4.5 Article

The relationships between masculine gender role discrepancy, discrepancy stress and men's health-related behavior

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111205

关键词

Gender roles; Health behavior; Gender identity; Masculinity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that masculine gender role discrepancy and health-related behaviors were negatively mediated by discrepancy stress, and traditional masculinity ideology moderated these effects. Men with higher traditional masculinity were less likely to exhibit positive health behaviors, while more likely to report negative mental health outcomes.
The current research aims to clarify relationships between masculine gender role discrepancy, discrepancy stress, and traditional masculine identity on men's self-reported health-related behaviors. Participants (n = 459 M-Age = 34.07 [SD =12.06]; 56.6% UK, 29.4% US, 14% Canada) recruited through Prolific Academic completed a 2-part study, which temporally separated predictor from criterion measurement. Overall, discrepancy stress negatively mediated the relationship between masculine gender role discrepancy and health behaviors including taking proactive health and safety measures, engaging in healthy social relationships, and engaging in healthy stress management practices. Higher discrepancy stress resulted in fewer positive health-related behaviors. Additionally, discrepancy stress positively mediated the relationship between masculine gender role discrepancy and deleterious mental health outcomes, wherein higher discrepancy stress resulted in more negative mental health experiences. Importantly, traditional masculinity ideology moderated these effects, such that men who were higher (vs. lower) on traditional masculinity ideology were less (vs. more) likely to report positive health-related behaviors, whereas men higher (vs. lower) on traditional masculinity ideology were more likely to report negative mental health outcomes. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据