Research Articles

Psychometric Properties of the Gender Role Conflict – Short Form (GRC-SF) in Straight and Gay Greek Men

Konstantinos Christos Daoultzis*1, Panos Kordoutis1
[1] Department of Psychology, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece.

Interpersona, 2023, Vol. 17(2), 143–160, https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.8529

Received: 2022-03-12. Accepted: 2023-01-13. Published (VoR): 2023-12-07.

*Corresponding author at: Konstantinos Christos Daoultzis, Department of Psychology, Panteion University, New Building, Office E5, 136 Syngrou Ave, Athens, Postal 176 71, Greece. E-mail: daoultzis@panteion.gr

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The current study examined the reliability and validity of Gender Role Conflict Scale-Short Form (GRCS-SF) among Greek men, 753 straight and 437 gay men. A multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the Greek version of the scale to validate the measurement model across the two groups. Findings revealed a well-fitting model with a stable factorial structure and partial measurement and scalar invariance. The four-factor solution matched the four theoretical GRC domains. However, factor loadings and scores differed between the two groups on almost all domains. Cronbach’s α reliabilities were satisfactory in both groups for both the overall scale and its subscales. Further, population and criterion validity were supported as higher GRC for both straight and gay men predicted lower relationship satisfaction. The Greek-language version of GRC-SF seems to be a valid and reliable tool for future studies.

Keywords: GRC-SF, psychometric properties, multigroup CFA, Greek straight and gay men

Gender Role Conflict (GRC) is manifested “when rigid, sexist, or restrictive gender roles lead to personal restrictions, devaluation, or violation of others or oneself” (O’Neil, 2008 as cited in O’Neil, 2015, p. 10). To assess GRC, O’Neil et al. (1986) created the Gender Role Conflict Scale that measures four domains of conflict: (a) restrictive emotional expression, called Restrictive Emotionality (RE), (b) excessive focus on success / power / competition (SPC), (c) conflict between work and family relations (CBWFR) and (d) limited emotional expression towards men, called Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men (RABBM) (Berger et al., 2005).

The four domains are key parts in GRC theory. The first domain (RE) describes men’s avoidance to express emotions and their monitoring of own emotional states, lest they appear feminine or gay (e.g., Sánchez et al., 2009; Zurbriggen, 2010). The second domain (SPC) is indicated by the attitudes to seek success and power through competition with mostly other men. CBWFR represents the inability of a person to balance personal and work life; quality of personal spare time and relationships with family and friends are undermined by an overemphasis on work and career. The last key domain is RABBM, which portrays restrictive emotional behavior towards other men, including physical contact, self-disclosure of thoughts and feelings and profound communication, again to avoid being characterized as feminine and gay (Wester et al., 2007). These domains are the consequence of men’s fear of femininity, which affects men’s interactions in various social settings (O’Neil, 2008).

The four domains are assessed using the Gender Role Conflict Scale (O’Neil et al., 1986) which includes 37 questions. Later, a short version was developed (Gender Role Conflict-Short Form; Wester et al., 2012) containing 16 questions, four per each domain. The score on both psychometric tools is assessed using the 6-point Likert scale, while the GRC-SF has been translated and validated in 20 languages, with well documented factorial validity (4-factor structure solution; e.g., Englar-Carlson & Vandiver, 2002; O’Neil et al., 1986), further established by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; e.g. Faria, 2000; Herdman et al., 2012) and from acceptable to high internal consistency with an average of good internal consistency > .80 (O’Neil, 2015).

The aim of the current analysis was to test the validity and reliability of the GRCS-SF translated in Greek in a sample of straight and gay men in separate sampling periods with one year apart. With the use of a sample of men with diverse socio-demographic backgrounds and the different sampling periods, we thus add to the literature on the psychometric properties of the GRCS-SF and tested whether population and criterion validity of the GRCS-SF can be supported. Also, with the use of multigroup CFA for the first time, we tested structural, metric and scalar invariance across straight and gay men. We tested the criterion validity by applying a multiple regression model and hypothesized that the four GRC domains will negatively predict relationship satisfaction, as measured by the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988). Relationship satisfaction has been found to be negatively correlated with GRC domains (Rochlen & Mahalik, 2004), perhaps due to low relationship cohesion (e.g., Campbell & Snow, 1992) and low levels of interpersonally expressed affect or social intimacy (e.g., Theodore & Lloyd, 2000).

Method

Participants

Straight Men

Initially, 774 participants were recruited. Twenty-one participants were excluded. Exclusion criteria consisted of Greek language difficulties, claiming a sexual orientation other than exclusively heterosexual, gender other than male, not being in a current relationship or being in a relationship that had been terminated more than 6 months prior to data collection. The final sample consisted of 753 straight men.

Gay Men

Initially, 540 participants were recruited. One hundred and three participants were excluded. Exclusion criteria were the same as for the straight men, apart from claiming a sexual orientation other than exclusively homosexual. The final sample consisted of 437 gay men.

Measures

The measures employed were the Kinsey scale, the GRC-SF, and the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS).

Kinsey Scale

The sexual orientation of the respondents was assessed through the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, more commonly known as the Kinsey Scale (Kinsey et al., 1948). The scale is a seven-point, ranging from 0 (“Exclusively heterosexual”) to 6 (“Exclusively homosexual”). Responses between 1 (“Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual”) to 5 (“Mostly homosexual and only occasionally heterosexual”) identify individuals with different levels of same-sex or opposite-sex attraction and sexual behavior in both sexes (Grollman, 2012) and thus were discarded from further analyses.

Gender Role Conflict Scale-Short Form

The Gender Role Conflict-Short Form scale (Wester et al., 2012) is based on the primary Gender Role Conflict scale (O’Neil et al., 1986). The Gender Role Conflict Scale-Short Form consists of 16 questions (out of 37 contained in the actual Gender Role Conflict scale) which are categorized into four factors (RE, SPC, CBWFR and RABBM). Responses are collected using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher gender role conflict. For the translation of the tool, we employed the forward-backward translation procedure (Brislin, 1970). The resulting Greek version was first administered to 10 male graduate students who were asked to provide feedback on the ease of understanding the items within the Greek cultural linguistic context (Swami & Barron, 2019). Any problematic items were discussed until consensus was achieved. For a detailed description of the items in Greek, see the Appendix.

Relationship Assessment Scale

The Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988) measures relationship satisfaction and consists of 7 questions (e.g., “How good is your relationship compared to most?”). Participants state their satisfaction by using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all and 5 = too much). The reliability of the scale was found satisfactory (α = .87; Graham et al., 2011). The scale has also been found to have a high correlation with self-disclosure, commitment, walk-on and altruistic love, and a low correlation with playful love (Hendrick, 1988).

Demographic Characteristics Questionnaire

Participants were asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire stating their age, gender, sexual orientation, education. Participants were also asked to answer questions about their current or most recent romantic relationship duration.

Procedure

Gay men were recruited from April to June 2018 and straight men from March to May 2019. The virtual snowball sampling technique was employed (Baltar & Brunet, 2012) via the Google Forms platform. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and were asked to fill out the informed consent form. They were assured about the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses and the right to withdraw at any time during the procedure in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013). Subsequently, they provided information on their demographics and responded to the study measures. Average participation time was 20 minutes.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using the SPSS, Version 26. For conducting the multigroup CFA analysis, a baseline model was initially created for the straight and gay samples separately, without imposing constraints on parameters, in AMOS, Version 26 (Tabachnick et al., 2007). Following assessment of fit of the baseline configural model (configural invariance), a series of constrained models was generated in which equality constraints were imposed upon error covariances, factor loadings (metric invariance) and item intercepts (scalar invariance). Metric invariance and scalar invariance were tested in separate nested models; thus, for comparison of nested models, equality constraints of previous models (e.g., factor loadings) were maintained while additional constraints (e.g., item intercepts) were added to subsequent models. For determining whether the fit of the models was good, the following fit indices and cut-off points were used: the relative/ normed chi-square (χ2/df < 3.0; Ullman, 2001), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI ≥ .95; Bentler, 1990), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ .05; Steiger, 1990), and the Bentler and Bonnet's Normed Fit Index (NFI > .95; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Concurrent validity was tested by two multiple regression models; predictors were the four GRC domains and relationship satisfaction (RS) was the criterion variable. Differences between straight and gay men were examined using an independent samples t-test and chi-square where appropriate; the reliability of the scales was tested with Cronbach’s alpha; the cross-scale correlations with the bivariate Pearson correlation analysis and with partial correlation controlling for sexual orientation. For all analyses, alpha level was set at 0.05 (5% error – 95% confidence interval).

Results

A total of 1,190 participants were included in the study. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the straight and gay men groups. Apart from age and current relationship duration, the two groups differed statistically significant in their educational level (most gay men were holding either a Bachelor or a master’s degree), cohabitation (many gay men were living alone) and duration of past relationship (32.00 ± 58.03 for straight men, 20.93 ± 31.23 for gay men).

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics Presented as Mean ± Stand. Deviation or Numbers (%)

Variable Straight men, N = 753 Gay men, N = 437 t / χ2 p
Age, years 28.75 ± 10.43 29.49 ± 9.40 -1.23 .218a
Education 22.19 .002b
Less than prim. school 3 (0.4) 0 (0)
Primary school 4 (0.5) 1 (0.2)
Junior high school 10 (1.3) 3 (0.7)
High school 89 (11.8) 38 (8.7)
After high school educ. 58 (7.7) 48 (11.0)
Bachelor’s degree 483 (64.1) 250 (57.2)
Master’s degree 89 (11.8) 80 (18.3)
PhD 17 (2.4) 17 (3.9)
Cohabitation 16.74 .002b
With parents 296 (39.3) 140 (32.0)
With partner 163 (21.6) 78 (17.8)
Alone 227 (30.1) 159 (36.4)
With flat-/roommates 44 (5.8) 45 (10.3)
None of the above 23 (3.1) 15 (3.4)
Relationship dur. (now) 58.72 ± 82.18 33.42 ± 44.01 1.13 .261a
Relationship dur. (past) 32.00 ± 58.03 20.93 ± 31.23 3.22 .001a

Note. Relationship dur. = Relationship duration.

aStudent's t-test. bChi-square test.

Validity

Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MCFA)

CFA was conducting to examine the proposed four-factor structure of the GRC-SF. Fit indices showed that the default model was a mediocre fit: χ2 = 557.41, χ2/df = 4.31, CFI = .94, NFI = .92 and an RMSEA index = .052, 90% CI [.048, .056]. To improve model fit, we proposed four inter-item errors’ covariances (Figure 1). The fit indicators for the modified model showed good data-model fit: χ2 = 184.09, χ2/df = 2.35, CFI = .97, NFI = .95 and an RMSEA index = .034, 90% CI [.030, .038]. This modified model was then used for the multigroup analyses.

Click to enlarge
ijpr.8529-f1
Figure 1

The Four-Factor Multigroup CFA Model for Straight and Gay Men

Multigroup analyses were conducted using an unconstrained-constrained approach (using the χdiff2). First, an unconstrained model was run, which allowed parameters to vary freely. This analysis was followed by examining configural, metric and scalar invariance across groups (i.e., straight and gay men) (Hoyle, 2012).

Configural Invariance

The configural invariance was examined by fitting the four-factor solution to the data for straight and gay men. In this model, the factor loadings were freely estimated; no parameter estimates were constrained to equality across groups. The data showed a good fit to the data (Table 2). All factor loadings for both groups were significant (Table 3), providing further evidence for configural invariance.

Table 2

Measurement Invariance of the GRC-SF: Model Fit Indices for the Multigroup Models: Sex. Orientation Invariance

Model / constraints χ2 df χ2/df Δχ2 Δdf CFI NFI ΔCFI RMSEA ΔRMSEA
Unconstrained 449.32 188 2.39 .96 .94 .034
Measurement weights 556.53 200 2.78 107.21* 12 .95 .92 -.01 .039 .005
Structural weights 1,286.80 216 5.96 837.48* 28 .84 .81 -.12 .065 .031
Structural covariances 1,391.61 226 6.15 939.59* 38 .83 .80 -.13 .066 .032
Measurement residuals 1,391.61 230 6.05 942.30* 42 .83 .80 -.13 .065 .031

*p < .01

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics and Standardized Factor Loadings From Baseline Models for Straight and Gay Participants (GRC-SF)

GRC-SF Straight (n = 753)
Gay (n = 437)
Factor loadings M (SD) Factor loadings M (SD)
RE
Item 1 .67*** 2.86 (1.57) .63*** 2.72 (1.46)
Item 5 .77*** 2.60 (1.55) .83*** 2.69 (1.44)
Item 9 .81*** 2.88 (1.63) .87*** 2.68 (1.53)
Item 13 .57*** 3.06 (1.57) .66*** 2.70 (1.51)
SPC
Item 2 .64*** 3.40 (1.57) .70*** 3.24 (1.45)
Item 6 .73*** 3.28 (1.58) .75*** 2.82 (1.45)
Item 10 .78*** 3.31 (1.61) .75*** 3.95 (1.52)
Item 14 .82*** 3.19 (1.65) .74*** 3.06 (1.53)
RABBM
Item 3 .40*** 2.85 (1.51) .64*** 1.69 (1.08)
Item 7 .65*** 2.93 (1.72) .77*** 2.13 (1.27)
Item 11 .74*** 2.45 (1.58) .62*** 1.52 (0.87)
Item 15 .58*** 2.29 (1.36) .70*** 2.45 (1.43)
CBWFR
Item 4 .59*** 3.44 (1.58) .60*** 3.75 (1.50)
Item 8 .74*** 3.41 (1.64) .73*** 3.11 (1.54)
Item 12 .81*** 3.58 (1.63) .76*** 3.09 (1.46)
Item 16 .69*** 3.59 (1.54) .84*** 3.56 (1.56)

***p < .001.

Metric Invariance

Next, the metric invariance was examined by constraining factor loadings to equivalence across straight and gay men groups (Table 2). The metric invariance model did not show a good fit overall, which indicates that response patterns between groups were not equivalent. Because of this, invariance testing of individual factor loadings was performed and was found that factor loadings in all factors, but SPC were different. More specifically, Item 13 (RE factor, “I do not like to show my emotions to other people”, χ2 = 4.32, p = .038), Item 8 (CBWFR factor, “Finding time to relax is difficult for me”, χ2 = 333.08, p < .001), Item 12 (CBWFR factor, “My need to work or study keep me from my family or leisure more than I would like”, χ2 = 334.70, p < .001), Item 16 (CBWFR factor, “My work or school often disrupts other parts of my life (home, health, leisure, etc.”, χ2 = 338.81, p < .001) and Item 11 (RABBM factor, “Men who touch other men make me uncomfortable”, χ2 = 39.56, p < .001) was found different between two groups. The rest of the comparisons with the unconstrained model were found invariant (p < .05) across groups.

Scalar Invariance

In the final step, equality constraints on the factor variance were added to the metric invariance model (Table 2). The factor variance invariance model again did not fit well overall, which indicated that straight and gay men groups did not yield the same range on the continuum of GRC-SF scores (ΔRMSEA = .03 and ΔCFI = -.10). Having examined the GRC-SF scale in terms of scalar invariance, we proceeded to further explore the differences between the two groups.

Differences Between Straight and Gay Men Across GRC Domains

To examine differences between straight and gay men across GRC domains, four independent samples t-tests were conducted. Across all variables, straight men scored higher than gay men with effect sizes ranging from small (.12) to high (.86). Results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Independent Samples t-Test for Differences Between Straight (N = 753) and Gay Men (N = 437)

Variable Sexual orientation
95% CI t df p d
Straight men
Gay men
M SD M SD
RE 2.85 1.26 2.70 1.21 0.01, 0.30 2.04 1188 .042 .12
SPC 3.29 1.30 3.04 1.20 0.11, 0.40 3.38 970.54 .001 .20
CBWFR 3.50 1.26 3.35 1.22 0.01, 0.30 2.02 1188 .044 .12
RABBM 2.63 1.10 1.94 0.90 0.57, 0.80 11.53 1054.63 <.001 .86

Note. CI = Confidence Interval; d = Cohen’s d.

Criterion Validity (RAS)

Concurrent Validity

Two standard multiple regression models were performed for predicting RAS to test for concurrent validity, as both the predictor and criterion data were collected at the same time, separately for straight and gay men (see Table 5).

Table 5

Standard Multiple Regression Models for Predicting RAS Score in Straight and Gay Men

Predictor Straight men
Gay men
Β SE Β β Β SE Β β
RE -0.23 .03 -.35*** -0.21 .04 -.29***
SPC -0.03 .03 -.04 -0.05 .04 -.70
CBWFR 0.05 .02 .07* < -0.01 .03 < -.01
RABBM 0.05 .03 .06 < -0.01 .05 < .01
R2 .12 .11
F 25.66*** 12.97***

Note. SEB = Standard Error of Β.

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

Standard multiple regression models showed that both models were statistically significant (Straight men: F(4, 748) = 25.66, p < .001, R2 = .12, Gay men: F(4, 432) = 12.97, p < .001, R2 = .11). However, only RE negatively predicted RAS for both straight (β = -.35, p < .001) and gay men (β = -.29, p < .001), while CBWFR only negatively predicted RAS in straight men (β = -.07, p = .045).

Reliability

Internal Consistency

Table 6 presents the Cronbach α coefficients for the four scales of GRC-SF for straight and gay men. All were found satisfactory (α > .70), while all inter-item correlations were more than .20 (p < .05).

Table 6

Cronbach's Alpha for the GRC Domain Scores

GRC domain Straight men Gay men
RE .81 .83
SPC .83 .82
CBWFR .79 .82
RABBM .70 .77

Cross-Scale Correlations

Table 7 shows that for both straight and gay men, correlation coefficients between scales were r > .19. All correlations were significant at p < .001. Table 8 shows cross–scale correlations for both groups after controlling for sexual orientation. All correlations were found significant at p < .001, indicating that GRC-SF has external validity (population), as initially hypothesized. Moreover, sexual orientation does not seem to affect the cross-scale correlations.

Table 7

Cross-Scale Correlations of the Study Variables for Each Sample Separately

Variable M SD 1a 2a 3a 4a 1b 2b 3b 4b
Straight sample
1a. RE 2.85 1.26 —
2a. SPC 3.29 1.30 .42*** —
3a. CBWFR 3.50 1.26 .23*** .26*** —
4a. RABBM 2.63 1.10 .55*** .37*** .19*** —
Gay sample
1b. RE 2.70 1.21 —
2b. SPC 3.04 1.20 .33*** —
3b. CBWFR 3.35 1.22 .16*** .21*** —
4b. RABBM 1.95 0.91 .31*** .35*** .25*** —

***p < .001.

Table 8

Cross-Scale Correlations for Both Groups After Controlling for Sexual Orientation

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
1. RE 2.79 1.24 —
2. SPC 3.20 1.27 .36*** —
3. CBWFR 3.45 1.25 .19*** .23*** —
4. RABBM 2.38 1.08 .38*** .35*** .23*** —

***p < .001.

Discussion

The current study examined the psychometric properties of the Greek translation of GRC-SF in straight and gay men. The results are in line with previous research on the validity properties of the GRCS-SF conducted in various cultural contexts (e.g., García-Sánchez et al., 2018; Komlenac et al., 2018; Levant et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). Generally, the internal structure of the four-factor model is in consonance with the original study by Wester et al. (2012). Specifically, it can be argued that the Greek version of GRCS-SF validly assesses the four different GRC domains among Greek straight and gay men (Levant et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). However, the factor loadings were not found the same. More specifically, Item 13 (“I do not like to show my emotions to other people”) seems to define more decisively the RE domain among gay men, possibly signifying a generic restriction in emotional expression resulting from an effort to minimize identity exposure, stress discrimination and its repercussions from a hostile heteronormative majority (for a detailed meta-analytic review, see Pachankis et al., 2020). Item 5 (“Men who touch other men make me feel uncomfortable”) appears to be of a greater concern among straight men as a possible threat to their straight identity and their heteronormative attitudes about manhood. Items 8 (“Finding time to relax it's difficult for me”) and 12 (“My needs to work or study keep me from my family or leisure more than I would like”) the heteronormative pressure exerted upon straight men to conform to the characteristics of the stereotypic competitive male, predominantly for increasing their mating opportunities (Gorelik & Bjorklund, 2015). Gay men seem to have a similar experience although it is more associated with their personal rather than their family life and family is being treated as merely an aspect of gay men’s general life (Item 16: “My work or school often disrupts other parts of my life (home, health, leisure, etc.)”) perhaps to avoid negative reactions including parents’ and siblings’ rejecting behavior (e.g., D’Amico & Julien, 2012; Ryan et al., 2009).

The observed covariance between errors for RABBM Items 3 and 15 and all RE items suggests that for gay men the distinction between restrictive emotionality and restrictive affectionate behavior between men is fuzzy as their sexual orientation by default requires at least some degree of emotional communication and affectionate behavior towards other men. In contrast, for straight men the distinction between RE and RABBM bears meaningful normative significance in the sense that RABBM is more likely to demonstrate their fear that showing affection to other men may be stereotypically miscast as feminine or gay.

Internal consistency of the GRC-SF was acceptable for all scales, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.70 to 0.83 for both straight and gay men. These results correspond to the values reported in the literature, concerning both straight and gay populations in different cultures (see O’Neil, 2015 for a detailed presentation of the studies). Inter-item and item-total correlations indicated that the Greek version of the tool had satisfactory population validity.

In terms of criterion (concurrent) validity, we investigated whether the GRC domains predict relationship satisfaction (RAS). Even though the overall model was found statistically significant, only RE negatively predicted RAS in both populations of straight and gay men. This finding is consistent with the relevant literature, as it has been demonstrated that GRC is negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction (Rochlen & Mahalik, 2004; Wester et al., 2005). Unexpectedly, we found that higher CBWFR predicted higher relationship satisfaction only among straight men. It should also be noted that straight men had the highest score of CBWFR among all four domains and scored higher in this domain than gay men (see Table 2). Conflict between work and family tapped by CBWFR is more intense among straight men possibly because it is more central to the definition of the normative masculine identity (e.g., Meeussen et al., 2016).

Limitations and Recommendations for the Future Studies

One of the limitations of the study is that it was conducted via Internet (virtual snowball technique). Therefore, both straight and gay men keen with digital skills and familiar with internet platforms were more likely to participate in the study (self-selection). Nevertheless, it is also very likely that a lot of the actual population of straight and gay men in the age of 18 to 40 years participating in the study are indeed familiar with the digital milieu. Our study lacks a test–retest examination of the reliability of the Greek measure with the same population, straight or gay. Albeit the stability of the measure’s structure across time in different populations (straight/ gay) implies that the measure may also possess test–retest reliability features. A stronger demonstration of the measure’s validity would be to further examine other forms of validity, such as convergent and discriminant. For example, the measure could be correlated with the Male Role Norms Inventory (McDermott et al., 2019), the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (Burns & Mahalik, 2008) and the Beliefs About Sexual Functioning Scale (Pascoal et al., 2017).

Implications and Conclusion

There is no research based on the concept of GRC in Greece. There is, however, growing concern in Greece and southern Europe about intimate partner violence and femicides perpetrated by straight men (e.g., Weil et al., 2018; Zara & Gino, 2018). Based on GRC theory and research one could argue that such phenomena are associated with uncontained high GRC (O’Neil, 2015) among the Greek male population. Moreover, recent studies on gender roles in Greece suggest that they are in transition from the more restricted traditional heteronormative masculine and feminine prototypes to more loosely defined ones (Archakis & Lampropoulou, 2015; Mahalik, 2000; Mihail, 2006; Sotiriou et al., 2011). Such transitions are likely to interfere with relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and communication between intimate partners (Closson et al., 2020; Pourshahbaz et al., 2020). Greek gay men are confronted with both homonegativity and outright prejudice that interferes with the development of their identity and the prospect of having a well-adjusted life within satisfying relationships. GRC may be one of the internalized factors responsible for their adjustment (Amorello, 2016).

Despite limitations, the Greek version of the GRC-SF can be a valid instrument for research that explores gender role changes in the Greek society. Furthermore, by providing a basic tool for research in this area, research will enlighten our understanding on the consequences of GRC for the functioning of intimate relationships and the psychological well-being of their members, straight or gay. In the long run, the empirical data of such research will encourage interventions to sensitize and educate men and women on the processes that build up gender role conflict and its psychological and interpersonal consequences.

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.

Acknowledgments

The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report.

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  • Amorello, B. (2016). An investigation of the relationships between gay identity, perceived social support, gender-role conflict, and parenting intention in childless gay men (Publication No. 2185) [Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University]. Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2185

  • Archakis, A., & Lampropoulou, S. (2015). Constructing hegemonic masculinities: Evidence from Greek narrative performances. Gender and Language, 9(1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v9i1.18348

  • Baltar, F., & Brunet, I. (2012). Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook.  Internet Research, 22(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211199960

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

  • Berger, J. M., Levant, R., McMillan, K. K., Kelleher, W., & Sellers, A. (2005). Impact of gender role conflict, traditional masculinity ideology, alexithymia, and age on men’s attitudes toward psychological help seeking. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(1), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.73

  • Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

  • Burns, S. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2008). Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory: 22 items [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t27381-000

  • Campbell, J. L., & Snow, B. M. (1992). Gender role conflict and family environment as predictors of men’s marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 6(1), 84-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.6.1.84

  • Closson, K., Hatcher, A., Sikweyiya, Y., Washington, L., Mkhwanazi, S., Jewkes, R., Dunkle, K., & Gibbs, A. (2020). Gender role conflict and sexual health and relationship practices amongst young men living in urban informal settlements in South Africa. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 22(1), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2019.1568578

  • D’Amico, E., & Julien, D. (2012). Disclosure of sexual orientation and gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths’ adjustment: Associations with past and current parental acceptance and rejection. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8(3), 215-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2012.677232

  • Englar-Carlson, M., & Vandiver, B. (2002). Comparing the dimensionality of the GRCS, MGRS, and SRES. In J. M. O’Neil & G. E. Good (Chairs), Gender role conflict research: Empirical Studies and 20 year summary. Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Faria, M. (2000). Analysis of the components of gender role conflict [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Universidad Lusofona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisboa, Mestrado de Sexologia.

  • García-Sánchez, R., Almendros, C., Gámez-Guadix, M., Martín, M. J., Aramayona, B., & Martínez, J. M. (2018). Assessment of conflicts associated with a traditional masculine gender role in Spanish college men and women. Sex Roles, 78(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0765-8

  • Gorelik, G., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2015). The effect of competition on men’s self-reported sexual interest. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1(3), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-015-0016-6

  • Graham, J. M., Diebels, K. J., & Barnow, Z. B. (2011). The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022441

  • Grollman, E. A. (2012). Multiple forms of perceived discrimination and health among adolescents and young adults.  Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146512444289

  • Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(1), 93-98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430

  • Herdman, K. J., Fuqua, D. R., Choi, N., & Newman, J. L. (2012). Gender Role Conflict Scale: Validation for a sample of gay men and lesbian women. Psychological Reports, 110(1), 227-232. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.PR0.110.1.227-232

  • Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Saunders.

  • Komlenac, N., Siller, H., Bliem, H. R., & Hochleitner, M. (2018). Validation of the internal structure of a German-language version of the Gender Role Conflict Scale–Short form. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1161. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01161

  • Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., Weigold, I. K., & McCurdy, E. R. (2015). Construct distinctiveness and variance composition of multi-dimensional instruments: Three short-form masculinity measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 488-502. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000092

  • Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Gender role conflict in men as a predictor of self-ratings of behavior on the interpersonal circle. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(2), 276-292. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.2.276

  • McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., Hammer, J. H., Borgogna, N. C., & McKelvey, D. K. (2019). Development and validation of a five-item Male Role Norms Inventory using bifactor modeling. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 20(4), 467-477. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000178

  • Meeussen, L., Veldman, J., & Van Laar, C. (2016). Combining gender, work, and family identities: The cross-over and spill-over of gender norms into young adults’ work and family aspirations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1781), Article 1781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01781

  • Mihail, D. M. (2006). Women in management: Gender stereotypes and students’ attitudes in Greece. Women in Management Review, 21(8), 681-689. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420610712054

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057

  • O’Neil, J. M. (2015). Men's gender role conflict: Psychological costs, consequences, and an agenda for change. American Psychological Association.

  • O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender-Role Conflict Scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14(5/6), 335-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287583

  • Pachankis, J. E., Mahon, C. P., Jackson, S. D., Fetzner, B. K., & Bränström, R. (2020). Sexual orientation concealment and mental health: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(10), 831-871. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000271

  • Pascoal, P. M., Alvarez, M. J., Pereira, C. R., & Nobre, P. (2017). Development and initial validation of the beliefs about sexual functioning scale: A gender invariant measure. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(4), 613-623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.01.021

  • Pourshahbaz, A., Ardebili, M. E., Dolatshahi, B., Ranjbar, H., & Taban, M. (2020). Gender role conflict: Is it a predictor of marital dissatisfaction? A cross sectional study in Tehran. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 34(1), 587-593. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.34.84

  • Rochlen, A. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Women’s perceptions of male partners’ gender role conflict as predictors of psychological well-being and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(2), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.147

  • Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346-352. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3524

  • Sánchez, F. J., Greenberg, S. T., Liu, W. M., & Vilain, E. (2009). Reported effects of masculine ideals on gay men.  Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(1), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013513

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Sotiriou, S., Ntinapogias, S., & Petroulaki, K. (2011). Attitudes on gender stereotypes and gender-based violence among youth [Country report Greece]. European Anti-Violence Network.

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4

  • Swami, V., & Barron, D. (2019). Translation and validation of body image instruments: Challenges, good practice guidelines, and reporting recommendations for test adaptation. Body Image, 31, 204-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.014

  • Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.

  • Theodore, H., & Lloyd, B. F. (2000). Age and gender role conflict: A cross-sectional study of Australian men. Sex Roles, 42(11), 1027-1042. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007088617819

  • Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (pp. 528–612). Pearson Education.

  • Weil, S., Corradi, C., & Naudi, M. (2018). Femicide across Europe: Theory, research and prevention. Policy Press.

  • Wester, S. R., Christianson, H. F., Vogel, D. L., & Wei, M. (2007). Gender role conflict and psychological distress: The role of social support. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(4), 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.8.4.215

  • Wester, S. R., Pionke, D., & Vogel, D. L. (2005). Male gender role conflict, gay men, and same-sex romantic relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.3.195

  • Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., O’Neil, J. M., & Danforth, L. (2012). Development and evaluation of the Gender Role Conflict Scale Short Form (GRCS-SF). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(2), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025550

  • World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(20), 2191-2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053

  • Zara, G., & Gino, S. (2018). Intimate partner violence and its escalation into femicide: Frailty thy name is “Violence Against Women”. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1777. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01777

  • Zhang, C., Blashill, A. J., Wester, S. R., O’Neil, J. M., Vogel, D. L., Wei, J., & Zhang, J. (2015). Factor structure of the Gender Role Conflict Scale-Short Form in Chinese heterosexual and gay samples. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 229-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036154

  • Zurbriggen, E. L. (2010). Rape, war, and the socialization of masculinity: Why our refusal to give up war ensures that rape cannot be eradicated. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 538-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01603.x

Appendix

Table A

The GRC-SF (Greek version)

No Item Domain Description – translation
Item 1 RE Talking (about my feelings) during sexual relations is difficult for me.
Είναι δύσκολο για μένα να συζητάω τα συναισθήματά μου στις σεξουαλικές μου σχέσεις.
Item 2 SPC I strive to be more successful than others
Προσπαθώ συνέχεια να είμαι πιο επιτυχημένος από τους άλλους.
Item 3 RABBM Hugging someone of the same sex is difficult for me.
Είναι δύσκολο για μένα να αγκαλιάζω κάποιον του ίδιου φύλου.
Item 4 CBWFR Overwork and stress, caused by a need to achieve on the job or in school, affects/ hurts my life
Οι υπερβολικές ώρες δουλειάς και το στρες, από την ανάγκη να πετύχω πράγματα στη δουλειά ή τη σχολή, επηρεάζουν/ βλάπτουν τη ζωή μου
Item 5 RE I have difficulty expressing my emotional needs to my partner.
Έχω δυσκολία να εκφράσω τις συναισθηματικές μου ανάγκες στον/στην σύντροφό μου.
Item 6 SPC Being smarter or physically stronger than other men is important to me
Είναι σημαντικό για μένα να είμαι πιο έξυπνος ή σωματικά ισχυρότερος από άλλους άντρες.
Item 7 RABBM Being very personal with people of the same sex makes me feel uncomfortable
Νοιώθω άβολα να μιλάω για πολύ προσωπικά πράγματα με άτομα του ίδιου φύλου.
Item 8 CBWFR Finding time to relax is difficult for me
Είναι δύσκολο να βρω ελεύθερο χρόνο για χαλάρωση.
Item 9 RE I have difficulty expressing my tender feelings
Έχω δυσκολία να εκφράσω τα τρυφερά μου συναισθήματα.
Item 10 SPC Winning is a measure of my value and personal worth
Το να κερδίζω δείχνει πόση αξία έχω και πόσο «μετράω» προσωπικά.
Item 11 RABBM Men who touch other men make me uncomfortable
Οι άνδρες που αγγίζουν άλλους άνδρες με κάνουν να νοιώθω άβολα.
Item 12 CBWFR My needs to work or study keep me from my family or leisure more than I would like.
Η ανάγκη μου να δουλεύω ή να σπουδάζω μου στερεί πολύ περισσότερο χρόνο από την οικογένειά μου από όσο θα ήθελα.
Item 13 RE I do not like to show my emotions to other people
Δεν μου αρέσει να δείχνω τα συναισθήματά μου σε άλλους ανθρώπους.
Item 14 SPC I like to feel superior to other people
Μου αρέσει να αισθάνομαι ανώτερος από τους άλλους.
Item 15 RABBM Affection with other men makes me tense.
Το να δείχνω συναισθήματα σε άλλους άνδρες μου φέρνει ένταση
Item 16 CBFWR My work or school often disrupts other parts of my life (home, health, leisure, etc).
Η δουλειά μου ή οι σπουδές συχνά παρεμποδίζουν άλλους τομείς της ζωής μου (οικογένεια, υγεία, ελεύθερο χρόνο κλπ).

Note. Translations of the four domains in Greek: Restrictive Emotionality = Περιοριστική συναισθηματικότητα; Success, Power, and Competition = Επιτυχία, Ισχύς και Ανταγωνισμός; Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men = Περιοριστική συναισθηματική συμπεριφορά μεταξύ ανδρών; Conflict Between Work and Family Relations Items = Σύγκρουση μεταξύ εργασίας και οικογενειακών σχέσεων.