eventually question the validity of his/her thoughts, feelings, and abilities [2, 3, 8, 30]. Men experience psychological, emotional, coercive control, emotional neglect, and physical violence perpetrated by women. Abusive women use numerous tactics to enable abuse including; money, sex, children, isolation, and gender role harassment [23, 31, 32, 33].

1.1. The Man Box: conceptual framework and development of methodology

A growing body of research has made a radical shift in the understanding of domestic violence, particularly among studies that discuss social reactions and legal responses to women's use of violence against strangers [19]. This has led to the acceptance of the notion that women can be perpetrators [32] and capable of using violence toward their intimate male partners [19]; that men can suffer forms of physical, emotional, sexual, and verbal abuse from female perpetrators [2]; and that women may cause men equivalent levels of physical and psychological harm [33]. Moreover, male victims may experience secondary victimization through the responses of official institutions and structures such as the police and courts [34]. Gender expectations and roles act as an organizing principle in social structures, formulating the risk, context, and consequences of victimization for both genders. Women's engagement in violence has been linked to their subordinate social positions [35, 36, 37, 38], while men have been found to use violence to achieve authority over women [19], to avoid social stigma and shame if they cannot protect the norms of masculinity and cultural ideals of manhood that society imposes on them, and to commit to the masculine roles expected by their society in terms of dominance, physical power, and providing financial support and/or physical protection to dependent women and children [39].

In gender work, an understanding of the social pressures and context of violence that includes men and masculinities, as well as women as perpetrators, is an important new approach. Such an approach can provide a thorough and balanced vision of domestic violence, particularly in the Arab Islamic cultural context, which, in light of its continued submission to patriarchal domination and a culture of shame, still lacks an integration of this perspective in the study of domestic violence and gender. Several studies have confirmed that endorsement of the patriarchy and cultural beliefs about gender roles, community norms, and masculinity are the main reasons for high rates of domestic violence in most cultures [40, 41, 42, 43].

This approach began to emerge with the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and 1990s [44], which sought to restore “real” or “deep” masculinity to men who had lost it in their modern lifestyles [45]. The mythopoets pointed out the social pressures and restrictions that trap men in urban industrial society and create harmful images of what it means to be a man. They described these phenomena as “toxic masculinity,” which dictates that “real men” act tough, competitive, and independent and encourages them to suppress their emotions and exert their power over women and weaker men [46, 47]. Although such masculine behavior is perceived as common, not antisocial, and even normal in patriarchal societies, it can have harmful and toxic effects on both men and women [48]. The World Health Organization (WHO) identified that the primary causal factor for the health disparity between men and women is a lack of understanding of the role of masculinity in shaping men's behaviors [49].

For a correct understanding of traditional masculinity, we must examine the idea of gender itself and not equate extreme behaviors with masculinity. Traditional masculine traits are not all inherently harmful or toxic; they include positive traits such as courage, leadership, and protectiveness, as well as negative traits such as violence, over-competitiveness, or being unwilling to admit weakness [50]. From a feminist perspective, toxic masculinity ignores the surrounding social and material context and personal responsibilities of men and can thereby perpetuate gender binaries [51]. Male violence results from the sociopolitical environment, which induces inner conflicts over social expectations and male entitlement, not as a result of toxicity within masculinity itself [52].

The term, “toxic masculinity” has elicited controversy as it continues to position men as victims of an ambiguous entity and reinforces the notion of gender inequalities [51]. In this context, the concept of Man Box was introduced. The authors of the concept attempted to reformulate toxic masculinity through a focus on social context and the notion of gender itself, and to highlight men's agency in the reproduction of masculinity. According to Greene [53], in 1980, Paul Kivel, Allan Creighton, and others at the Oakland Men's Project developed the “Act Like a Man Box” approach in their work with adolescents in public schools around the San Francisco Bay Area. Kivel documented this project in his book Men's Work: How to Stop the Violence That Tears Our Lives Apart. In the mid-1990s, Tony Porter, founder of A Call to Men, shortened the original term “act like a man box” to “the man box,” which then became a household term to emphasize how masculinity is a performance. In 2010, Porter recorded his famous TED Talk, “A Call to Men,” as an initiative aimed to raise global public awareness about what it means to have a healthy manhood.

The Man Box describes a rigid set of expectations, perceptions, and behaviors that are considered “manly” and/or a “real man's” behavior. Man Box are defined by society, and have dominance over men [54]. This hegemonic masculinity is rooted in long-held cultural definitions of what it means to be a man, which contribute to reinforcing patriarchal systems [25]. The Man Box defines a “real man” as representing what is normative and acceptable within the tightly controlled performance of masculinity; that is, men are expected to be strong, successful, stoic, powerful, dominating, fearless, and emotionless breadwinners [55]. Men are then marginalized and stigmatized when they violate the Man Box rules by not perfectly conforming to the description of a “real man” [54].

The Man Box exists to accrue power upward in its internal hierarchy; it does so by isolating men emotionally and then channeling their resulting anger into the repetitious act of policing and punishing others. The purpose of the Man Box is not to achieve social conformity but to target differences and grant permission to act out aggression. This self-perpetuating closed loop of emotional suppression, reactivity, and policing is constantly taking place, even among groups of men who reside entirely within the Man Box [55].

Much attention has focused on the broad effects of men's adherence to Man Box rules in various cultures. In 2017, Promundo and Axe (a Unilever male grooming brand) carried out nationally representative surveys in the US, UK, and Mexico with young men aged 18–30 years to understand the prevalence of harmful ideas about manhood (i.e., Man Box rules) and how broad the effects of these ideas are. The study confirmed how much young men continue to be told that “being a man” means using violence to resolve conflicts, refusing to seek help even if they need it, and sticking to rigid gender roles. It also confirmed that young men who live within the Man Box are consistently more likely to bully, binge drink, be in traffic accidents, harass others, show signs of depression, and consider suicide [24].

The Men's Project [56] followed the Promundo approach to reveal the attitudes toward manhood and behaviors of young Australian men aged 18 to 30. Their study employed an online survey of a representative sample of 1,000 young men from across the country, which asked their views on 17 messages about how a man should behave to explore how young men encounter the Man Box rules in society and internalize them. These 17 messages were organized under the seven pillars of the Man Box: self-sufficiency, acting tough, physical attractiveness, rigid gender roles, heterosexuality and homophobia, hypersexuality, and aggression and control. The study also explored the influence of agreement with the Man Box rules on different areas of young men's lives, including health and well-being, physical appearance, relationships, risk-taking, violence, and bystander behavior.

The cultural and social context of Jordanian society includes the standards of masculinity and the behavior of a real man contained in the Man Box Project. Therefore, the present study is modeled on the abovementioned research from the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico [24], and Australia [56]. Our study is the first to focus on the attitudes toward manhood and behaviors of Jordanian men who live in Amman, the capital of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. We explored three age groups: early adulthood (ages 20–30), early middle age (ages 31–40), and middle age (ages 41–50). This study is designed as a follow-up on earlier Man Box studies to complement previous research on the impact of harmful masculine stereotypes. It aims to build a comprehensive framework for the Man Box by determining the state of manhood in an Arab context and exploring the sources of social pressures dictated by the Man Box rules in Jordan. Further, we examine how Jordanian men internalize and agree with rigid Man Box ideas and norms about what “real men” should believe and how they should behave, in contrast to how the Man Box rules affect how men actually live and behave. We also assess Jordanian women's perceptions of the Man Box, which have not been included in previous studies on the topic.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants and data collection

This study included 1,029 participants selected by random sampling from Amman, the capital of Jordan; 504 were women (49%) and 525 were men (51%). The majority of the participants were early middle-aged (31–40 years) (male = 45.3%; female = 45%); ages ranged from 20 to 50 years across the whole sample. Following the Pew Research Center (2021) instructions for electronic surveys, we collected data through a survey distributed via social media sites, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, or email; participants accessed the survey through an anonymous link survey platform via Google Drive. Based on the wide sampling frame, The Facebook pages of businessmen and working women, and civil society organizations that deal with women's issues were targeted, and email lists were used for government institutions employees. Additionally, friends and personal acquaintances were invited to participate. The need for participants' signed consent was waived in order to preserve the privacy of the participants, given that the scale includes paragraphs that might cause embarrassment for men and women if their identities were revealed; some paragraphs related to homosexuality and sexual relations might represent a conflict with the customs, traditions, and Islamic religion of Jordanian society. The questionnaire questions are included on the first page, along with information about the study and its objectives. Participants who consented to participate clicked “yes” on the first question in the survey, “Do you consent to participate in this study?”. The online survey consent acts as a consent document for participants and the process of participants proceeding to the survey and completing it constitutes consent (Research Administration and Compliance, 2019). Data were collected between the end of December 2020 and March 2021. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the IRB at the University of Jordan in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, with reference number IRB/19/202/483. A detailed breakdown of the respondents' profiles is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Respondents’ demographic characteristics.

Variable	Category	Male		Female
		Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Age	Early adulthood (ages 20–30)	206	39.2	186	36.9
	Early middle age (ages 31–40)	238	45.3	227	45.0
	Middle age (ages 41–50)	81	15.4	91	18.1
Educational status	High school	78	14.9	73	14.5
	College diploma	60	11.4	31	6.2
	BA	288	54.9	353	70.0
	Postgraduate	99	18.9	47	9.3
Employment	Unemployed	-	-	115	22.8
	Part-time	63	12.0	33	6.5
	Full-time	341	65.0	230	45.6
	Student	121	23.0	117	23.2
	Retired	-	-	9	1.8
Marital status	Single	153	29.1	196	38.9
	Married	354	67.4	298	59.1
	Divorced	18	3.4	10	2.0
Monthly household income	Under 750 JD	46	8.8	177	35.1
	751–1000 JD	196	37.3	202	40.1
	1001–1250 JD	236	45.0	110	21.8
	1251 JD and over	47	9.0	15	3.0

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Social pressures

Following Heilman et al. [24], in order to assess how society requires men to act, we asked one question about each of the masculine norms imparted by respondents' romantic partners, male friends, and parents, including: “My parents taught me that a ‘real man’ should act strong even if he feels nervous or scared,” and, “My partner would definitely expect me to use violence to defend my reputation if I had to.” Each response was rated from one to four (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”) (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Pressure from partners, friends, and family.

Social pressure	Percent
My parents taught me that a “real man” should act strong even if he feels nervous or scared.	100%
My partner would definitely expect me to use violence to defend my reputation if I had to.	72.4%
My male friends would give me a hard time if they saw me hanging out with someone who is gay or who they think looks gay.	92%

2.2.2. Man box scale

We used Man Box messages to ask participants where they believed they stood in terms of the Man Box. All of these messages reflected what respondents may have thought a “real man” should believe and/or how a “real man” should behave. The scale items measure, with reasonable accuracy, the extent to which men either adhere to or reject traditional, restrictive ideas about what it means to be a man [24]. Per Heilman et al. [24], the original scale consists of 17 society messages (items) organized into seven thematic pillars: self-sufficiency (two items), acting tough (two items), physical attractiveness (three items), rigid masculine gender roles (three items), heterosexuality and homophobia (two items), hypersexuality (two items), and aggression and control (three items).

Heilman et al. [24] removed two items from Pillar 3 (physical attractiveness): “It is very hard for a man to be successful if he doesn't look good,” and “Women don't go for guys who fuss too much about their clothes, hair, and skin” because these items differ from the remaining Man Box rules in that they are not strict reflections of mainstream masculine expectations and roles. Rather, these items ask men to reflect on the external implications of their behavior and roles. Thus, in the final scale (see Table 3), we calculated each respondent's answers to 15 items related to Man Box rules. Each response was awarded one to four points, where the answers that adhered most to Man Box rules (“strongly agree”) received one point, those that adhered least to Man Box rules (“strongly disagree”) received four points, and the middle answers (“agree” and “disagree”) received two or three points, depending on the nature/direction of the item. All male respondents with Man Box scores below the average were coded as “inside the Man Box,” while those with scores at or above average were coded as “outside the Man Box.”

Table 3.

Respondents’ perceptions of Man Box rules.

Man Box rules	Men's responses		Women's responses
	Percent (“Society as a whole tells me that…”)	Percent (“In my opinion...”)	Percent (“In my opinion...”)
Pillar 1: Self-sufficiency
A man who talks a lot about his worries, fears, and problems shouldn't really get respect.	72.4%	80.4%	48.8%
Men should figure out their personal problems on their own without asking others for help.	87.0%	34.3%	55.4%
Pillar 2: Acting tough
A man who doesn't fight back when others push him around is weak.	100%	8.2%	70.8%
Men should act strong even if they feel scared or nervous inside.	100%	95.8%	78.8%
Pillar 3: Physical attractiveness
A man who spends a lot of time on his looks isn't very manly.	94.9%	74.7%	44.4%
Pillar 4: Rigid masculine gender roles
It is not good for a boy to be taught how to cook, sew, clean the house, and take care of younger children.	89.7%	93.5%	17.3%
A husband shouldn't have to do household chores.	100%	56%	29.8%
Men should really be the ones to bring money home to provide for their families, not women.	100%	52.4%	67.7%
Pillar 5: Heterosexuality and homophobia
A gay man is not a “real man.”	100%	62.7%	79%
Straight men being friends with gay men is totally fine and normal. (positive statement)	1.5%	17.7%	23.2%
Pillar 6: Hypersexuality
A “real man” should have as many sexual partners as he can.	4%	30.5%	7.3%
A “real man” would never say no to sex.	43%	40.4%	22.4%
Pillar 7: Aggression and control
Men should use violence to get respect, if necessary.	86.7%	35.4%	37%
A man should always have the final say about decisions in his relationship or marriage.	99.6%	78.7%	41.4%
If a man has a girlfriend or wife, he deserves to know where she is all the time.	100%	88.8%	59.4%

2.3. Measurements of the consequences of adherence to Man Box rules

To understand the effect of ideas of being a real man on the lives of Jordanian men, we looked at the influence of the Man Box on men's life and behaviors across different areas; including satisfaction with life and moods, self-esteem, friendship, emotional support, bullying and violence, friendship and support seeking, and risky behaviors (See supplement files).

2.3.1. Satisfaction with life scale (SWLS)

This scale assesses an individual's conscious evaluative judgment of their life by using that person's own criteria. Normative data for the scale show good convergent validity with other types of assessments of subjective well-being, as well as a degree of temporal stability (e.g., 54 for four years). The SWLS has shown sufficient sensitivity to be potentially valuable in detecting changes in life satisfaction. The scale assesses life satisfaction with five items (e.g., “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”), which are answered using a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”) [57].

2.3.2. Rosenberg self-esteem scale

This scale was developed by sociologist Morris Rosenberg and is a widely used self-report instrument for evaluating individual self-esteem. The 10-item scale measures global self-worth by assessing both positive and negative feelings about the self. The scale is believed to be unidimensional. All items are answered using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” [58, 59].

2.3.3. Bullying and violence scale

Per Heilman et al. [24] and The Men's Project [56], the Man Box survey included several questions relating to the experience and perpetration of three forms of bullying—verbal, online, and physical—as well as one question on whether respondents have perpetrated sexual harassment. All items are answered using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “always” (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = often and 4 = always).

2.3.4. Positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS-SF)

The Positive and Negative Affect Scale used in this study was developed by Watson et al. [60]. The self-report scale is widely used in clinical and non-clinical research and is considered a reliable measure of positive and negative moods. The questionnaire contains two 10-item scales, one listing positive emotions (interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, determined, attentive, and active), and one listing negative emotions (distressed, upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable, ashamed, nervous, jittery, and afraid). Respondents were asked to rate their experience of these emotions over the past week on a scale of one to five (lightly or not at all = 1, a little = 2, moderately = 3, quite a bit = 4, and extremely = 5). Respondents then received a total score between 10 and 50, with higher scores indicating their levels of emotionally positive or negative affect [56].

2.3.5. Supportive friendship and emotionally vulnerable acts

Based on Heilman et al. [24] and The Men's Project [56], the present study's Man Box survey included several questions relating to whether young men displayed vulnerability and provided emotional support to friends in the past month. The answers ranged from 4-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “always” (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = often, and 4 = always). In addition, two related questions were included in the survey regarding how respondents prefer to spend their free time (in both ideal and real scenarios).

3. Procedure

This study employed the Man Box research methodology developed by Promundo, a global consortium leader in advancing gender equality and preventing violence. Heilman et al. [24] also used the Promundo methodology to investigate masculinity or “what it means to be a man.” The Promundo survey included a representative random sample of young men aged 18 to 30 in the US, UK, and Mexico. It explored the views of young men on the social pressures of the Man Box rules and their personal agreement with these rules, as well as the effect of Man Box rules in several domains of their lives (life satisfaction and self-confidence, mental health, friendship and support seeking, risky behaviors, bullying, violence, and attractiveness). While the Promundo method offers an accurate and reliable survey, we undertook several procedures to fit the Western Man Box concept into an Arab context. We did not apply all the Promundo themes to measure the effects of the Man Box rules on respondents' lives; mental health and attractiveness were excluded in the interest of brevity. We aimed to obtain the most complete and accurate information possible and ensure the survey's respondents did not grow bored and restless during the process.

4. Data analysis

IBM SPSS-25 was used to perform statistical analysis. Frequency distribution and descriptive statistics were calculated first, followed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA), which was conducted to understand the consequences of the Man Box.

5. Results

5.1. Social pressure

The study's starting point was to gain an understanding of where men receive the social messages that tell them how to behave as a “real man.” We asked men about certain masculine norms and whether they had experienced pressure to comply with these norms from parents, romantic partners, and friends. The percentages of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that their romantic partners, friends, family members, and/or society as a whole communicated rigid ideas and norms about what “real men” should believe and how they should behave are demonstrated in Table 2. The results showed that the male respondents were mostly pressured by their parents (100%), followed by their male friends and their partners at rates of 72.4%–92%, respectively.

5.2. The Man Box

To understand how young men perceived the social pressures associated with the Man Box, we asked them whether they agreed, strongly agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed that each of its rules was communicated throughout society. The percentages of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that men internalize and agree with the Man Box's rigid ideas and norms about what “real men” should believe and how they should behave are reported in Table 3. This table shows three perspectives: the views of society, the personal views of male respondents, and the personal views of female respondents. Male respondents believed that society expected certain behaviors from them more than they agreed with these behaviors themselves in most pillars, with the notable exception of one item in Hypersexuality, and to a lesser degree items in Self-Sufficiency and Rigid Masculine Gender Roles. From the personal view of the male respondents, more agreement was observed with rigid masculine gender roles, heterosexuality and homophobia, aggression, and control. Female respondents tended to agree more with items related to men's self-sufficiency and acting tough.

5.3. Effects of Man Box ideas regarding how men should live and behave

We calculated a composite score for each respondent's answers to 15 of the Man Box rules, as shown in Table 4 (the first two items related to physical attractiveness were removed). The mean value of the Man Box was 2.186 (SD = 0.17266), where scores below the mean were considered “inside the Man Box” and scores at or above the mean were considered “outside the Man Box.” The results showed that 49.9% (n = 262) of the participants were inside the Man Box, while 50.1% (n = 263) were outside of it. Table 5 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents who were inside the Man Box.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics.

Description	Mean	Std. deviation	Frequency	Percent
Composite score (Man Box)	2.1860	0.17266
Inside the Man Box			262	49.9%
Outside the Man Box			263	50.1%

Table 5.

Demographic characteristics of men who were inside the Man Box (N = 262).

Demographic variable	Frequency	Valid %	Cumulative %
Age group
20–30	129	49.2	49.2
31–40	108	41.2	90.5
41–50	25	9.5	100.0
Educational status
High school	54	20.6	20.6
College diploma	19	7.3	27.9
BA	116	44.3	72.1
Postgraduate	73	27.9	100.0
Employment
Part-time	36	13.7	13.7
Full-time	212	80.9	94.7
Student	14	5.3	100.0
Marital Status
Single	37	14.1	14.1
Married	214	81.7	95.8
Divorce	11	4.2	100.0
Monthly income
Under 750 JD	21	8.0	8.0
751–1000 JD	74	28.2	36.3
1001–1250 JD	135	51.5	87.8
1251 JD and over	32	12.2	100.0

5.4. Life satisfaction

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the consequences of men's adherence to the Man Box rules. The results showed that the male respondents who were in the Man Box (M = 3.2649, SD = .82874) had statistically significantly higher satisfaction scores than those who were outside the Man Box (M = 2.9323, SD = .70233), as illustrated in Table 6 and Figure 1.

Table 6.

Life satisfaction inside and outside the Man Box.

Man Box	N	Mean	Std. deviation	F value
Inside the Man Box	262	3.2649	.82874	24.610∗∗
Outside the Man Box	263	2.9323	.70233
Total	525	3.0983	.78513

Note. ∗∗p < 0.001.

Figure 1.

Means plot of life satisfaction.

5.4.1. Relationship between the Man Box and life satisfaction

To assess the relationship between the Man Box and life satisfaction, the Pearson correlation (r) was run. As illustrated in Table 7, the results showed that there was a significant correlation between Man Box scores and life satisfaction scores (r = -.290, p < 0.01). The negative sign of the correlation indicated that the more the respondents adhere to the Man Box rules, the more satisfaction they have in their lives. This results also support the previous ANOVA results that men's adherence to the Man Box rules leads to greater life satisfaction.

Table 7.

Results from correlation analysis.

Variables		Man Box	Life satisfaction
Man Box	Pearson Correlation	1	-.290∗∗
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.000
	N	525	525
Life satisfaction	Pearson Correlation	-.290∗∗	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000
	N	525	525

^∗∗Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5.5. Self-esteem

The results showed that respondents who were in the Man Box (M = 25.9618, SD = 1.98231) had statistically significantly higher self-esteem scores than those who were outside the Man Box (M = 24.1369, SD = 2.02378), as illustrated in Table 8 and Figure 2.

Table 8.

Self-esteem inside and outside the Man Box.

Man Box	N	Mean	Std. deviation	F value
Inside the Man Box	262	25.9618	1.98231	108.931∗∗
Outside the Man Box	263	24.1369	2.02378
Total	525	25.0476	2.19985

Note. ∗∗p < 0.001.

Figure 2.

Means plot of self-esteem.

5.5.1. Relationship between Man Box and self-esteem

The relationship between the Man Box and self-esteem was assessed with the Pearson correlation (r). As illustrated in Table 9, the results showed that there was a significant correlation between Man Box scores and self-esteem scores (r = -.503, p < 0.01). The negative sign of the correlation indicated that the more the respondents adhere to the Man Box rules, the more self-esteem they possess.

Table 9.

Results from correlation analysis.

Variables		Man Box	Self-esteem
Man Box	Pearson Correlation	1	-.503∗∗
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.000
	N	525	525
Self-esteem	Pearson Correlation	-.503∗∗	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000
	N	525	525

^∗∗Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5.6. Positive and negative affect schedules

5.6.1. Positive Affect Schedule

As shown in Table 10 and Figure 3, the scores among the respondents who were inside the Man Box (M = 15.1679, SD = 3.56688) were higher on the Positive Affect Schedule than those who were outside the Man Box (M = 15.1141, SD = 3.25891). However, the difference was not statistically significant.

Table 10.

Positive affect schedule inside and outside the Man Box.

Man Box	N	Mean	Std. deviation	F value
Inside the Man Box	262	15.1679	3.56688	0.033
Outside the Man Box	263	15.1141	3.25891
Total	525	15.1410	3.41292

Figure 3.

Means plot of Positive Affect Schedule.

5.6.2. Negative affect schedule

As shown in Table 11 and Figure 4, the scores among the men who were inside the Man Box (M = 26.3244, SD = 4.01025) were significantly higher on the negative affect schedule than those of the male respondents who were outside the Man Box (M = 24.0000, SD = 3.47290).

Table 11.

Negative affect schedule inside and outside the Man Box.

Man Box	N	Mean	Std. deviation	F value
Inside the Man Box	262	26.3244	4.01025	50.409∗∗
Outside the Man Box	263	24.0000	3.47290
Total	525	25.1600	3.92354

Note. ∗∗p < 0.001.

Figure 4.

Means plot of Negative Affect Schedule.

5.6.3. Relationship between the Man Box and the positive-negative affect scale

The relationship between the Man Box and the positive-negative affect scale was assessed with the Pearson correlation (r). As illustrated in Table 12, the results showed that there was a significant correlation between Man Box scores and the positive affect scale (r = -.139, p < 0.01) as well as the negative affect scale (r = -.343, p < 0.01). The negative sign of the correlations indicated that the more the respondents adhere to the Man Box rules, the greater the positive-negative affect scale. It is also evident from the findings that the correlation coefficient of the negative affect scale was higher than that of the positive affect scale. This suggests that men's adherence to Man Box rules leads to more negativity among the respondents.

Table 12.

Results from correlation analysis.

Variables		Man Box	Positive Affect scale score	Negative Affect scale score
Man Box	Pearson Correlation	1	-.139∗∗	-.343∗∗
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.001	.000
	N	525	525	525
Positive Affect scale score	Pearson Correlation	-.139∗∗	1	-.044
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.001		.319
	N	525	525	525
Negative Affect scale score	Pearson Correlation	-.343∗∗	-.044	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.319
	N	525	525	525

^∗∗Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5.7. Outside support and emotional vulnerability

5.7.1. Supportive friendships

Male respondents who were outside the Man Box (37.3%) agreed more than those inside the Man Box (26%) to the statement, “I have a friend with whom I feel comfortable talking about a personal, emotional issue” (Table 13).

Table 13.

Supportive friendships inside and outside the Man Box.

Man Box	Do you have a friend with whom you comfortable talking about a personal, emotional issue?
	Yes	No
Inside	26%	74%
Outside	37.3%	62.7%

5.7.2. Emotionally vulnerable acts and sources of help

More emotionally vulnerable acts were performed by the male respondents who were inside the Man Box, as shown in Table 14 by the proportion of participants who answered “always” or “often” to the relevant questions. Moreover, the majority of men who were inside the Man Box reported that their first sources of help were their mothers and romantic partners.

Table 14.

Emotionally vulnerable acts and sources of help inside and outside the Man Box.

Emotionally vulnerable acts
Man Box	You have willingly provided emotional support to someone going through a difficult time	You have felt comfortable crying in front of a male friend	You have talked with a friend about something deeply emotional that you were going through
Inside	43.1%	43.1%	18.3%
Outside	11%	33.5%	7.6%

Sources of help
Man box	When you feel very sad or depressed, who do you seek help from first?
	Mother	Romantic Partner	Male Friend	Father	Online Sources
Inside	38%	28%	15 %	11%	8%
Outside	26 %	25.7%	18 %	9 %	7%

5.8. Real and ideal free time

Table 15 shows that the majority of the participants spent their free time equally by themselves and with others (inside = 58%; outside = 49.8%). On the other hand, they stated they would ideally like to spend their free time mostly with a romantic partner (inside = 49.6%; outside = 70.3%).

Table 15.

Free time inside and outside the Man Box.

Man Box	REAL: On average, how do you spend your free time?		IDEAL: On average, how would you like to spend your free time?
	Inside	Outside	Inside	Outside
Equally by myself and with others	58%	49.8%	-	-
Mostly with family	28.6%	9.5%	26.3%	11.8%
Mostly with a romantic partner	-	3%	49.6%	70.3%
Mostly with friends	3.8%	30.8%	12.2%	11.4%
Mostly by myself	9.5%	6.8%	11.8%	6.5%

The bold values are represents to indicate the highest percentage.

5.9. Bullying and violence

As shown in Table 16, respondents inside the Man Box were more likely to experience physical and online bullying, whereas those who were outside the Man Box were more likely to experience verbal bullying. Moreover, men inside the Man Box were more likely to perpetrate verbal bullying, whereas those who were outside Man Box were more likely to perpetrate physical and online bullying. Nevertheless, Table 7 reveals one positive finding: The young men who were inside the Man Box were also more likely to attempt to intervene to stop violence than those who were not.

Table 16.

Bullying and violence inside and outside the Man Box.

Man Box	Experienced bullying			Perpetrated bullying			Intervention in fights
	Verbal	Physical	Online	Verbal	Physical	Online
Inside	79.8%	6.9%	26%	4.6%	21.8%	5.3%	83.9%
Out	93.9%	3.8%	24.7%	3%	22.8%	27.4%	70%

6. Discussion

The Man Box is an unexplored area in gender studies and domestic violence in the Arab context. This study used the Man Box scale to explore men's and women's attitudes toward manhood and the behaviors of Jordanian men. We also investigated the effect of the Man Box on men's lives in Jordan. The results show that Man Box beliefs are still active in the Jordanian cultural context. The majority of Jordanian men reported encountering many of these Man Box rules in society, and all the male respondents reported that their parents were the most influential sources of social pressure and taught them society's messages about how to be a “real man.” The majority confirmed that their male friends, followed by their partners, reinforced traditional attitudes of manhood. There were also other sources of pressure; they were trapped by society's messages about manhood, which expected them to use violence to defend their reputation if they had to and scorned them if they spent time with someone who was gay or who they thought “looks gay.”

A total of 49.9% of participants showed agreement with Man Box rules; that is, they internalized and agreed with the Man Box's rigid ideas and norms about what “real men” should believe and how they should behave. Jordanian men's social and personal views tended to agree with rigid masculine gender roles, aggression, control, heterosexuality, and homophobia. The men respondents believed that Jordanian society does not encourage multiple sexual partners for men, although many of them were not averse to the idea personally.

In Jordan, men live a modern life in the context of their largely Islamic and Arab heritage. The country's legal, social, cultural, and religious value systems play a vital role in guiding and encouraging men to be responsible for the household finances and providing for women and children. Bedouin-tribal culture and Islamic religious texts support some masculine traits that men should embrace; men face a culture of shame (Eib) and social stigma, marginalization, or social exclusion if they do not abide by the dictates of their nomadic, religious, and social culture. Those dictates apply to numerous issues, including expressing emotions, vengeance and vendettas, homosexuality, sex before marriage, adultery, impregnating one's wife immediately after marriage, household roles, and childcare [23, 61, 62]. Consequently, men are conditioned to believe that these dictates are still valued; committing to them allows men to enjoy high social status, respect, and the appreciation of society. Notably, religious values and texts are interpreted based on the personal beliefs of religious figures, which contrasts with accurate interpretations and may reinforce traits of toxic masculinity by generalizing and treating cultural and social standards as sacred religious teachings [61]. Effecting radical change in deep-rooted cultural values is not something that can be easily achieved, particularly when they are intertwined with the interpretations of religious texts, whether accurate or inaccurate.

Alsawalqa showed that Jordanian men's experiences as victims of domestic abuse contradicted the gendered social expectations of patriarchal dominance and masculinity; society expects men to be self-reliant, independent leaders, strong and more assertive than women [23]. These expectations pressurize men to react in certain ways, such as being violent toward women to assert their authority, thereby not accepting abuse from women, especially physical abuse, even if it is in self-defense. In addition, men do not consult women regarding financial and social affairs of the family due to beliefs regarding women's irrationality and their inclination to decide based on emotions. Jordanian men confirmed that if their responses are not in line with these expectations, they will face social stigma and shame, and will be treated as liars who lack machismo, leading to feelings of embarrassment, depression, and uselessness. Hence, coercive control becomes the basis of the relationship between men and women, and the cause of mutual violence between them, which contributes to the continuance and high rates of domestic violence [23, 62].

Moreover, the respondents' personal attitudes rejected some other rules, such as that men should solve their personal problems on their own without asking others for help, and that a man who does not fight back when others threaten him is weak. The divergence of personal attitudes from some of the Man Box messages may give hope that the rigid notions of manhood are more flexible and can be a trigger for rapid social change [24]. However, due to the respondents' strong agreement with most Man Box messages, especially about rigid masculine gender roles and household roles, such hope is faint. Further, most female Jordanian respondents were likely to personally agree with the Man Box rules, particularly in areas of self-sufficiency and acting tough. Remarkably, over half the women embraced controlling messages from their partners indicating that men deserve to know where their wives/girlfriends are at all times, this can prevent men from breaking out of the Man Box. Their agreement with these ideals indicates that women's endorsement of gender stereotypical beliefs in Jordanian society that shape the relationship between men and women are based on the coercive control, making the dominating and violent behavior of men acceptable and natural. It further stems from imposing financial and social responsibility of the family on men too. These societal expectations include men being cruel, unable to cry and forbidden to show their feelings, and having the right to control and monitor women's life. While for women, these expectations are to being subjected to men's authority, being supportive and passive to their behavior, unable to compete with them while tolerating and accepting gender violence [26, 27, 63]. This endorsement contributes to making men more committed to the rules of Man Box, and assures them of the privileges and benefits they will receive from that commitment, and is also evident in expectations of female partners that men should use violence to defend their reputation. Women are a part of the process of reinforcing Man box ideas, as the mothers teach and normalize the social message of how to behave as a “real man" to their sons. This pressures them to comply with gender stereotypical beliefs of Jordanian society, where all participants report that their parents taught males that a “real man” should act strong even if he feels nervous or scared. Thus, women may contribute to their control by the men [64]. Conversely, women may also engage in physical violence and aggressive behaviors as a self-defense and to control violence against them from men; while challenging masculinity and getting rid of man's control [26, 65, 66]. However, men's reactions could be more harsh and violent to prove their masculinity and as a male dominant society, it is demanded of them [19, 23].

Despite efforts for the empowerment and integration of women into Jordanian society in all areas of life, the reality is that masculinity and patriarchal authority are entrenched in national legislation and societal practices. A study of Information and Research Center-King Hussein Foundation [IRCKHF] [61] showed that in many cases, the relationship between women and the state is mediated by a male authority such as the father, brother, or husband. Moreover, the study also found that stereotypes based on gender discrimination are still entrenched with regard to the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the family and society, and patriarchal attitudes are increasing among state authorities and society. Many women do not demand their rights, either because they are not aware of them or because of social and familial pressures and strict social norms. This emphasizes stereotypical traits of women such as: submissiveness to men, weakness, and the primacy of emotion over rational thinking. Such stereotypes are entrenched in women during childhood in terms of both belief and behavior [61]. An Amnesty International report [67] shows that Jordanian women are imprisoned for disobeying male authority, and that males continue to exercise control over women's work and social and sexual lives. Amnesty International also called on the Jordanian authorities to put an end to the abusive “guardianship” system of men over women which controls women's lives and limits their personal freedoms.

Our results, to a large extent, were compatible with data from the US, UK, Mexico [24], and Australia [56]. Heilman et al. [24] found that the Man Box is alive and well, particularly in the US and UK. Most of the respondents reported encountering many of these Man Box rules in society and asserted that they did not create their rigid, harmful identities on their own, but received restrictive messages from their parents and male friends, who taught them to hide feelings of nervousness or fear. Though men in US, UK, Mexico overwhelmingly rejected notions of manhood that implied men are superior to women or that men should not care for children, they showed strong support for the need to be tough and to repress their emotions. Young men's rates of personal agreement with the Man Box rules—often around 33 percent or higher—confirm that they internalize these rules. Some men may be able to reject restrictive and negative social pressures related to masculinity; however, a large number embrace them and the version of manhood that they promote. In Australia, The Men's Project [56] found that over half of the young men agreed or strongly agreed that their parents taught them to act “strong,” and one-third said their friends would give them a hard time if they saw them spending time with someone who was gay or who they thought was gay. The strongest of these Man Box rules were those related to acting strong, being the primary income earner, and not saying no to sex.

Moreover, our results revealed the that adherence to the Man Box rules has different effects on men's life, and living life inside the Man Box has led to contradictory life choices. The more the Jordanian men adhere to the Man Box rules, the more satisfaction they have in their lives, with higher self-esteem than those who are outside the Man Box. Their friends and parents praise them too. However, they display feeling more nervous, jittery, irritable, and distressed in comparison. These results are consistent with those of Heilman et al. [24], who affirmed that holding more rigid ideas about masculinity is linked with greater self-reported life satisfaction and well-being in the US and the UK, even as they display more symptoms of depression. Furthermore, men find a sense of security and safety inside the Man Box, even as it causes them harm, and these positive aspects of the Man Box, however, are more the exception than the rule; a superficial sense of security and self-satisfaction [24, 60]. Though the results of The Men's Project [56] showed relative convergence with the present study's results on life satisfaction, they found no significant difference between those inside and outside the Man Box in terms of the Positive Affect among Australian men. Most significantly, The Men's Project's results [56] found no link between Man Box attitudes and life satisfaction or well-being in the responses of men who were inside the Man Box in Mexico. These results can be explained by Heilman et al.’s [24] observation that men inside the Man Box experience certain rewards for meeting these societal expectations by doing what their parents, partners, and friends expect of them; therefore, they feel a certain confidence and comfort in who they are and a sense of certainty in confusing times.

Another contradiction observed was that Jordanian men who live inside the Man Box reported deriving lesser emotional connection friendships than men who are outside the Man Box, however, they reported crying in front of their male friends and talking about deep emotions. Though fully expressing emotions and showing emotional vulnerability is considered to violate the Man Box rules, this could be an extension of the aforementioned self-esteem associated with adhering to those rules and men's need for male friendships. Moreover, although some respondents expressed willingness to open up emotionally to their male friends, they relied primarily on women in their lives for emotional support; the majority of Jordanian men who were inside the Man Box reported that they turned first to their mothers and romantic partners for emotional support. These results were consistent with those of Heilman et al. [24] and The Men's Project [56], who confirmed that even when emotionally vulnerable acts are performed by men who are in the Man Box, such as likely to talk to friends about something deeply emotional and feeling comfortable crying in front of their friends, they still continue to rely primarily on their mothers and romantic partners for emotional support.

In the Man Box, men are more likely to experience physical and online bullying and perpetrate verbal and physical bullying; at the same time, they are also more likely to attempt to intervene to stop violence than men outside the Man Box. This is a real contradiction. Similarly, men inside the Man Box in the US, UK, Mexico, and Australia have been shown to be significantly more likely to experience and perpetrate verbal, physical, and online bullying. They also intervened to stop physical fights among friends or others more frequently than men outside the Man Box. The results of reports from these countries have confirmed that violence pervades the lives of men inside the Man Box, and that adherence to the standards of being a “real man” is one of the root causes of men's frequent use of various forms of violence against women [24, 56]. According to feminist theory, domestic violence is associated with the system of patriarchy, from which emanate the patriarchal arrangement of families, ideals of masculinity, a cultural acceptance of the use of violence to control others, and cultural practices of inequality between genders. These produce and reinforce a social environment conducive to domestic violence [68]. In the same context, Ging [69], and Connell and Messerschmidt [70], emphasized that toxic practices arising from hegemonic masculinity, such as physical violence, may reinforce men's dominance over women.

It is often understood that violent behavior in sex is a justifiable manifestation of male sexuality. A common perception in various cultures is that men have sexual desires that they are unable to control and that women are instinctively sexually submissive. Many courtship traditions and rituals are founded on these principles. Men frequently use sex to demonstrate their manliness and violent behavior to protect it. Their aspiration to control women's sexuality, as well as their emphasis on their own sexuality as an indicator of their manliness, seems to escalate the risk of both sexual and physical abuse against women [71].

The utilization of violence is how a man affirms and protects his gender distinctiveness as a “real man.” The ferociousness men apply to preserving their masculinity is related to their strength and privilege, which is coupled with masculine identity in all societies. The violence men enact has always been an essential component in maintaining this power and control. Shifting patterns of employment have challenged the convention of the male breadwinner, which has resulted in substantial tensions in relationships and provoked the prospective escalation of domestic violence. Men's relational violent behavior is connected to an increasing feeling of a “crisis in masculinity” since economic, social, and political shifts are challenging men's privilege and conventional power [71].

In all cultures, numerous toxic ideas about masculinity and femininity are considered acceptable and found among the behaviors and attributes that patriarchal structures impose via socialization. Such ideas lead to the perpetuation of gender binaries and the justification of the male discourse that permits abuse to demonstrate manliness. They allow violent behavior against women, weaker men, and marginalized groups to protect cultural ideals of masculinity. Man Box beliefs are still active in the Jordanian cultural context and leave some men confused, impede emotionally connected friendships, encourage them to show transgressive emotional behaviors, and make them act tough and impose control over women. Moreover, the majority of Jordanian women reported personal agreement with Man Box rules for men, particularly in the areas of acting tough and control, all of which can prevent men from breaking out of the Man Box. As such, tackling domestic violence and addressing critical gender issues requires that gender inequalities and the patriarchal masculinities that perpetuate them be addressed as root causes. In Arabic contexts of “patriarchy in transition” [72], which emphasizes the socialization of both sexes into their unequal gender roles, there is a need to reinforce positive, equitable, unrestrictive ideas not just of masculinity but also of femininity.

Finally, this is the first study to report on the sources of social pressures dictated by the Man Box rules in Jordan, how Jordanian men internalize and agree with the rigid Man Box ideas and norms about what “real men” should believe and behave, and how the Man Box rules men's actual lives and behaviors. Our study also assessed Jordanian women's perceptions of the Man Box. Using an online survey allowed a large and diverse sample of men and women of varied demographic backgrounds to participate in this study; using multiple acceptable reliability measures enriched the results. Most importantly, our study helps elucidate the links between domestic abuse, patriarchy, and cultural ideals of masculinity. Nevertheless, the present study also had some limitations. Using a broader study sample comprising people from all regions of Jordan, North, South, and Central, could have enhanced our results. Moreover, despite the suitability of the Man Box scale for the current study, cultural barriers against homosexuality likely led to self-reporting bias which may have skewed the results. The Man Box model merits further research in Arab contexts, and it would be worthwhile to develop a Man Box scale adapted to the Arab, Islamic, and Bedouin contexts.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Rula Odeh Alsawalqa: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Maissa Nasr Alrawashdeh: Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Shahedul Hasan: Analyzed ​and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.

Declaration of interests statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.