Coursehero >> Ohio >> Case Western Reserve University >> PSCL 390

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, homework solutions, papers, exam answer keys and textbook solutions.

Roles, Sex Vol. 43, Nos. 11/12, 2000 Gender, Gender Roles, and Personality: Gender Differences in the Prediction of Coping and Psychological Symptoms Liliana J. Lengua1 University of Washington Elizabeth A. Stormshak University of Oregon College of Education Path models of the effects of gender, gender roles, and personality variables (achievement and af liation orientation, locus of control, empathy) on coping and symptoms were tested to explore the risk and protective effects of gender roles and personality on psychological symptoms, and to test whether or not gender roles or personality accounted for gender differences in coping and symptoms. In a sample of university undergraduates (35% Asian American, 59% European American or Caucasian, 6% other ethnic/racial background), masculinity predicted lower depression but higher antisocial and substance use problems, whereas femininity predicted lower antisocial and substance use problems. Personality variables did not account for the effects of gender or gender roles on coping or symptoms, but rather gender roles and personality each predicted unique variance in those variables. Signi cant gender differences in the relations among gender roles and personality emerged; however, there were no gender differences in the relations between coping and symptoms. Findings highlight the importance of studying gender differences in the effects of gender roles and personality on coping and symptoms, because it appears that gender roles and personality operate differently for males and females. 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Box 351525, Seattle, Washington 98195. 787 0360-0025/00/1200-0787$18.00/0 C 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation 788 Lengua and Stormshak INTRODUCTION Late adolescence is a critical transitional period in which individuals face a number of social changes and relationship- and achievement-related stressors (e.g., Compas, Hinden, & Gerhardt, 1995; Copeland & Hess, 1995). Particularly in the transition to young adulthood, individuals are faced with challenges of consolidating their identity, exploring career and personal directions, and forming meaningful relationships. Individuals are expected to deal with stressors more autonomously, with less direct intervention from caregivers or other adults (e.g., Blechman & Culhane, 1993; Feldman, Fisher, Ransom, & Dimiceli, 1995). During this period, there tend to be more stress-related mental health problems than in later adult years (McLanahan & Sorensen, 1985; Pearlin, 1980). Also, there is evidence for gender differences in the prevalence of psychological symptoms, with females demonstrating higher levels of depression and males demonstrating higher levels of substance use and antisocial behavior (e.g., Hilton, 1987; Myers et al., 1984; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1994). Extensive research exists to suggest that coping and personality characteristics in uence individual adaptation and the development of symptomatology. However, few studies have examined gender, gender roles, and personality as simultaneous predictors of coping and adjustment. This study addressed three general questions: 1. Do gender roles account for gender differences in coping and psychological symptoms? 2. Does personality or coping account for the relations between gender roles and symptoms? 3. Do gender roles, personality, and coping operate differently by gender in the prediction of symptoms? GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COPING Coping is believed to be an important predictor of adaptation. Effective behavioral or cognitive coping responses to stress are believed to lead to increased feelings of ef cacy and reduced levels of stress and anxiety (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1981). There is empirical evidence that coping is associated with psychological symptoms (e.g., Catanzaro, Wasch, Kirsch, & Mearns, 2000; Compas, Malcarne, & Fondacaro, 1988; Ebata & Moos, 1991; Parker, Cowen, Work, & Wyman, 1990; Tennen, Af eck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000) and substance use (McCubbin, Needle, & Wilson, 1985; Wills, 1986; Windle & Davies, 1999). In particular, coping strategies such as problem solving, cognitive decision making, or other active strategies are associated with lower levels of symptoms (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1991; Compas et al., 1988; Ebata & Moos, 1991; Glyshaw, Cohen, & Towbes, 1988; Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994; Wills, 1986), whereas avoidant strategies are associated with Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 789 higher levels of symptoms (e.g., Armistead, et al., 1990; Blalock & Joiner, 2000; Causey & Dubow, 1991; Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone, & Mudar, 1992; Gomez, 1998a; Wills, 1986). Thus, different coping strategies appear to be more or less adaptive ways of dealing with stress. Gender differences in use of coping strategies have been reported in a number of studies. In general, ndings suggest that females appear to favor social support, emotion-focused, and avoidant coping strategies relative to males (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1981; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Ptacek, Smith, & Zanas, 1992; Stein & Nyamathi, 1999; Stone & Neale, 1984), whereas, males appear to favor stress release through other activities and tend to more often turn to drugs or alcohol relative to females (e.g., Bird & Harris, 1990; Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987; Stein & Nyamathi, 1999). There are inconsistent ndings regarding gender differences in the use of problem-focused or active-coping strategies. Some studies suggest that males use problem-focused strategies more often than women (e.g., Brems & Johnson, 1989; Stone & Neale, 1984); some indicate women use them more than men (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1981; Ptacek, Smith & Dodge, 1994 ); whereas others nd no differences (e.g., Hamilton & Fagot, 1988). Although research suggests gender differences in coping, it may be that gender-role orientation and related personality dimensions, rather than gender itself, account for gender differences in coping. Gender differences in coping may re ect socialization differences in which men are expected to be more independent, instrumental, and ambitious, whereas women are expected to be emotional, supportive, and dependent, as re ected in traditional gender-role orientations (Ptacek et al., 1994). Findings indicate that genderrole orientation, that is, masculinity and femininity, predict types of coping strategies used (e.g., Hobfoll, Dunahoo, Ben-Porath, & Monnier, 1994; Nezu & Nezu, 1987; Ptacek et al., 1994). For example, one study found that neither gender nor feminine gender role predicted coping strategies, whereas, masculine gender role did. Both men and women who were high on masculinity engaged in more active-behavioral coping and less avoidant coping than individuals low on masculinity (Nezu & Nezu, 1987). Another study did not nd that gender-role orientation completely accounted for gender differences in coping. Gender predicted use of support-seeking and emotion-focused strategies, with women using those strategies more often. Masculinity predicted additional variance in emotion-focused coping, over and above gender, with higher masculinity related to less use of emotion-focused coping. Femininity was related to greater use of problem-focused coping over and above gender (Ptacek et al., 1994). Thus, although gender-role orientation may partially account for gender differences in coping, other variables may be important mediators of this relation. 790 Lengua and Stormshak It has been argued that the constructs of masculinity and femininity are actually composed of other personality dimensions. For example, it is possible that gender-role orientation re ects an individual s tendency toward instrumentality, dominance, achievement orientation, locus of control, expressivity, nurturance, af liation, or empathy (e.g., Brown, 1983; Gaeddert, 1985; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Spence, 1983; Tellegen & Lubinski, 1983). For example, masculinity may be composed of the related personality constructs of instrumentality, achievement orientation, and internal locus of control (e.g., Halvari, 1996; Robbins, Spence, & Clark, 1991). In fact, such personality variables may be particularly important in determining an individual s adjustment during college age years because greater autonomy is expected, career decisions are at the forefront, and the establishment of meaningful relationships is a major developmental task (e.g., Compas et al., 1995). Thus, any relation between gender roles and coping or symptoms may be accounted for by these other personality variables rather than masculinity or femininity, per se. Achievement orientation may predispose an individual to view a stressor or problem as something to be overcome and may increase the likelihood that active-coping strategies will be employed, whereas af liation orientation may be related to greater use of social support coping (e.g., Santiago-Rivera, 1991). Holding an external locus of control may lead to greater use of cognitive or avoidant coping because an individual would be less likely to perceive her or his efforts to address the problem as having an impact (e.g., Gomez, 1998b; Horner, 1996; Parkes, 1994; Sandler, Kim-Bae, & MacKinnon, 2000). Empathy may lead to greater use of social support coping (e.g., Rim, 1995). However, further exploration of the interrelations among gender roles, personality, and coping is needed. This study investigated whether or not gender roles accounted for gender differences in coping, and whether or not related personality variables accounted for gender-role differences. Above, it was noted that there are inconsistent ndings with regard to gender differences in active and problem-focused coping. Such inconsistencies may be due to inconsistencies in the types of coping strategies assessed. Coping efforts have been traditionally categorized into two types: problemfocused coping, which are efforts aimed at altering the situation or environment (e.g., direct problem solving); and emotion-focused coping, which involves efforts to manage or reduce emotional distress (e.g., positive reframing and avoidance; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Moos & Billings, 1982). Empirical evidence suggests that problem-focused coping is associated with lower levels of psychological symptoms (e.g., Compas et al., 1988; Glyshaw et al., 1989; Wills, 1986), whereas emotion-focused coping is associated with higher levels of symptoms (e.g., Compas et al., 1988; Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1989; Wills, 1986). However, the latter nding is misleading because these Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 791 broad categories of coping efforts often combine diverse strategies that may actually operate differently. For example, emotion-focused coping typically has included coping strategies such as positive reframing of the situation, which may be an adaptive strategy, and denial and cognitive avoidance, which may be maladaptive strategies (Glyshaw et al., 1989). These may differ not only in their function but also in their association with symptoms (e.g., Armistead et al., 1990; Ayers, Sandler, West, & Roosa, 1996; Glyshaw et al., 1989). Thus, it is essential to distinguish both the focus of the strategy (problem- or emotion-focused) and whether the strategy is expected to be adaptive or maladaptive. Observed gender differences in coping may be clari ed by separating functionally distinct dimensions of coping. For example, one study found that, although there was no gender difference in the use of active coping, women were more prosocial than men in their coping, that is, women made more positive use of social resources and took a social perspective rather than individual perspective. On the other hand, men were more likely to use antisocial or aggressive coping. In addition, gender-role orientation predicted types of coping strategies used, with nontraditional gender-role orientation predicting greater use of prosocial, active-coping strategies, and traditional gender-role orientation predicting antisocial and passive-coping strategies (Hobfoll et al., 1994). Thus, the dimensions of coping assessed appear to impact ndings on gender differences in coping, and the present study assessed dimensions that were expected to be functionally distinct and uniformly related to symptoms. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS Gender may be related not only to coping preferences, but also to the types of psychological symptoms that appear. It is possible that symptom expression is determined directly by gender-role orientation, accounting for gender differences in the prevalence of different problems. It was originally proposed that androgyny, that is, high levels of both masculinity and femininity, would be related to better psychological adjustment, and there was some evidence that supported this (e.g., Bem, 1974; Payne, 1987). Other evidence has shown that masculinity, not androgyny, is related to better adjustment (e.g., Lubinski, Tellegen, & Butcher, 1983; Massad, 1981; Orlofsky & O Heron, 1987). One problem with this research is that it has used predominantly internalizing outcomes (i.e., depression, anxiety, self-esteem), which are symptoms with higher prevalence in women, to test these hypotheses. Masculinity has been shown to be related to higher levels of substance use (e.g., Huselid & Cooper, 1992; Zedlow, Clark, & Daugherty, 1985), and may predict higher levels of antisocial behavior (e.g., Payne, 1987), although the 792 Lengua and Stormshak evidence is inconsistent. In addition, femininity may act as a protective factor, reducing the likelihood of externalizing problems (e.g., Lubinski et al., 1983; Payne, 1987). Thus, under conditions of stress, when higher levels of symptoms can emerge, gender-role orientation may determine the speci c symptoms that may emerge. It has been argued that agency, which refers to a focus on the individual and self-promotion (characteristically masculine ), and communion, which refers to group participation and the creation of connections (characteristically feminine ), have both positive and negative consequences. However, the negative consequences are associated with unmitigated agency or communion to the exclusion of the other (cf. Helgeson, 1994). Thus, neither masculinity nor femininity is a uniformly positive trait. An important question in understanding gender differences in symptoms is whether or not there are gender differences in how coping relates to symptoms. There are two approaches to this question. The rst is whether or not gender or gender-role differences in the use of speci c coping strategies account for gender differences in the prevalence of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, as has been proposed (e.g., Blechman & Culhane, 1993; Cooper et al., 1992; Ptacek et al., 1992). In this hypothesized model, the effects of gender or gender role on symptoms may be mediated by coping. Thus, a person s gender or gender-role orientation may lead to a style of coping that either protects an individual from developing certain symptoms or increases the likelihood of a certain symptom. For example, a person high in femininity may be more likely to use avoidant coping strategies, which may increase the likelihood of depression, whereas a person high in masculinity may be more likely to use problem-focused strategies, which may lead to lower levels of depression. Some studies have suggested that coping strategies endorsed more often by females, such as use of social support, emotion-focused coping, and rumination, may be related to higher levels of depression seen in women (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, 1994; Nolen-Hoeksema, Larson, & Grayson, 1999). The second approach to the question of gender differences in coping and symptoms is whether or not different coping strategies relate differently to symptoms for men and women, that is, whether or not gender moderates the relation between coping and symptoms. In other words, different strategies may be more or less effective for men and women. Because men are socialized to be more independent and women are socialized to be more social, men and women may be more or less effective in using emotionfocused or social support coping strategies. For example, Feldman et al. (1995) found that men who used traditionally female coping strategies of turning to religion and turning to friends, showed more adjustment problems than women who used the same strategies. In another study, avoidant coping predicted drug use among men, but not women (Stein & Nyamathi, Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 793 1999). In sum, although there is speculation that gender differences in coping account for gender differences in the prevalence of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, there has been little research to clarify the nature of these relations. THIS STUDY In an effort to better understand gender differences in coping and psychological symptoms, it may be important to take into account gender roles and personality variables. Taken together, gender roles, personality, and coping may clarify gender differences in the rates of depression, antisocial behavior, and substance use. Two related issues were discussed in the literature reviewed above: rst, whether or not gender roles and related personality factors predict coping, and second, whether or not these factors account for patterns of psychological symptoms that occur in males and females. A number of questions arise from the literature including whether or not gender roles or related personality variables account for gender differences in coping; whether or not gender roles or related personality variables account for gender differences in symptom expression; and whether or not gender differences in the use of coping strategies account for differences in symptom expression, or alternatively, whether or not the relation of coping to symptoms is moderated by gender. The present study sought to clarify these relations and investigate potential gender differences in the prediction of coping and symptoms by exploring the following questions: 1. Do gender roles account for gender differences in coping and psychological symptoms? Questions of whether or not gender roles accounted for gender differences in coping (Model 1a, see Fig. 1(a)) and symptom expression (Model 1b) were explored using path models in structural equations modeling. Also, we explored whether or not individual differences in personality dimensions of achievement, af liation, locus of control, and empathy accounted for the effects of gender roles on coping (Model 2a, see Fig. 1(b)). 2. Does personality or coping account for the relations between gender roles and symptoms? Using path models, we tested whether or not individual differences in personality dimensions (Model 2b) or coping (Model 3b) accounted for the relations between gender roles and symptoms. Support for these models would imply that gender roles are not directly related to symptomatology, but rather indirectly predict symptoms through personality and coping. 3. Do gender roles, personality, and coping operate differently by gender in the prediction of symptoms? We sought to determine whether Fig. 1. Sequential path models estimated to test the prediction of coping by (a) gender and gender roles, (i.e., Model 1a); and (b) gender, gender roles, and personality (i.e., Model 2a). Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 795 or not the relations of gender roles and related personality variables operated differently for males and females in predicting coping and symptoms. Cross-group path models were used to test whether or not gender moderated the relations of gender roles and personality variables to coping and symptoms. The moderating effect of gender on the relation between coping and symptoms was also tested to assess the possibility that, although there may be few gender differences in the use of coping strategies, different strategies will be differentially effective for males and females, relating differently to symptoms as a result. Cross-group path analyses were used to test these questions as well. We attempted to clarify previous research results by investigating speci c dimensions of coping styles rather than using global dimensions that may combine distinct coping strategies that may differ for men and women. METHOD Participants Participants in this study were 250 undergraduates at the University of Washington, representing a subset of the total sample of 270. Twenty participants who were older than 25 years of age were excluded from the present sample to focus the study on late adolescence and early adulthood. The mean age of participants was 18.8 years (range = 17 25 years), and 56% of the participants were women (females = 141, males = 109). The ethnic or racial composition of the sample was 1% African American, 1% American or Alaskan Native, 35% Asian American, 59% European American or Caucasian, 1% Hispanic or Latino, and 3% students of other ethnic/racial background. Participants volunteered for the study and received extra credit in their lower division psychology courses in exchange for participation. Procedures The participants completed a set of self-report coping, personality, and symptom measures in group sessions. Prior to administering the questionnaires, informed consent was obtained from all participants. Questionnaires were administered by the study authors using standardized, written instructions to groups of approximately 20 students of the same gender to avoid possible in uence of the presence of members of the other gender in responses to sensitive questions. All measures were administered in a paper and pencil format. Participants responded to the questionnaires anonymously. 796 Lengua and Stormshak Measures Gender Roles Gender roles were assessed using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) in which respondents are asked to rate the degree to which each of 60 adjectives are descriptive of them using a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (Never or Almost Never) to 7 (Always or Almost Always). Twenty items each comprise the masculinity and femininity subscales (20 items are ller items). In the current study Masculinity and Femininity scores were calculated as the mean of the items on each subscale, and the internal consistencies for Masculinity and Femininity were .86 and .75, respectively. Personality Achievement and Af liation Orientation were assessed using an adaptation of the NachNaff Scale (Lindgren, 1976) which consists of 56 adjectives, 27 intended to assess Achievement Orientation and 29 intended to assess Af liation Orientation. In the current study, participants rated the degree to which each adjective was descriptive of them using a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (Never or Almost Never) to 7 (Always or Almost Always). Summary scores were calculated as the mean weighted sum of the items on each subscale, and the internal consistencies for Achievement Orientation and Af liation Orientation in our sample were .89 and .91, respectively. Locus of Control was assessed using the 29-item forced-choice Rotter s Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966, 1975), which includes 6 ller items. The summary score was calculated as the sum of the 23 internal external control items, scored such that a higher score re ects a stronger external expectancy. In the current study the internal consistency reliability for this scale was .76. Empathy was assessed using 14 items that comprise the Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern subscales of the Davis (1983) empathy measure. These subscales have been shown to be moderately correlated, and combined demonstrate test-retest reliabilities ranging from .62 to .71 and internal consistency reliabilities ranging from .71 to .77. The internal consistency reliability in the current study was .83. Coping Style Coping style was assessed using the 53-item COPE scale (Carver et al., 1989) which has 14 coping subscales. Respondents rated the extent to which they tend to use each coping strategy when they have a problem using a Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 797 4-point Likert scale, from 1 (I usually don t do this at all) to 4 (I usually do this a lot). We sought to reduce the number of variables included in the analyses by combining coping subscales into higher-order coping dimensions; however, the higher-order coping dimensions suggested in the original scale development for the COPE combines coping subscales that may be functionally different for males and females (e.g., seeking instrumental support is considered problem-focused coping, and seeking emotional support is considered emotion-focused coping) or may be differentially related to symptoms (e.g., emotion-focused coping included positive reinterpretation, which may be an adaptive strategy and negatively associated with symptoms, and denial, which may be a maladaptive strategy and positively associated with symptoms). The suppression of competing activities, turning to religion, focus on and venting of emotions, and restraint subscales were excluded in the present study because the theoretical expectations of the direction of associations with personality and symptom dimensions were unclear. The alcohol drug disengagement subscale (1 item) was excluded as a result of its potential overlap with the alcohol/substance use outcome measure. Thus, the summary scores of the remaining 9 subscales, calculated as the mean weighted sum of the items on each subscale, were submitted to a principal component analysis with varimax rotation in order to combine the subscales into higher-order factors. A four-component model resulted with Active Coping (factor loading = .85) and Planning (.86) composing one factor that we labeled Active Coping; Acceptance (.81) and Positive Reinterpretation (.66) composing the second factor labeled Positive Cognitive Coping; Seeking Instrumental Social Support (.81) and Seeking Emotional Social Support (.91) composing the third factor labeled Support Seeking; and Denial (.82), Behavioral Disengagement (.77), and Mental Disengagement (.82) composing the fourth factor labeled Avoidant Coping. None of the factor cross loadings exceeded .30. The variables were well accounted for by the four components, with communality estimates ranging from .68 to .84. In this study the internal consistency reliabilities were .86 for Active Coping, .77 for Positive Cognitive Coping, .89 for Support Seeking, and .79 for Avoidant Coping. Symptoms Measures of depression, antisocial behaviors, and substance use were obtained in this study. Depression was assessed using the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961). Estimates of reliability of .78 have been found in a university population (e.g., Bumberry, Oliver, & McClure, 1978), and in the current study, the internal consistency reliability was .90. 798 Lengua and Stormshak Antisocial Behavior was assessed using a 12-item checklist of illegal activities and antisocial behaviors common in late adolescents and college students (e.g., minor in possession of alcohol, vandalism or property destruction, trouble with police, stealing, physical ght, or assault). For each item, respondents indicated whether they engaged in the behavior during the previous 3 months or in the previous 2 years. The responses for the 3 month time frame were used in this study, and the internal consistency reliability for this measure was .68. Alcohol and Substance Use were assessed using a combination of two scales, the Adolescent Alcohol Involvement Scale (AAIS; Mayer & Ligman, 1989), which assesses the quantity and frequency of alcohol use, and the Alcohol Use and Misuse Scale (Diehlman, Shope, Butchart, & Campanelli, 1986), which assesses negative consequences associated with alcohol use. In the current study, parallel questions regarding use of other substances (marijuana, cocaine, and heroin) were added to the measure. Items from both scales for both alcohol and other substances were summed. In the current study, the internal consistency reliability of the overall measure was .87. RESULTS Overview of Analyses First, mean differences in the study variables were explored. Next, we explored the relations among the study variables using path analyses in EQS, which provides an estimate of the goodness-of- t of a model to the data. The adequacy of each model was assessed using chi-square and Bentler s (1990) Comparative Fit Index (CFI; values greater than .90 are considered to be adequate). First, the effects of gender and gender roles on coping were tested (Model 1a, see Fig. 1(a)), followed by a test of whether or not the measured personality variables account for the effects of gender or gender roles on coping (Model 2a, see Fig. 1(b)). These models were tested for consistency across gender, with a direct test for gender differences in the components of the model. Next, the relations of gender, gender roles, and related personality variables to psychological symptoms were tested to assess whether or not gender roles or personality variables account for gender differences in symptoms (Model 2b, see Fig. 2). This was followed by a test of whether or not coping accounts for the relations between gender roles and symptoms (Model 3b, see Fig. 3). Finally, tests of whether or not gender moderates the relations of gender roles, personality, and coping to symptoms were conducted using cross-group tests in structural modeling. To test gender differences in structural models, sequential tests based on a hierarchy of importance and theoretical interest regarding the parameters Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 799 Fig. 2. Path model estimated to test the prediction of symptoms by gender, gender roles, and personality (i.e., Model 2b). have been recommended (Alwin & Jackson, 1981). Invariance across groups of the (1) covariance structure, (2) structural matrix (structural paths), (3) variance covariance matrices of exogenous variables, (4) variance covariance matrices of endogenous variables, and (5) variance covariance matrices of residuals were sequentially tested. To assess group differences, the chi-square difference between the path model with the relevant parameters constrained to be equal across groups and the model with those same parameters estimated separately across groups provided an overall test of group differences. Modi cation indices (Wald-test statistic) were used to identify the parameters that contributed the signi cant difference in order from greatest to smallest, and parameters were sequentially freed until the overall chi-square difference test was no longer signi cant. Gender Differences in Study Variables Means and standard deviations for all study variables for males and females are presented in Table I. 800 Lengua and Stormshak Table I. Descriptive Statistics of Study Measures for Females and Males Females M Gender Role Masculinity Femininity Personality Achievement Af liation Externality Empathy Coping Active coping Positive cognitive Avoidance Support seeking Symptoms Depression Antisocial Substance use 4.61 4.97 5.02 5.39 10.88 56.41 22.92 22.07 20.37 24.29 7.49 0.39 12.73 SD 0.70 0.51 0.57 0.53 4.44 6.44 4.91 4.03 5.03 5.68 8.11 0.92 9.12 Males M 5.14 4.88 5.00 5.28 10.81 51.40 22.72 22.07 20.15 20.50 7.63 0.69 14.29 SD 1.95 1.85 0.60 0.59 4.26 8.97 4.53 4.92 4.94 5.33 7.50 1.29 9.69 t test, probability t (248) = 3.02, p < .01 ns ns ns ns t (248) = 5.67, p < .001 ns ns ns t (248) = 5.42, p < .001 ns t (248) = 2.23, p < .05 ns Note. N (females) = 141, N (males) = 109. Fig. 3. Path model estimated to test the prediction of symptoms by gender, gender roles, and coping (i.e., Model 3b). Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 801 Gender roles. There was no mean gender difference for femininity, whereas males mean on masculinity was signi cantly greater than females mean. Personality. There were no gender differences on achievement orientation, af liation orientation, or external locus of control. Females mean on empathy was signi cantly greater than the mean for males. Coping. There were no gender differences on active coping, positive cognitive coping, or avoidant coping. Females mean on social support coping was signi cantly greater than the mean for males. Symptoms. There were no gender differences on depression or substance use. Males mean on antisocial behavior was signi cantly greater than the mean for females. Antisocial behavior was the only variable for which there was a signi cant gender difference in the variances for males and females, with a standard deviation of 1.33 and 0.93 for males and females, respectively. Intercorrelations Among Study Variables The intercorrelations among the study variables for males (above diagonal) and females (below diagonal) are presented in Table II. There were large correlations among the masculinity, femininity, achievement orientation, and af liation orientation variables, although they differed for males and females, as noted later. However, the remaining correlations were modest to moderate in magnitude, indicating the gender roles, personality, and coping variables were related but not overlapping. Fisher s r-to-z transformation was used to test for signi cant differences between correlations for males and females. Because of the large number of tests (n = 78) a Bonferroni correction was used in the identi cation of signi cant differences. Thus, only differences achieving a probability less than or equal to .001 are noted. The correlation between masculinity and femininity differed for males (.91) and females ( .01), as did the correlation between masculinity and achievement (.13 for males and .72 for females). The correlation between femininity and af liation differed for males (.15) and females (.75). Finally, femininity was negatively correlated with empathy for males ( .32) but positively correlated with empathy for females (.39). These differences led to expectations that the path models would differ across gender, and thus, all path models were to be tested for consistency across gender. Predictors of Coping The effects of gender, gender roles, and personality on coping were tested sequentially, in order to determine whether or not the effects of gender 802 Table II. Intercorrelations Among Study Measures for Males (Above Diagonal) and Females (Below Diagonal) 3 .13 .10 .11 .15 .47 .46 .27 .12 .15 .51 .41 .13 .05 .11 .46 .14 .17 .29 .30 .14 .04 .13 .01 .06 .23 .14 .13 .13 .17 .24 .19 .24 .05 .39 .13 .09 .14 .03 .61 .31 .17 .22 .28 .41 .17 .45 .07 .04 .01 .04 .30 .40 .14 .41 .22 .07 .09 .10 .02 .02 .09 .11 .17 .11 .19 .10 .18 .23 .21 .03 .27 .10 .19 .22 .04 .12 .02 .03 .42 .07 .08 .12 .01 .16 .38 .32 .23 .52 .01 .30 .33 .08 .21 .09 .02 .01 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .01 .03 .13 .40 .26 .28 .10 .14 .43 .07 .03 .04 12 13 .04 .02 .12 .04 .10 .08 .19 .10 .12 .06 .11 .05 .10 .10 .05 .04 .26 .04 .18 .28 .33 .24 .46 .38 Lengua and Stormshak 1 2 1. Masculinity 2. Femininity 3. Achievement 4. Af liation 5. Externality 6. Empathy 7. Active coping 8. Positive cognitive 9. Avoidance 10. Support seeking 11. Depression 12. Antisocial 13. Substance use .01 .72 .32 .25 .09 .38 .16 .40 .12 .35 .12 .15 .91 .17 .75 .11 .39 .03 .11 .04 .28 .01 .07 .12 Note. N (females) = 141, N (males) = 109. Bolded values are signi cantly different across gender. Two-tailed signi cance tests; p < .05. p < .01. p < .001. Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 803 or gender roles were accounted for by other personality variables. Then gender differences in these associations were explored. Standardized regression coef cients from the path models are presented in Table III. Gender First, only the direct effect of gender on coping was tested, and this path model demonstrated a poor t to the data ( 2 (6) = 58.42, CFI = .33). Gender was coded as 1 (female) and 2 (male), and was related signi cantly only to social support coping (B = .32, t = 5.57, p < .01), the negative correlation indicating that males used social support coping less than females. Gender and Gender Roles (Model 1a) The next model tested the simultaneous effects of gender, masculinity, and femininity, each controlling for the other two, on coping (see Fig. 1a). This model tests whether or not gender roles account for the associations between gender and coping. The model demonstrated a good t to the data ( 2 (6) = 47.80, CFI = .90). When the simultaneous effects of gender, masculinity, and femininity were tested, the relation of gender to active coping became signi cant and indicated that males used less active coping (B = .16, z = 2.26, p < .05). As this re ects a suppressor effect, it should be interpreted cautiously. Controlling for masculinity and femininity, gender continued to be signi cantly related to social support coping, with males using less social support coping, indicating that gender roles did not account for this gender difference. Masculinity signi cantly predicted more active coping and less avoidant coping, whereas, femininity predicted less active coping and more avoidant coping. Gender differences in this model were tested using the sequential tests suggested by Alwin and Jackson (1981) described above. The variance covariance matrix of the model was tested for invariance across gender using Box s M test, which was signi cant (Box s M = 283.19, F(21, 244631) = 13.16, p < .001). Given that the omnibus test detected differences in the variance covariance matrices of observed variables, the model was probed further. The differences across gender were accounted for by differences in the matrix of path coef cients (Beta Matrix, 2 difference (8) = 33.80, p < .001). Modi cation indices (Wald-test statistic) suggested that the overall difference was accounted for by the following associations: the path coef cient from femininity to social support coping differed for females and males, with femininity positively related to social support coping in females (B = .72), but unrelated to social support coping in males (B = .03). 804 Table III. Standardized Regression Coef cients From Path Models of Gender, Gender Roles and Personality Predicting Coping and Symptoms Model 1 Model 2 Gender, gender roles, personality Achiev Af l. Extern. Emp. .21 .05 .07 .34 .15 N/A .92 .77 .18/ .65 Model 1a P.C. .02 .08 .33 .20 .38 N/A .12 .08 .30 .26 .18 .02 .08 .11 .32 .00 Avoid. S.S. Active P.C. Model 2a Avoid. .02 .33 .39 S.S. .29 .04 .07 .04 .18 .09 .05/.28 .11 .40 .16 .14 .09 .08 Active .15 .62 .17 .37/ .58 .39 .35 .09/ .53 .11 .39/.16 .24 N/A Model 3 Gender, gender roles, coping Gender and gender roles Predictors of personality Gender Gender roles Masculinity Femininity Model 3a P.C. .02 .12 Avoid. .08 S.S. .31 Predictors of coping Active Gender Gender roles Masculinity .16 .63 Femininity .46 .01 .81/ 28 .52 .09 .48 .13 .07/ 59 .72/.03 .46 .01 .81/ 28 .52 .10 .48 .13 .07/ 59 .72/.03 N/A Personality Achievement Af liation .15 .28/.01 .04 Lengua and Stormshak External locus of control Empathy Model 1b Antisoc. .08 .25 .04 .10 .45 .30 .05 .26 N/A .28 .07 N/A .18 .09 .39 .02 .30 .40 .40 .30 .27 .76/.15 .29 .35 .46 .37 .38 .40 .03 .03 .04 .03 .00 .11 .09 Sub. Use Depress. Antisoc. Sub. Use Depress. Antisoc. Sub. Use Model 2b Model 3b Predictors of symptoms Depress. Gender Gender roles Masculinity .07 Femininity Personality Achievement Af liation .07 .10 .48/ .21 .14 .08 .10 .02 .36/ .28 .11 .10 N/A Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping .25 .74/.14 .18 External locus of control Empathy Coping Active Positive cognitive Avoidance Support seeking .01 .05 .24 .19 .08 .01 .07 .25 Note. Coef cients are standardized regression coef cients. Bolded values are moderated by gender, with common-metric, completely standardized regression coef cient for females and males, respectively, below. Achiev: Achievement; Af l.: Af liation; Extern.: Externality; Emp.: Empathy; Active: Active coping; P.C.: Positive cognitive; Avoid.: Avoidance; S.S.: Support seeking; Depress.: Depression; Antisoc.: Antisocial; Sub. Use: Substance use. p < .05. 805 806 Lengua and Stormshak Masculinity was more strongly negatively related to avoidant coping for females (B = .81) than for males (B = .28). Also, femininity was unrelated to active coping in females (B = .07), whereas it was negatively related to active coping in males (B = .59). Gender, Gender Roles, and Personality (Model 2a) The next model tested whether or not the effects of masculinity and femininity on coping could be accounted for by other personality factors. The model included gender, masculinity, and femininity as exogenous variables, achievement orientation, af liation orientation, locus of control, and empathy as mediating variables, and coping variables as endogenous or outcome variables (see Fig. 1b), and demonstrated a moderate t to the data ( 2 (12) = 180.02, CFI = .84; see Fig. 4). Gender, controlling for masculinity and femininity, signi cantly predicted achievement orientation with females being lower than males. Gender also predicted empathy with males lower than females. Gender continued to predict social coping, support with males reporting less social support coping than females, indicating that the Fig. 4. Gender, gender roles, and personality predicting coping (i.e., Model 2a). Note. Bolded paths are moderated by gender. See Table III for path coef cients for females and males separately. Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 807 personality variables did not account for this difference. Masculinity was related signi cantly to higher levels of achievement orientation, lower levels of external locus of control, and lower levels of empathy. Femininity significantly predicted lower levels of achievement orientation and higher levels of af liation orientation. The personality variables included in the model partially accounted for the effects of gender roles on coping as the magnitude of the effects were reduced, but nonetheless remained signi cant. Masculinity continued to predict higher levels of active coping and lower levels of avoidant coping. In addition, the path from masculinity to positive cognitive coping became signi cant. Femininity continued to predict lower levels of active coping and higher levels of avoidant coping. The personality variables also predicted coping. Achievement orientation signi cantly predicted higher levels of active coping and lower levels of avoidant coping. Af liation orientation signi cantly predicted higher levels of social support coping. External locus of control predicted higher levels of avoidant coping. Empathy signi cantly predicted higher levels of active and positive cognitive coping, and lower levels of avoidant coping. The Box s M test for overall gender differences in the variance covariance matrix of this model was signi cant (Box s M = 481.94, F(55, 211825) = 8.41, p < .001). Sequential tests for probing signi cant differences indicated that the differences were accounted for by differences in the matrix of path coef cients ( 2 difference (32) = 294.56, p < .001). The overall difference was accounted for by the following associations: Femininity was positively related to achievement orientation for females (B = .18), but negatively related to achievement orientation for males (B = .65). Masculinity was positively related to af liation orientation for females (B = .37), but negatively related to af liation orientation for males (B = .58). Femininity was more strongly related to empathy for females (B = .39) than for males (B = .16). Masculinity was negatively related to empathy for males (B = .53), but the relation between masculinity and empathy was weak and positive for females (B = .09). Achievement orientation was negatively related to avoidant coping for females (B = .28), but achievement orientation was unrelated to avoidant coping for males (B = .01). Finally, af liation orientation was unrelated to positive cognitive coping for females (B = .05) but positively related for males (B = .28). Predictors of Psychological Symptoms The effects of gender, gender roles, coping, and personality on symptoms were tested sequentially, to determine whether the effects of gender or 808 Lengua and Stormshak gender roles on symptoms were accounted for by the personality or coping variables. Then gender differences in these models were explored. Standardized regression coef cients from the path models are presented in Table III. Gender and Gender Roles (Model 1b) A model of the direct, independent effects of gender, masculinity and femininity on depression, antisocial behavior, and substance use was tested, and demonstrated a moderate t to the data ( 2 (3) = 58.22, CFI = .85). Controlling for gender roles, gender was not signi cantly related to any of the symptom variables, indicating that gender roles accounted for the gender difference in antisocial behavior. Masculinity was related signi cantly to lower levels of depression and higher levels of both antisocial behavior and substance use. Femininity was related to lower levels of antisocial behavior and substance use. Gender differences in this model were tested, and there were signi cant overall gender differences in the variance covariance matrix (Box s M = 270.31, F(15, 254563) = 17.65, p < .001). Differences in this model were accounted for by gender differences in the matrix of path coef cients ( 2 difference (6) = 17.07, p < .01). The overall difference was accounted for by the following association: there was a strong negative relation between masculinity and depression for females (B = .74), whereas the relation was positive but modest for males (B = .14). Gender, Gender Roles, and Personality (Model 2b) The next model tested whether the relations between gender roles and symptoms could be accounted for by personality variables. The model included gender, masculinity, and femininity as exogenous variables, achievement and af liation orientations, external locus of control, and empathy as mediating variables, and depression, antisocial behavior, and substance use as endogenous or outcome variables (see Fig. 2), and demonstrated a poor t to the data ( 2 (9) = 306.26, CFI = .63) suggesting this model does not adequately reproduce the observed covariance matrix. The personality variables did not account for the effects of gender roles on symptoms, that is, the associations between gender roles and symptoms remained largely the same after controlling for personality. Af liation orientation predicted lower levels of depression. External locus of control predicted higher levels of depression and antisocial behavior. Signi cant gender differences in the variance covariance matrix of variables included in this model (Box s M = 479.97, F(45, 208526) = 10.27, Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 809 p < .001) were accounted for by the differences in the matrix of path coef cients ( 2 difference (26) = 301.71, p < .001), with the difference in the relation of masculinity to depression described above, as well as some differences in the relations between personality variables and symptoms. Af liation orientation was related to higher levels of antisocial behavior (B = .48) and substance use (B = .36) in females, whereas af liation was related to lower levels of antisocial behavior (B = .21) and substance use (B = .28) in males. Gender, Gender Roles, and Coping (Model 3b) The next model tested whether the relations between gender roles and symptoms could be accounted for by coping. The model included gender, masculinity, and femininity as exogenous variables, active, positive cognitive, avoidant, and social support coping as mediating variables, and depression, antisocial behavior, and substance use as endogenous or outcome variables (see Fig. 3), and demonstrated a moderate t to the data ( 2 (9) = 91.20, CFI = .85; see Fig. 5). Coping variables only partially accounted for the Fig. 5. Gender, gender roles, and coping predicting symptoms (i.e., Model 3b). Note. Bolded paths are moderated by gender. See Table III for path coef cients for females and males separately. 810 Lengua and Stormshak relations between gender roles and symptoms. After including the coping variables, the relation between masculinity and depression decreased in magnitude and was no longer signi cant. The relations among masculinity, femininity, antisocial behavior, and substance use remained essentially the same. Active coping was related signi cantly to lower levels of depression, whereas avoidant coping was related signi cantly to higher levels of depression and antisocial behavior. Social support coping was related signi cantly to higher levels of antisocial behavior and substance use. Signi cant gender differences in the variance covariance matrix of variables included in this model (Box s M = 318.99, F(45, 208526) = 6.83, p < .001) were accounted for by the differences in the matrix of path coef cients ( 2 difference (26) = 60.61, p < .001), with the difference being in the relations of masculinity and femininity to coping and symptoms described above. Coping variables were not differentially related to symptoms across gender. DISCUSSION This study explored the relations among gender roles, personality, coping, and symptoms, and tested gender differences in these relations. The results of this study suggest that gender roles are important predictors of personality, coping, and symptoms, and that gender roles, personality, and coping individually and in combination predict psychological symptoms. Importantly, gender-role orientations are not uniformly positive or negative, as masculinity was related to lower depression but higher externalizing, and femininity was related to higher depression but lower externalizing. Also, gender roles and personality operate quite differently for males and females, which suggests that these variables have different meaning or social implications across gender. First, the relations among gender roles, personality, and coping are discussed, followed by a discussion of the distinct pattern of associations among the variables for males and females. Relations Among Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping Independent Effects of Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping It was proposed that the personality and coping variables might account for the relations among gender, gender roles, and symptoms, but this was not supported. A notable nding of this present study was that, although masculinity and femininity were related to personality and coping variables, these variables did not fully account for the associations of gender roles to Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 811 outcomes, and gender roles, personality, and coping each contributed unique variance to symptom outcomes. This suggests that there may be additive effects of gender roles, personality, and coping on symptoms. Also, each factor may represent a protective or risk factor for different symptoms, and thus, the pattern of gender role and personality factors would predict the type of symptoms an individual may develop. For example, masculinity is related to lower levels of external locus of control and more active coping, which in turn, are related to lower levels of depression, whereas, femininity is related to lower levels of externalizing problems. Thus, an individual s pro le on these variables would determine if she or he would be likely to develop depression, antisocial behavior, substance use problems, or all three. However, many of these relations are conditioned by gender, as discussed later. It is important to note that achievement and af liation orientations were strongly related to masculinity and femininity. In fact, both measures used in this study were adjective lists, and several of the adjectives on the achievement and af liation measures overlapped with adjectives on the gender-roles measures (cf. Tellegen & Lubinski, 1983). Nonetheless, the relations of these variables with other variables were not completely overlapping, because the personality variables did not fully account for the relations between gender roles, coping, and symptoms. Thus, there are unique components of these dimensions that must be clari ed. There has been debate over the labeling of gender-role constructs. Many argue that use of gender-role stereotype labels of masculinity and femininity mask the constructs actually being assessed, such as instrumentality and nurturance (e.g., Spence, 1983) or agency and communion (cf. Helgeson, 1994). Although aspects of these constructs overlap, there may be unique aspects of the masculinity and femininity constructs that warrant further exploration. Gender Roles as Predictors of Personality, Coping, and Symptoms Gender roles predicted personality factors and coping behaviors. Gender roles were also directly related to symptom outcomes. Masculinity signi cantly predicted higher levels of achievement orientation, active and positive cognitive coping and lower levels of external locus of control, avoidant coping, and depression. This pattern of relations is consistent with ndings that masculinity is related to lower depression and higher self-esteem (e.g., Massad, 1981; Orlofsky & O Heron, 1987). It is interesting to note that the relation between masculinity and depression was accounted for by active coping. The protective effect of masculinity on depression may be due to the increased likelihood of approaching problems directly (cf. Nolen-Hoeksema, 812 Lengua and Stormshak 1994). Masculinity also predicted higher levels of antisocial behavior and substance use, which indicates that masculinity is not uniformly positive and may be a risk factor for externalizing problems. Femininity predicted higher levels of af liation orientation and avoidant coping, and lower levels of achievement orientation, active coping, antisocial behavior, and substance use. Although some of these relations appear theoretically inconsistent (e.g., femininity predicts more avoidant coping but also lower levels of antisocial behaviors), the relations are clari ed when other variables and gender differences are taken into account, as discussed below. The results of this study point to the importance of investigating both internalizing and externalizing problems. Extensive evidence from past studies indicates that masculinity is related to lower levels of symptoms, but those studies have primarily focused on internalizing problems such as depression and low self-esteem. The results of this study lend further support to the notion that femininity operates as a protective factor for externalizing problems of antisocial behavior and substance use (e.g., Lubinski et al., 1983; Payne, 1987). The nding that masculinity predicts lower internalizing and femininity predicts lower externalizing is consistent with Bem s notion of androgyny being related to better mental health (Bem, 1974; Payne, 1987). There has been mixed support for this hypothesis, and the protective effects of androgyny were typically attributed to the effects of masculinity (e.g., Lubinski et al., 1983; Massad, 1981; Orlofsky & O Heron, 1987). However, when both internalizing and externalizing problems are considered simultaneously, being high in both masculinity and femininity would be protective in terms of overall well-being. In addition, it is argued that being extreme in either masculinity (unmitigated agency) or femininity (unmitigated communion) to the exclusion of the other is problematic for mental health, whereas, when masculinity and femininity are balanced, they both promote positive aspects of mental health (Helgeson, 1994). Personality Variables as Predictors of Coping and Symptoms The personality variables studied also predicted coping and symptoms. Achievement orientation predicted higher levels of active coping and lower levels of avoidant coping. A high achievement orientation may increase the likelihood of a person viewing a stressor as something to be overcome, and therefore dealt with directly. Af liation orientation predicted lower levels of depression. This effect was independent of social support coping, which was unrelated to depression. Perhaps adolescents who indicated a greater tendency towards af liation also were more emotionally connected to their peers, thus less depressed. External locus of control predicted more avoidant Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 813 coping and higher levels of depression and antisocial behavior, which is consistent with previous ndings (e.g., Gomez, 1998b; Hahn, 2000; Horner, 1996; Parkes, 1994; Presson & Benassi, 1996). Empathy predicted higher levels of active and positive cognitive coping, and lower levels of avoidant coping, but was not directly related to symptom outcomes. Coping and Symptoms The relations between coping and symptoms were consistent with previous research that shows that active coping predicts lower levels of symptoms, and avoidant coping predicts higher levels of symptoms (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1991; Compas et al., 1988; Ebata & Moos, 1991). In the present study, positive or adaptive cognitive (emotion-focused) strategies, such as acceptance and positive reframing, were separated from avoidant cognitive strategies, such as repression and denial, which helps to clarify previous ndings that emotion-focused coping is related to higher levels of symptoms. Active coping was related to lower levels of depression. Avoidant coping was related to higher levels of depression and antisocial behavior. Social support coping was related to higher levels of antisocial behavior and substance use. This is consistent with other ndings that social support from peers is not necessarily protective in adolescents. In fact, peer group af liation in late adolescence may have iatrogenic effects, as adolescents promote substance use and antisocial behavior in the peer context (e.g., Dishion & Andrews, 1995). Social support coping may consist of obtaining advice about how to solve a problem (instrumental support), may involve venting or ruminating, or may not be directly related to problems at all. Adolescents may spend time with friends when they have a problem or stressor as a distraction from their problem. Especially in college students, this time with friends may be spent engaging in antisocial-like behaviors (e.g., drinking), accounting for the positive association. Gender Differences in the Relations Among Gender Roles, Personality, and Symptoms Gender differences in the models tested indicate that gender role and personality variables operate differently, sometimes in the opposite manner, in predicting coping and symptoms in females and males. These differences may re ect the different social meanings of the constructs for females and males, or it may re ect different mechanisms for males and females when characteristics are traditionally conventional or unconventional. First, the 814 Lengua and Stormshak different patterns of relations for gender roles and personality indicate that these constructs have different social meanings or mechanisms of in uence for males and females. For example, it has been proposed that achievement orientation has different meanings for men and women. For males, achievement is indicated by extrinsic factors, such as success at work. Men may view achievement as a means to an end involving assertion and dominance. For females, achievement orientation may be intrinsic, a process of meeting one s internal goals or standards (e.g., Gaeddert, 1987; Piedmont, DiPlacido, & Keller, 1989). Females may also consider having good relationships and acting prosocially as achievements. For example, in this study femininity was related to higher levels of achievement in females, whereas it was related to lower levels of achievement orientation in males. As another example, af liation in women may re ect social success, dominance, and in uence, whereas in men it may re ect dependency or neediness (e.g., Mullis & McKinley, 1989; Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). In this study we found that masculinity was related to higher levels of empathy in females, but lower levels of empathy in males; femininity was related to higher levels of af liation orientation in females, but lower levels of af liation orientation in males; and femininity was also related to higher levels of social support seeking in females, but was unrelated to support seeking in males. These differences may be explained by the possibility that females experience social reinforcement for turning to friends when they have a problem, whereas males may experience criticism for not dealing with problems independently (c.f. Barbee et al., 1993). Thus, although femininity was positively related to af liation orientation, which was in turn positively related to social support seeking for both males and females, femininity was positively related to support seeking only in females. Males who are high in femininity may have a higher af liation orientation, but do not appear to use more support seeking. Alternatively, gender role and personality variables may operate differently for males and females depending on whether the behavior is conventional or unconventional for one s sex (e.g., Huselid & Cooper, 1992). Being high in masculinity for a male or high in femininity for a female would be conventional, whereas, high masculinity in a female or high femininity in a male would be unconventional. Unconventional characteristics may have different implications for males and females and may be functionally different as a result. For example, based on traditional roles, masculinity would be expected to relate to lower levels of af liation orientation, whereas femininity would be expected to relate to lower levels of achievement orientation. In the present study, these expected relations were found in males, but not females. Femininity was positively related to achievement orientation Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 815 for females, but negatively related to achievement orientation for males; masculinity was positively related to af liation orientation for females, but negatively related to af liation orientation for males. Also, it has been hypothesized that femininity is related to less adaptive forms of coping. This was true for males but not females, as femininity was unrelated to active coping in females, but related to less active coping in males. Thus, the traditionally expected relations among gender roles, personality and, coping may depend on whether the characteristics are conventional or unconventional for one s sex. One nding was inconsistent with ndings of previous studies, namely, that masculinity was related to higher levels of depression in males. This was true only when the effect of femininity was taken into account, suggesting a suppressor effect of femininity, because the zero-order correlation between masculinity and depression is near zero. The effect may be an artifact of the high correlation between masculinity and femininity for males (r = .91). In the path models, the effects of masculinity are unique effects above the effects of gender and femininity, and this may be less meaningful for the male sample given the high correlation between masculinity and femininity. Thus, this relation should be interpreted cautiously. It is important to note that coping did not operate differently for men and women. That is, when an individual reported that a coping strategy was employed, it had the same relation with symptoms regardless of the individual s gender. Also, there were no gender differences in the levels of use of the coping strategies, except for social support coping. Many studies have identi ed gender differences in the use of coping strategies (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1981; Carver et al., 1989; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Ptacek et al., 1992; Stein & Nyamathi, 1999; Stone & Neale, 1984); however, some have not (e.g., Hamilton & Fagot, 1988). Gender differences in use of coping strategies and in the effectiveness of different strategies have been proposed, but the results of this study do not support either of these models. When gender roles and personality variables are taken into account, there appear to be no differences in the use or effectiveness of coping across gender. The lack of differences may be related to how coping was assessed in the present study. Rather than investigate a broad dimension of emotion-focused coping, we investigated positive cognitive and avoidant strategies separately. Also, it should be noted that gender differences in coping may be accounted for by the situation or context of coping (e.g., achievement vs. relationship situation; Hobfoll et al., 1994) and differences in the types of stressors encountered by men and women (e.g., Banyard & Graham-Bermann, 1993; Billings & Moos, 1981). The female and male participants in the present study may experience more similar contexts and stressors as a result of their shared 816 Lengua and Stormshak college experience, which may minimize gender differences that may exist in different populations, as noted below. Limitations Although a goal of the study was to account for gender differences in coping and symptoms, some differences typically found in the population were not present. Lack of gender differences on most of the study variables may be the result of the homogeneous nature of a sample of university undergraduates (e.g., San lipo, 1994). It is recognized that an undergraduate sample may be distinct from the general population in their levels of gender-role conventionality, achievement orientation, and other personality variables. For example, in a study that compared women across the life span and in various roles (e.g., students, career women, and homemakers), female college students were more independent, open, and less stereotypically feminine (Mellinger & Erdwins, 1985). Thus, the relations among gender roles, personality, and coping should be studied in a representative community sample. On the other hand, although generalizability of these ndings may be limited, use of an undergraduate sample provides a relatively homogenous context of achievement. This is useful in exploring gender differences because context may account for some observed gender differences (e.g., Banyard & Graham-Bermann, 1993; Frieze, Sales & Smith, 1991). Nonetheless, conclusions about gender differences in the relations between coping and depression are limited. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study lead to several important conclusions. First, both masculinity and femininity can be protective factors in relation to symptoms when both internalizing and externalizing symptoms are taken into account. However, neither masculinity nor femininity is uniformly positive, in that they predict less adaptive personality qualities, coping styles, and symptoms, as well. Also, it is important to note that gender roles, personality, and coping all predict symptoms independently, and personality and coping do not necessarily account for the effects of gender roles. Thus, the complex associations among these variables must be taken into account when trying to understand the development of psychological symptoms. Finally, gender roles and personality operate differently for males and females, with the relations being inconsistent with traditional expectations for females. Thus, it is important to study gender role and personality processes separately for men and women. Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 817 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the participants of this study, Ronald Smith for his contribution to the writing of this paper, and Lisa Costleigh, Teresa Grothe, and Scott Mingus for their assistance with the project. REFERENCES Alwin, D. F., & Jackson, D. J. (1981). Applications of simultaneous factor analysis to issues of factorial invariance. In D. J. Jackson & E. F. Borgotta (Eds.), Factor analysis and measurement in sociological research (pp. 249 280). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Armistead, L., McCombs, A., Forehand, R., Wierson, M., Long, N., & Fauber, R. (1990). Coping with divorce: A study of young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 79 84. Ayers, T. S., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., & Roosa, M. (1996). A dispositional and situational assessment of children s coping: Testing alternative models of coping. Journal of Personality, 64, 923 958. Barbee, A. P., Cunningham, M. R., Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Gulley, M. R., Yankeelov, P. A., & Druen, P. B. (1993). Effects of gender role expectations on the social support process. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 175 190. Banyard, V. L., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (1993). A gender analysis of theories of coping with stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 303 318. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. E., & Erbaugh, J. K. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561 571. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155 162. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 163 172. Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139 157. Bird, G. W., & Harris, R. L. (1990). A comparison of role strain and coping stratgies by gender and family structure among early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 141 158. Blalock, J. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2000). Interaction of cognitive avoidance coping and stress in predicting depression/anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 47 65. Blechman, E. A., & Culhane, S. E. (1993). Aggressive, depressive and prosocial coping with affective challenges in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 361 382. Brems, C., & Johnson, M. E. (1989). Problem-solving appraisal and coping style: The in uence of sex-role orientation and gender. Journal of Psychology, 123, 187 194. Brown, R. (1983). Locus of control and sex-role orientation of women graduate students. College Studies Journal, 17(1), 10 12. Bumberry, W., Oliver, J., & McClure, J. (1978). Validation of the Beck Depression Inventory in a university population using psychiatric estimates as the criterion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 150 155. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267 283. Catanzaro, S. J., Wasch, H. H., Kirsch, I., & Mearns, J. (2000). Coping related expectancies and dispositions as prospective predictors of coping responses and symptoms. Journal of Personality, 68, 757 788. Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1991). Development of a self-report coping measure for children. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in Seattle, April 1991. Compas, B. E., Hinden, B. R., & Gerhardt, C. A. (1995). Adolescent Development: Pathways and processes of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 265 293. 818 Lengua and Stormshak Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988). Coping with stressful events in older children and young adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405 411. Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., Frone, M. R., & Mudar, P. (1992). Stress and alcohol use: Moderating effects of gender, coping and alcohol expectancies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 139 152. Copeland, E., & Hess, R. S. (1995). Differences in young adolescents coping strategies based on gender and ethnicity. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 203 219. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113 126. Diehlman, T. E., Shope, J. T., Butchart, A. T., & Campanelli, P. C. (1986). Prevention of adolescent alcohol misuse: An elementary school program. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11, 259 282. Dishion, T. J., & Andrews, D. W. (1995). Preventing escalation in problem behaviors with highrisk young adolescents: Immediate and 1-year outcomes. Special Section: Prediction and prevention of child and adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 538 548. Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 33 54. Feldman, S. S., Fisher, L., Ransom, D. C., & Dimiceli, S. (1995). Is What is good for the goose, good for the gander? Sex differences in relations between adolescent coping and adult adaptation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 333 359. Frieze, I. H., Sales, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Considering the social context in gender research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 371 392. Gaeddert, W. P. (1985). Sex and sex role effects on achievement strivings: Dimensions of similarity and difference. Journal of Personality, 53, 286 334. Gaeddert, W. P. (1987). The relationship of gender, gender-related traits, and achievement orientation to achievement attributions: A study of subject-selected accomplishments. Journal of Personality, 55, 687 710 Glyshaw, K., Cohen, L. H., & Towbes, L. C. (1989). Coping strategies and psychological distress: Prospective analyses of early and middle adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 607 623. Gomez, R (1998a). Impatience-aggression, competitiveness and avoidant coping: Direct and moderating effects on maladjustment among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 649 661. Gomez, R. (1998b). Locus of control and avoidant coping: Direct, interactional and mediational effects on maladjustment in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 325 334. Hahn, S. E. (2000). The effects of locus of control on daily exposure, coping and reactivity to work interpersonal stressors: A diary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 729 748. Halvari, H. (1996). Personality and educational choice of general versus vocational studies among 16- to 19-year-olds. Psychological Reports, 78, 1379 1388. Hamilton, S., & Fagot, B. I. (1988). Chronic stress and coping styles: A comparison of male and female undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 819 823. Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412 428. Hilton, M. E. (1987). Demographic characteristics and the frequency of heavy drinking as predictors of self-reported drinking problems. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 913 925. Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, Y., & Monnier, J. (1994). Gender and coping: The dual-axis model of coping. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22(1), 49 82. Horner, K. L. (1996). Locus of control, neuroticism, and stressors: Combined in uences on reported physical illness. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 195 204. Huselid, R. F., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Gender roles as mediators of sex differences in adolescent alcohol use and abuse. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 348 362. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Gender Roles, Personality, and Coping 819 Lindgren, H. C. (1976). Measuring need to achieve by n Ach-n AFF Scale: A forced-choice questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 39, 907 910. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, femininity and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 428 439. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Massad, C. M. (1981). Sex-role identity and adjustment during adolescence. Child Development, 52, 1290 1298. Mayer, J. E., & Ligman, J. D. (1989). Personality characteristics of adolescent marijuana users. Adolescence, 24, 965 976. McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 919 928. McCubbin, H. I., Needle, R. H., & Wilson, M. (1985). Adolescent health risk behaviors: Family stress and adolescent coping as critical factors. Family Relations, 34, 51 62. McLanahan, S. S., & Sorensen, A. B. (1985). Life events and psychological well-being over the life course. In G. H. Elder, Jr. (Ed.), Life course dynamics: Trajectories and transitions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mellinger, J. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (1985). Personality correlates of age and life roles in adult women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 503 514. Moos, R. H., & Billings, A. G. (1982). Conceptualizing and measuring coping resources and processes. In L. Goldberg & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 212 230). New York: The Free Press. Mullis, R. L., & McKinley, K. (1989). Gender role orientation of adolescent females: Effects on self-esteem and locus of control. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 506 516. Myers, J. K., Weissman, M. M., Tischler, G. L., Holzer, C. E., Leaf, P. J., Orvaschel, H. A., Anthony, J. C., Boyd, J. H., Burke, J. E., Kramer, M., & Stoltzman, R. (1984). Six-month prevalence of psychiatric disorders in three communities: 1980 1982. Archives of General Psychiatry, 41, 959 967. Nezu, A. M., & Nezu, C. M. (1987). Psychological distress, problem solving, and coping reactions: Sex role differences. Sex Roles, 16, 205 214. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1994). An interactive model for the emergence of gender differences in depression in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 519 534. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining the gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1061 1072. Orlofsky, J. L., & O Heron, C. A. (1987). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex-role trait and behavior orientations: Implications for personal adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1034 1042. Parker, G. R., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Wyman, P. A. (1990). Test correlates of stress resilience among urban school children. Journal of Primary Prevention, 11, 19 35. Parkes, K. R. (1994). Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes: Models, methods and measures. Special Issue: A healthier work environment. Work and Stress, 8, 110 129 Patterson, J. M., & McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping styles and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescence, 10, 163 186. Payne, F. D. (1987). Masculinity, femininity, and the complex construct of adjustment. Sex Roles, 17(7/8), 359 374. Pearlin, L. I. (1980). Life strains and psychological distress among adults. In N. J. Smelser & E. H. Erikson (Eds.), Themes of work and love in adulthood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2 21. Piedmont, R. L., DiPlacido, J., & Keller, W. (1989). Assessing gender-related differences in achievement orientation using two different achievement scales. Journal of Personality, 53, 229 238. 820 Lengua and Stormshak Presson, P. K., & Benassi, V. A. (1996). Locus of control orientation and depressive symptomatology: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 201 212. Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., & Dodge, K. L. (1994). Gender differences in coping with stress: When stressor and appraisal do not differ. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 421 430. Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., & Zanas, J. (1992). Gender, appraisal, and coping: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality, 60, 747 770. Rim, Y. (1995). Coping styles, impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 159 160. Robbins, A. S., Spence, J. T., & Clark, H. (1991). Psychological determinants of health and performance: The tangled web of desirable and undesirable characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 755 765. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1 28. Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56 67. Sandler, I. N., Kim-Bae, L. S., & McKinnon, D. (2000). Coping and negative appraisal as mediators between control beliefs and psychological symptoms in children of divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 336 347. Sandler, I. N., Tein, J. Y., & West, S. G. (1994). Coping, stress, and the psychological symptoms of children of divorce: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Child Development, 65, 1744 1763. San lipo, M. (1994). Masculinity, femininity, and subjective experiences of depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 144 157. Santiago-Rivera, A. L. (1991). Af liation and achievement central issues as determinants of appraisal and coping: Gender differences in responses to stressful events. Dissertation Abstracts, Wayne State University. Spence, J. T. (1983). Comment on Lubinski, Tellegen and Butcher s Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 440 446. Stein, J. A., & Nyamathi, A. (1999). Gender differences in relationships among stress, coping, and health risk behaviors in impoverished minority populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 141 157. Stone, A. A., & Neale, J. M. (1984). New measure of daily coping: Development and preliminary results. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 892 906. Tellegen, A., & Lubinski, D. (1983). Some methodological comments on labels, traits, interaction, and types in the study of Femininity and Masculinity : Reply to Spence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 447 455. Tennen, H., Af eck, G., Armeli, S. Carney, M. A. (2000). A daily process approach to coping: Linking theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 55, 626 636. Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., & Feldstein, M. (1989). Stressful experiences, temperament, and social support: Impact on children s behavior symptoms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 487 503. Wills, T. A. (1986). Stress and coping in early adolescence: Relationships to substance use in urban school samples. Health Psychology, 5, 503 529. Windle, M., & Davies, P. T. (1999). Depression and heavy alcohol use among adolescents: Concurrent and prospective relations. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 823 844. Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Af liation motivation and daily experience: Some issues on gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 154 164. Zedlow, P. B., Clark, D., & Daugherty, S. R. (1985). Masculinity, femininity, Type A behavior, and psychosocial adjustment in medical students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 481 492.

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents: