The Chinese Gender Role Stress Scales

Abstract

The present study aimed at examining the factor structure and predictive validity of the translated Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS) and Feminine Gender Role Stress (FGRS) scales in samples of Chinese college students and professionals (N = 482). Consistent with previous research, our results supported the theoretical assumption that stressors associated with gender role behaviors were sex-specific, and Chinese men generally scored higher on the MGRS factors but lower on the FGRS factors than Chinese women. Compared to professionals, students had higher scores on both Gender Role Stress (GRS) scales. The MGRS factors predicted somatic complaint and anxiety, whereas the FGRS factors predicted social dysfunction. Results of confirmatory factor analyses rejected a five-factor structure for the two Chinese GRS scales. Based on exploratory factor analyses, a more parsimonious three-factor solution was identified for each GRS scale. The revised three-factor GRS scales compared favorably with the original five-factor GRS scales in internal consistency, interfactor correlations, and prediction of psychological distress. The major discrepancy between the original and revised factor structure was related to the prediction of depressogenic symptoms. In sum, our suggested that the two GRS constructs were useful in the Chinese context, and the revised three-factor structure provided a viable alternative to the original five-factor structure.

Mental Symptoms in Different Health Professionals During the SARS Attack: A Follow-up Study

“…In general, when coping with stress, Chinese tend to deny depression or express it somatically [36,37]. Especially, men tend to have more frequent somatic complaints and anxiety, whereas most women tend to have more frequent social dysfunction [38]. However, this possible gender confounding factor was eliminated for both regression and SEM analysis showed that the impact of gender on mental health was minimal.…”

“Boy Crisis” or “Girl Risk”? The Gender Difference in Nonsuicidal Self-Injurious Behavior Among Middle-School Students in China and its Relationship to Gender Role Conflict and Violent Experiences

“…The Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS) ( Eisler & Skidmore, 1987 ) and Feminine Gender Role Stress (FGRS) ( Gillespie & Eisler, 1992 ) scales were developed to measure the stress that men and women adapt to in their gender roles, which could be used to measure the gender role conflicts among both genders. It was indicated in existing research that the two scales were applied across different countries including United States, the Netherlands, Poland, and China and with diverse populations including middle-school students, college students, and adults, and the reliability and validity of the two scales were confirmed ( Tang & Lau, 1996 ; Van Well, Kolk, & Arrindell, 2005 ; Kazmierczak, 2010 ; Young, 2012 ).…”

Assessment of gender-related traits, attitudes, roles, norms, identity, and experiences.

“…In these samples, confirmatory factor analyses did not indicate acceptable fit for the hypothesized five-factor (Tang & Lau, 1996;van Well et al, 2005). On the basis of principal axis factor analysis of data from Chinese women and men, Tang and Lau (1996) suggested three factors for the MGRS (i.e., Performance Failure, Inferiority, and Emotional Inexpressiveness) and the FGRS (i.e., Inadequacy, Unassertiveness, and Victimization), but these models did not fit acceptably in the Dutch sample (van Well et al, 2005). In the Chinese and Dutch samples, Cronbach's alphas approximated the low 0.70s and 0.80s for MGRS and FGRS subscale items and the low 0.90s for scale items.…”

“…Both the MGRS and the FGRS have been translated and used with Chinese and Dutch women and men (Tang & Lau, 1995van Well, Kolk, & Arrindell, 2005). In these samples, confirmatory factor analyses did not indicate acceptable fit for the hypothesized five-factor (Tang & Lau, 1996;van Well et al, 2005). On the basis of principal axis factor analysis of data from Chinese women and men, Tang and Lau (1996) suggested three factors for the MGRS (i.e., Performance Failure, Inferiority, and Emotional Inexpressiveness) and the FGRS (i.e., Inadequacy, Unassertiveness, and Victimization), but these models did not fit acceptably in the Dutch sample (van Well et al, 2005).…”

“…However, a number of important areas for further investigation remain. Specifically, in light of some mixed support for differences between women's and men's scores (Tang & Lau, 1996;van Well et al, 2005), research is needed to evaluate the degree to which this class of measures assesses gender-specific conflict or stress. Relatedly, college men's GRCS and MGRS scores were found to overlap with Big Five personality dimensions and these personality dimensions, most typically neuroticism, mediated the links of GRCS and MGRS subscale scores with a number of mental health criterion variables (Tokar, Fischer, Schaub, & Moradi, 2000).…”