A content analysis of research on masculinity ideologies using all forms of the Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI).

Abstract

Since its development in the late 1980s, the Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI) and related forms have been used in 91 studies to examine masculinity ideologies through male role norms in the United States and other countries with over 30,000 participants. The study of male role norms and masculinity ideologies has remained a prominent area of study in the psychology of men and masculinities since at least 1995. Since the last formal review of the MRNI in 2007, 2 new forms of the MRNI have been developed, including short form and adolescent versions, and various forms of the measure have been used in at least 70 additional studies. After describing the development and psychometric properties of the MRNI, this article reports the results of a content analysis of all studies on male role norms using the MRNI in all forms, describing sample demographics, methodologies, topics, and findings. Results of the present study show the MRNI has been used to investigate men's psychological, physical, and sexual health, romantic relationships, quality of friendships, and vocational decisions. The MRNI has also been utilized in examining negative attitudes toward People of Color and sexual minority and gender nonconforming men. This content analysis also highlights understudied areas such as body image, sports, religiousness/spirituality, and fatherhood. Finally, it calls for more representative samples in terms of ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, and gender diversity. Implications for clinical applications of previous findings are discussed and recommendations for further investigating male role norms and masculinity ideologies research are presented.

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

“…Although the CMNI is a multidimensional measure of 11 specific masculine norms, in the only meta-analysis of the CMNI in relationship to men’s health conducted to date, less than half of the included studies reported subscale results ( Wong et al, 2016 ). Studies of other masculinity constructs have reported similar results (e.g., Gerdes et al, 2017 ). This is notable considering that although the dimensionality of the CMNI has been established using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), it has not yet been assessed whether a more general construct corresponding to the total scale score also could be represented in the CFA model of the CMNI using either a bifactor or a hierarchical model ( Kline, 2016 ).…”

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

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

“…At least 519 studies have shown relationships between total scale scores of multidimensional measures of masculinity in men and detrimental health and well-being outcomes (for reviews, see Gerdes et al, 2017 ; O’Neil, 2008 ; Wong et al, 2016 ). However, others have identified that specific masculine norms (i.e., subscales of multidimensional measures related to masculine norms) display both positive and negative outcomes (e.g., Hammer & Good, 2010 ; Levant, Wimer, & Williams 2011 ).…”

Masculine/Instrumental and Feminine/Expressive Traits and Health, Well-Being, and Psychological Distress in Spanish Men

“…From the 1980s on, theoretical perspectives have been shifting toward the study of masculine social norms and the social construction of masculinity; in the United States, gender role conflict, gender role strain, and masculinity ideologies have stood prominently in the major theory positions and associated research (Levant & Wong, 2017). Research reviews published in the last decade generally conclude that conformity to masculine norms and gender role conflict are related to men’s psychological and interpersonal problems, which are negatively associated with men’s health and well-being (e.g., Gerdes, Alto, Jadaszewski, D’Auria, & Levant, 2018; Griffith, Gunter, & Watkins, 2012; O’Neil, 2008; Wong, Ho, Wang, & Miller, 2017), although results differed depending on the specific dimension analyzed (Gerdes & Levant, 2018; Griffith et al, 2012; Kaya, Iwamoto, Brady, Clinton, & Grivel, 2019; Wong et al, 2017).…”