Research Article | Open Access

Development and Validation of Gender Role Strain Scale for Men

    Hana Arshad

    Department of Applied Psychology, Lahore College for Women University, Pakistan.

    Sarah Shahed

    Department of Psychology, Forman Christian College (A Chartered University), Pakistan.

19 Feb, 2020
02 Mar, 2021
31 Mar, 2021

The main objective of present study was to develop an indigenous scale of Gender Role Strain Scale for Men (GRSS-M). Initially, an inclusive list of 33 items was compiled through conducting semi-structured interviews with one psychiatrist and three clinical psychologists, and performing a focus group with men. Ten experts were approached for content validity of GRSS-M and a list of 31 items was arranged after excluding two items. The Pilot Study (Phase 1) was carried out on a sample of 35 men from different professions, which revealed that GRSS-M items were easily comprehendible. In Phase 2, factor analysis was executed employing a sample of 400 men. Twenty five items were finalized with four emerging factors including Familial and Social Pressures, Marital Life Pressures, Financial Pressures, and Workplace Pressures with adequate alpha coefficients. The internal consistency of total GRSS-M was also found to be satisfactory. In Phase 3, psychometric properties of GRSS-M were established on sample of 200 men. The convergent validity of GRSS-M with Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987) and discriminant validity of GRSS-M with Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) were acquired in desired direction. Significant mean differences were found through method of contrasted groups. The newly developed GRSS-M found to be a valid instrument with sound reliability for gauging role strain among Pakistani men.

Gender role strain is a pressure, burden or stress experienced by people while trying to meet the expected standard of behaviors associated with their gender (Pleck, 1995). Gender roles are the expected behaviors attached with the gender of an individual. These roles are deeply tied to gender stereotypes (masculinity and femininity) and are culturally distinct attitudes, behaviors, and principles. These roles are society made; therefore, these can be transformed and renewed over times. Both men and women experience role strain, however, the nature and magnitude of strain might be different. Both genders come across and fight for the promotion of equality in gender roles, unless there are significant changes in their attitudes, perceptions, and practices (Ruxton, 2004). For example, a study by Lou, Gilmour, Kao, and Huang (2006) found that men increase their commitment in the family to compensate for the women’s absence, as they work outside home and have limited time for home. As a result, having multiple roles, as opposed to merely single key role, needs to balance the burdens of these roles for both genders (Johansson, Huang, & Lindfors, 2007). The stress and strain experienced by women is usually highlighted and is examined more frequently. Little attention is paid to the pressures that men might experience, especially, in patriarchal societies.

Men have different expectations to follow gender roles for their existence in a community. Problems arise when these specific roles cannot be satisfied. For instance, a man’s role in a society is to be a bread-winner for the family members and, even in the age of the ‘new man’, the relationship of paid employment to male identity remains strong (Haywood & AnGhaill, 2003). If a jobless man becomes internalized by this view, the consequence will be male gender role strain. The more he suppresses the cultural norms of masculinity, the more role strain (negative affect) is encountered when these norms cannot be fulfilled. All men conform to societal roles through ideologies of masculinity and stick to defined stereotypical behaviors on all circumstances. The most significant and old psychological theories of gender role consist of gender schema theory (Bem, 1981) and social role theory (Eagly 1987). Role theory postulates that social expectations about an individual’s position in society build conformity to a particular role as well as its associated functions (father, son, engineer, etc). By the means of variety of implicit or explicit rewards, accomplishment of such roles is enhanced (Parsons & Bales, 1998). Likewise, another theory of role strain presented by Bowman (2006) describes masculinity as a prominent stressor in several stages of men’s lives, performances, behaviours, and financial conditions.

On the other hand, the concepts and theories of role strain were not incorporating the social and cultural views of gender roles (Robertson, 2009). In addition, Levant and Richmond (2007) supported and adopted the gender role strain theory that it is strongly affected by predominant gender philosophies which differ in terms of traditional background and social setting. Many people lived their lives within the limitations of these attached behaviors, which might cause difficulty, distress, and strain on them. The freedom, supremacy, and power that men enjoy might have negative fall outs too.

Previous researches have revealed that prolonged stress, severity of role strain, depression, anxiety, and lower self-esteem are correlated with worse psychological and physical health of men (Burns, & Machin, 2013; Griffith, Gunter, & Allen, 2011; Hayes & Mahalik, 2000; Rummell & Levant, 2014; Wiernik et al., 2014). Gender role strain may possibly be an influential component in such men suffering from anger, negative thoughts, and mood swings due to adherence of gender roles in a community (Hunt, Lewars, Emslie, & Batty, 2007). Eagly, Wood, and Diekman (2000) found that gender role strain can vary regarding education, age, marital status, financial aids along with authority and dominance in family and neighbors. Individuals from low socioeconomic status encounter more pressure and stress (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

Pakistan is primarily patriarchal society; and young men have a lot of burden and pressure to build confidence, complete their studies, acquire skills, and achieve success in their profession. The heads of family are mostly men and a subordinate position in authority is given to women (Ali et al., 2011). Poverty, unemployment, and political instability are some of social measures that effect Pakistani men’s physical, social, and psychological health. The economic report of Pakistan (2015-2016) has found almost 39 percent of Pakistanis live in multidimensional poverty (UNDP Pakistan, 2016) adding burden to men’s shoulder. However, at the same time, Pakistani men’s understanding and perceptions of women’s role restricts women’s independence and empowerment (Isran & Isran, 2012).

Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974), Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987), Male Role Norms Inventory (Levant et al., 1992), and Male Role Attitude Scale (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993) are some of the foreign scales that evaluate personality attributes, norms, personal characteristics, and gender role related situations that are stressful for a specific gender. However, these measures do assume reliability and record adherence (Wetherell & Edley, 2014) but, these scales do not measure the degree of gender role strain in men specifically. On the other hand, for example, Male Role Norms Inventory (adolescent version) used these items: ‘When the going gets tough, boys should get tough’, ‘A boy should prefer football to sewing’. These items have multiple meanings and understandings for participants (Shepard, Nicpon, Haley, Lind, & Liu, 2011).

The gender role strain paradigm supported that masculinity norms differ across generations, segments of community and cultures. In general, some key characteristics of Pakistani culture include familial devotion, interdependent relationships, prioritizing collectivism, and respect to authority. There is collectivistic and extended family living style which adds greater pressures and responsibilities on Pakistani men not only as bread-winner, but as a provider and protector of the family (Adil, Shahed, & Arshad, 2017; Arshad & Shahed, 2019). In Pakistan, the conceptual importance of role strain and its associated aspects in men have not been given much attention that it needs. The above mentioned foreign scales do not measure the degree of gender role strain in men. The present study is a step to design and develop a tool to address this gap so that gender role strain could be assessed among men.


Gender Role Strain Scale for Men (GRSS-M) was developed in three phases. Phase 1, involves steps of development; Phase 2 involves establishing construct validity through factor analysis; whereas, Phase 3 incorporates the establishment of psychometric properties of GRSS-M on empirical basis.

Phase1: Development of the Scale
The first phase encompasses the identification of gender role strain in men. It consists of following three steps.

Step 1: Exploring phenomenology. For this purpose, semi-structured interview and a focus group discussion was conducted.

Semi-structured interviews. Three clinical psychologists (1 male and 2 females) and one psychiatrist (male) were approached for interviews individually. These experts were selected through purposive sampling technique with age range of 32-45 years having maximum experience of 6 years on the subject. Interviews were audio-recorded with mutual consent. The main emphasis of these interviews was to explore components of gender role strain and significant characteristics that experts had witnessed in their patients. For example, they were asked; how gender role strain is an issue of concern in men nowadays? What is the perception of gender role strain in our society?

Focus group discussion. Initially, ten employed men from different walks of life were invited for the group discussion. However, seven participants were on the venue at the time of focus group discussion. These educated (B.A, MS, Mphil, and PhD) and married participants’ age range from 30-45 years. Before beginning the group discussion, written permissions were taken from participants for audio-recording. The nature of gender role strain was discussed openly, and the participants were encouraged to talk about their experiences. For example, they were asked; what does the term ‘gender role strain’ mean to you? What expectations are attached/ associated with men from the very beginning which women do not experience normally? How easy or difficult is it to be a man?

After conducting semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion, transcriptions and analysis of data were completed carefully. In the present study, gender role strain was operationally defined as the burden and pressure associated with a gender-based responsibility. An inclusive list of 35 items of gender role strain in men was noted down considering the definition. For example, these items were meeting expectations of my parents, becoming independent for your own marriage, having less salary than my wife, giving more respect to women at workplace etc. The prepared list of scale items was cautiously examined for vague and overlapping issues. Two items were overlapping and were excluded. The scale involved 33 items and was named GRSS-M.

Step 2: Empirical validation. For measuring the content validity of GRSS-M, female counselors (n = 3) and female clinical psychologists (n = 7) with minimum five years of experience were approached. These experts who agreed to participate reviewed and rated the items of GRSS-M based on relevance to construct (where 1 = not relevant and 4 = highly relevant). The experts took nearly 15 minutes to complete it. The Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) was found to be .93 lying within the acceptable range (Wynd, Schmidt, & Schaefer, 2003). Two items obtained less agreement by the experts and were omitted. After calculating the S-CVI, the scale was organized into 31 self-reported statements. The GRSS-M was converted into 5-point Likert type scale with response anchors (0-4).

Step 3: Pilot study. The objective of pilot study was to assess user-friendliness and ease of understanding of the items. Thirty five men (five participants from each occupation) belonging to different lines of work (doctors, lawyers, teachers, bank employees, office boys, male sweepers, and security guards) were asked to rate the newly developed scale. The sample was selected through purposive sampling technique. The inclusion criteria comprised employed men with regular income and age range of 25-55 years (M = 36.23, SD = 7.89). Those participants were selected who could read Urdu. Ethical consideration was taken into account and confidentiality was assured. No ambiguity in understanding the items was reported by the participants. Hence, 31 items of GRSS-M were finalized for further administration.

Phase 2: Establishing Construct Validity through Exploratory Factor Analysis
This phase was aimed at establishing factorial structure of GRSS-M with the help of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA).

Sample. Construct validity of GRSS-M was determined on a sample (N = 400) of men through purposive sampling. The sample of men participants included lawyers (n = 70, 17.5%), doctors (n = 60, 15%), bank employees (n = 60, 15%), teachers (n = 40, 10%), network engineers (n = 30, 7.5%), and security guards (n = 35, 8.7%). Office boys were 7.5% (n = 30); whereas, male sweepers were almost 19% (n = 75). These participants’ ranged in age from 21 to 60 years (M = 37.7, SD = 9.9). Fifty percent of the participants were married and belonged to joint family system.

Procedure. For data collection from the staffs of different organizations, the concerned authorities were approached for permission. Each participant was informed about the purpose of the study and privacy was assured. The GRSS-M was administered separately and information on the scale was stated clearly. Written approval was sought from all the participants. Also, the verbal instructions regarding the scale were provided, so that they can best describe their strain on each statement of scale without difficulty.

Results. The construct validity of GRSS-M was established through factor analysis by using Principal Component Analysis. Varimax rotation was executed on 400 responses of participants to increase the variance and interpretability of factors (Kahn, 2009). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 3963.504, p < .001) and Kaiser-Myers Test of Sampling Adequacy indicated the value of .84. Scree plot presented in Figure 1 displays the number of factors. It proposed four factor solutions covering the total item variance of 52.7%. To select items, Field’s (2005) selection criterion of .35 factor loadings and above was used.

Fig. 1: Scree Plot for GRSS-M

Table 1 reveals a factor analysis of 25 items with factor loadings ranging from .35 to .78. Six items are discarded as these items are having low factor loadings (i.e., less than .35). The four factors are labelled as Familial and Social Pressures (Factor 1), Marital Life Pressures (Factor 2), Financial Pressures (Factor 3), and Workplace Pressures (Factor 4). The emerged four factor themes are finalized after the approval of three subject matter experts. Initially, Factor 1 has 10 items; Factor 2 has 7 items; Factor 3 has 5 items; and Factor 4 has 3 items. However, two items (11 & 13) whose loadings are high on Factor 1 are moved to workplace pressure (Factor 4) due to its relevance of content (Sathyanarayana, Rao, & Indla, 2010).

These items were “apne kaam ki masroofiyat kiwajah se apne ghar walon ko waqt na de pana” and “mera khawateen ki sarparast mai kaam karna’’. Item 29 which falls in Marital Life Pressure (Factor 2) was also moved to Workplace Pressure (Factor 4). It has more occupational relevance rather than marital component. This item was ‘‘meri bivi ka meri peshawarana zimidariyon ko na samjh pana”. In this way, Familial and Social Pressures (Factor 1) has 8 items, Marital Life Pressures (Factor 2) has 6 items, Financial Pressures (Factor 3) has 5 items, and Workplace Pressures (Factor 4) has 6 items.

Table 1:
Exploratory Factor Analysis of GRSS-M (N = 400)

Note. Cum. % age = Cumulative Percentage. The items having factor loadings of .35
and greater are given in boldface

Phase 3: Establishing Psychometric Properties
Phase 3 involves two steps for establishing psychometric properties of GRSS-M, which are as follows:

Step 1: Convergent and discriminant validity of GRSS-M. GRSS-M is validated through determining convergent and discriminant validity. The male participants (n = 200) from different professions were approached through purposive sampling. Twenty men participants from each profession (i.e., doctors, teachers, bank employees, office boys, and male sweepers) were the part of selection through purposive sampling. Sixty percent of the sample was married and having more than secondary level of education with age range of 21-60 years (M = 37.85, SD = 8.78).

Gender Role Strain Scale for Men (GRSS-M). The newly developed GRSS-M in the current study consists of four subscales with 25 items. It is a 5-point rating scale (0-4). The response anchors were 0 = not at all, 1= a little bit, 2 = to some extent, 3 = more, and 4 = much more. High score on GRSS-M indicates high role strain in men.

Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRSS). The MGRSS has 40 items with five subscales (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). It is a self-report scale. The response anchors ranged from 0 = not at all stressful to 5 = extremely stressful. Scoring high on MGRSS suggests extremely stressful gender role related situation for men. The scale has high internal consistency that is α = .90 (Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988). The MGRSS has been translated into Urdu following Lexicon Equivalence Method in this study. The translation closely expressing the original context is retained (Neuman, 2006). MGRSS measures the stress that men experience in events in which they break masculine standards of behaviour. In order to determine the convergent validity of GRSS-M, its correlation with the total score on MGRSS is used.

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The SWLS (Diener et al., 1985) contains five items with seven anchors ranging from 7 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree. A high score attained on SWLS depicts extremely satisfied with life. The Urdu translated version of SWLS (Butt, Ghani, & Khan, 2014) is used in this study as its reliability is .90 in Pakistani population (Barki, Choudhry, & Munawar, 2020). The SWLS measured how far a person is satisfied with the life; whereas, GRSS-M measures the stressors and pressures because of one’s ascribed gender role. The discriminant validity of GRSS-M is determined through its correlation with the SWLS scores.

Procedure. After obtaining permission from the participants, the three scales were administered vigilantly. The purpose of study and instructions about scales were explained to the participants. It was ensured that no participant had left out any statement of all scales unfilled. Ethical consideration was considered and privacy was maintained. All scales were completed anonymously, and the participation was on voluntary basis.

Results. Cronbach’s alpha of the total score of GRSS-M and its four subscales are calculated through reliability analysis. In addition, correlation values of MGRS and SWLS with subscales of GRSS-M are also calculated.

Table 2:
Alpha Coefficients and Correlations of Total Scores of GRSS-M
and It’s Subscales with MGRSS and SWLS

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

The results of Table 2 depict that GRSS-M along with its subscales have significant alpha coefficients. The GRSS- M also has significant positive correlation with all four subscales measuring the same construct theoretically that is gender role strain. However, relatively moderate or somewhat lower alpha coefficients on the domain of financial pressures are, may be, due to response bias. For convergent validity of GRSS-M, the total scores of MGRSS and the indigenous developed GRSS-M are found to be positively correlated. In addition, the results of GRSS-M and SWLS showed that these two scales are inversely correlated possessing discriminant validity; that is assessing two dissimilar constructs (Coker, Ashill, & Hope, 2011).

Step 2: Establishing construct validity through method of contrasted groups. Another method to establish construct validity of GRSS-M was contrasted groups (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).

Sample. The sample consists of 100 participants divided into two groups. The participants in the two groups were selected on the basis of self-report of gender role related strain. Group A involved 50 identified men having gender role strain based upon self-reporting. The age range of group A participants was 21-59 years (M = 38.66, SD = 9.99). The sample of Group B included 50 men with no self reported gender role strain through convenient sampling. These participants’ age range was 21-57 years (M = 38.28, SD =10.51).

Procedure. After taking permission from authorities, written consent was obtained taken from the participants and GRSS-M was administered. Group A participants were identified by scoring high on gender role strain scale whereas group B participants have no gender role strain. After that the difference in both groups role strain was examined.

Results. Significant mean differences t(98) = 34.33, p < .00, 95% CI [51.05, 57.31], d = 6.87 are found between Group A (M = 77.32, SD = 8.37) and Group B (M = 23.14, SD = 7.37). The result indicates that GRSS-M adequately differentiates between identified men with gender role strain (Group A) and men with no gender role strain (Group B).


Masculinity is ruined by gender role stereotypes and pressures. Therefore, it was important to endorse awareness that gender role strain is not only experienced by women, but also by Pakistani men. For accomplishment of this purpose, a self-constructing scale was developed i.e., the GRSS-M. Four substantial factors of GRSS-M were developed in the exploratory factor analysis. The 25 items of GRSS-M were categorized into four factors. These factors were Familial and Social pressures, Marital Life Pressures, Financial Pressures, and Workplace pressures. This scale assesses the magnitude and degree of role strain that is confronted by men on the regular basis. In addition, its psychometrics properties were well-established.

The first factor familial and social pressures involved the responsibility to keep family members happy, contributing to sister’s marriage, solving all sorts of problems, and to become independent for own marriage. At times, these pressures of gender role strain are unnoticed. However, they play a crucial and central role in men’s lives. In Pakistani culture, accomplishing the provider role is the paramount and dominant attribute in the lives of men. Irrespective of the flexibility and adjustments in gender roles over the years, the noteworthy role of man’s uniqueness is still upheld by the family in bread-winner role. Pakistani men consider the duty to nourish and take care of their families, but to what degree they are capable to satisfy them, is an additional concern. A Western study found that most important aspects of African American men’s traits were dimensions of how intensely they sustain the breadwinner, spouse, father, worker, and community member roles primarily in their middle adulthood (Hammond & Mattis, 2005). These persistent diverse roles stressors in men have a key impact on their attitude, performance, well-being, unexpected benefits of relationship strain, and psychological health (Thomas, Liu, & Umberson, 2017; Williams & Umberson, 2004).

The second factor marital life pressures discussed about strains of married life such as unable to maintain sexual relations with the spouse, being shorter in height than the spouse, and dispute between mother and wife. Having unsatisfied sexual relations in marriage is a burden on both spouses. On the other hand, a study found that married men and women believed that sexual aspect is vital for healthy marital life (Elliott & Umberson, 2008). However, both usually experience conflict related to their spouse’s feelings about it and to challenge cultural discourses. Many researchers (Batres, Re, & Perrett, 2015; Bogaert & McCreary, 2011; O’Gorman, Sheffield, & Griffiths, 2019) postulated that height is associated to masculinity. It is known fact that men are taller on average than their better halves. The man who is shorter in height might raise a question of gender performance. For example, a man may not be perceived as a real man, if he does not exhibit the normal pattern. A study by Yancey and Emerson (2014) revealed that participants do not have strong reason why they retain their given height preference, however, they understood what was expected of them. These were the signs that these fixed height preferences were the consequences of social beliefs and expectations. Awareness of the right heightfor a spouse possibly might be generally ingrained in cultural principles. In addition, Pakistani men continually go through pressure as they approach home from office. As a substitute, keeping oneself busier in workplace than family might be reinforcing learned behaviour in community in which a man is being brought up. A contemporary study revealed that men have to pin the ears to their spouses about any disagreement or conflict with their sisters-in-law or mothers (Arshad & Shahed, 2019).

The third factor financial pressures was concerned with running home with limited income, staying away from loved ones for earning money, and to fulfill children’s monetary expenses. It is a notion that without stable earnings, men are not reliable to contribute to a home. The support was given by a study (Arshad & Shahed, 2019) with mutual consensus of participants that financial burden is the basis of stresses in peoples’ lives whether their wives were employed or not. They still face difficulties in accomplishing and satisfying their family duties related to their children’s expenditures. On the other hand, in less well-educated and poorer regions, marriage rates are less as men are not good monetary wagers in those societies. Though, education appears to help at its best, probably because it speaks to an individual’s long-term employment prospects and earning potential.

The fourth factor workplace pressures are referring to items such as to be successful in occupational life, to work under women’s supervision, and to be compared with other men in office. In addition, men experienced many job-related strains than women. Some of them are workload and work mistakes (Liu, Nauta, Spector, & Li, 2008), work duty (Sharada & Raju, 2001), job-related authority, and lack of participation and conflict with other departments (Vagg, Spielberger, & Wasala, 2002). On the other hand, a study revealed that men rated lower organizational commitment (Bellman, Forster, Still, & Cooper, 2003). A study by Adil et al. (2017) showed that severity of work-related role strain was more present among 35-39 years of male participants. The results of professional role difficulties were long working hours, less satisfied job, and heavy work.

This study is a preliminary step to identify and acknowledge the role strains faced by Pakistani men. The results of construct validity supported and reinforced the self-constructed GRSS-M. The internal consistency of GRSS-M was high with two subscales, that is, Familial and Social Pressures and Marital Life Pressures. Other two subscales (Financial and Workplace Pressures) of GRSS-M have relatively moderate or somewhat lower Cronbach alphas but were retained due to its theoretical significance. In most researches, the combined use of EFA and confirmatory factor analysis is executed for more consistent outcomes on the psychometric properties of the newly developed scale (DeVellis, 2003). However, many of researchers (Bakar & Mustaffa, 2013; Bastos, Celeste, Faerstein, & Barros, 2010; Ladhari, 2010; Roberson, Elliott, Chang, & Hill, 2014; Turker, 2009) still chose exploratory factor analysis when compared to confirmatory factor analysis because it is effective in categorizing the factors of a scale by exploring relationships among observed variables and helps more in the decision-making process.

This study provides indigenous measure to assess GRS experienced by men in Pakistani society. Items have been generated after exploring the phenomenology with the help of indigenous samples. The content of items reflects cultural practices and relevance concerning the pressure of contributing to sister’s marriage as an example of Familial and Social Pressure. This scale is similar with other scales in terms of response format, that is, Likert type. The foreign scales, for example, MGRSS was measuring cognitive and behavioural aspects; whereas, GRSS-M highlights social, marital, occupational and financial aspects related with one’s gender in a single measure.


The degree of gender role strain is, yet, to be determined in various professions of men as the analysis of construct itself is new in Pakistani society. Nonworking, rural, and illiterate men were not the part of this study. Comparative studies could be performed in future with larger samples. In addition, CFA should be considered for more precise psychometric indices and demographic oriented norms are needed to be established.


As there are abundant increasing health concerns in men (Hoy, 2012;Oliffe & Han, 2014; Paul & Moser, 2009), it is mandatory for every man to be screened for gender role strain for sound mental and physical well-being. The GRSS-M would be useful for Pakistani people. The socialization process and principles for masculinity should be frequently reconsidered as well as communicated positively in people. Empowering and educating women might lessen the burden on men that influence men’s health and social status.


Gender role strain is experienced in every sphere of man’s life because of mechanical lifestyle. Among Pakistani men, the influence of gender role strain is given marginalized consideration. GRSS-M with four factors Familial and Social pressures, Marital Life Pressures, Financial Pressures, and Workplace Pressures is valid and reliable measure for assessing gender role strain in both clinical and nonclinical male population.


  1. Adil, F., Shahed, S., & Arshad, H. (2017). The burden of being a man in a patriarchal society. Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 4(2), 57-70.
  2. Ali, T. S., Krantz, G., Gul, R., Asad, N., Johansson, E., & Mogren, I. (2011). Gender roles and their influence on life prospects for women in urban Karachi, Pakistan: A qualitative study. Global Health Action, 4(1), 1-9.
  3. Arshad H., & Shahed S. (2019). Burden of one’s gender: Perception of gender role strain in educated men and women. Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 6(1), 68-94.
  4. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
  5. Bakar, H. A., & Mustaffa, C. S. (2013). Organizational communication in Malaysia organizations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(1), 87-109.
  6. Barki, N., Choudhry, F. R., & Munawar, K. (2020). The satisfaction with life scale: Psychometric properties in Pakistani population. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 4(1), 1086-1091.
  7. Bastos, J. L., Celeste, R. K., Faerstein, E., & Barros, A. J. D. (2010). Racial discrimination and health: A systematic review of scales with a focus on their psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 1091-1099.
  8. Batres, C., Re, D. E., & Perrett, D. I. (2015). Influence of perceived height, masculinity, and age on each other and on perceptions of dominance in male faces. Perception, 44(11), 1293-1309.
  9. Bellman, S., Forster, N., Still, L., & Cooper, C. (2003). Gender differences in the use of social support as a moderator of occupational stress. Stress and Health, 9(1), 45-58.
  10. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 10(2), 155-162.
  11. Bem S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354-364.
  12. Bogaert, A. F., & McCreary, D. R. (2011). Masculinity and the distortion of self-reported height in men. Sex Roles, 65, 7-8.
  13. Bowman, P. J. (2006). Role strain and adaptation issues in the strength-based Model: Diversity, multilevel, and life-span considerations. Counseling Psychologist, 34, 118133.
  14. Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. A. (2013). Psychological wellbeing and the diathesis-stress hypothesis model: The role of psychological functioning and quality of relations in promoting subjective well-being in a life events study. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 321-326.
  15. Butt, M. M., Ghani, A., & Khan, S. (2014). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Urdu version).
  16. Coker, B. L. S., Ashill, N. J., & Hope, B. (2011). Measuring internet product purchase risk. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1130-1151.
  17. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
  18. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
  19. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
  20. Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  21. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckesand & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  22. Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender-role stress: Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11, 123-136.
  23. Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-role stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors.Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 133-141.
  24. Elliott, S., & Umberson, D. (2008). The performance of desire: Gender and sexual negotiation in long-term marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family,70(2), 391-406.
  25. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. New York, USA: Sage Publications Ltd.
  26. Griffith, D. M., Gunter, K., & Allen, J. O. (2011). Male gender role strain as a barrier to African American men’s physical activity. Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 38(5), 482-491.
  27. Hammond, W., & Mattis, J. (2005). Being a man about it: Manhood meaning among African American men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 114-126.
  28. Hayes, J. A., & Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Gender role conflict and psychological distress in male counselling-center clients. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1, 116-125.
  29. Haywood, C., & AnGhaill, M. (2003). Men and Masculinities: Theory, Research and Social Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  30. Hoy, S. (2012). Beyond men behaving badly: A meta-ethnography of men’s perspectives on psychological distress and help seeking. International Journal of Men’s Health, 11(3), 202-226.
  31. Hunt, K., Lewars, H., Emslie, C., & Batty, D. G. (2007). Decreased risk of death from coronary heart disease amongst men with higher ‘femininity’ scores: A general population cohort study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36(3), 612-620.
  32. Isran, S., & Isran, M. (2012), Patriarchy and women in Pakistan: A critical analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(6), 835-859.
  33. Johansson, G., Huang, Q., & Lindfors, P. (2007). A life-span perspective on women’s careers, health, and well-being. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 685-697.
  34. Kahn, J. S. (2009). An introduction to masculinities. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
  35. Kazmi, S. W. (2005). Role of education in globalization: A case for Pakistan, SAARC Journal of Human Resource Development, 2(1), 90-107.
  36. Ladhari, R. (2010). Developing e-service quality scales: A literature review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 464-477.
  37. Liu, C., Nauta, M., Spector, P. E., & Li, C. (2008). Direct and indirect conflicts at work in China and the US: A cross-cultural comparison. Work and Stress, 22(4), 295-313.
  38. Levant, R. F., Hirsch, L. S., Celentano, E., Cozza, T. M., Hill, S., MacEachern, M.,... & Schnedeker, J. (1992). The male role: An investigation of contemporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325-337.
  39. Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2007). A review of research on masculinity ideologies using the Male Role Norms Inventory. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 130 -146.
  40. Lou, L., Gilmour, R., Kao, S., & Huang, M. A. (2006). Cross-cultural study of work/family demands, work/family conflict and wellbeing: The Taiwanese vs British. Career Development International, 11(1), 9-27.
  41. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. India: Pearson Education.
  42. O’Gorman, B., Sheffield, J., & Griffiths, S. (2019). Does masculinity moderate the relationship of height with height dissatisfaction? Findings from an Internet forum for short statured men. Body Image, 31, 112-119.
  43. Oliffe, J. L., & Han C. S. E. (2014). Beyond workers’ compensation: Men’s mental health in and out of work. American Journal of Men’s Health, 8(1), 45-53.
  44. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1998). Family, socialization, and interaction process. London: Routledge.
  45. Paul, K. I., & Moser K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264-282.
  46. Pleck, J. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), New psychology of men. New York: Basic.
  47. Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adolescent males’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 11-29.
  48. Robertson, S. (2009). Theories of masculinities and health seeking practices. Nowhere Man Press.
  49. Robertson, R. B., Elliott, T. R., Chang, J. E., & Hill, J. N. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis in rehabilitation psychology: A content analysis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(4), 429-438.
  50. Rummell, C. M., & Levant, R. F. (2014). Masculine gender role discrepancy strain and Self-Esteem. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(4), 419-426.
  51. Ruxton, S. (Ed.) (2004). Gender equality and men: Learning from practice. Oxford: Oxfam.
  52. Sathyanarayana, T. S., & Indla, V. (2010). Work, family or personal life: Why not all three. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 52(4), 295-297.
  53. Sharada, N., & Raju, M. V. R. (2001). Gender and role stress in organizations. Journal of Indian Psychology, 19, 50-55.
  54. Shepard, S. J., Nicpon, M. F., Haley, J. T., Lind, M., & Liu, W. M. (2011). Masculine norms, school attitudes, and psychosocial adjustment among gifted boys. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12, 181-187.
  55. Thomas, P. A., Liu, H., & Umberson, D. (2017). Family relationships and well-being.Innovation in Aging, 1(3), 1-11. doi:10.1093/geroni/igx025
  56. Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 411-427.
  57. UNDP Pakistan. (2016, June 20). Pakistan’s new poverty index reveals that 4 out of 10 Pakistanis live in multidimensional poverty.
  58. Vagg, P. R., Spielberger, C. D., & Wasala, C. F. (2002). Effects of organizational level and gender on stress in the workplace. International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 243-261.
  59. Wetherell, M., Edley, N. (2014). A discursive psychological framework for analyzing men and masculinities. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(2), 1-10.
  60. Wiernik, E., Nabi, H., Pannier, B., Czernichow, S., Hanon, O., Simon, T., …Lemogne, C. (2014). Perceived stress, sex and occupational status interact to increase the risk of future high blood pressure: The IPC cohort study. Journal of Hypertension, 32(10), 1979-1986.
  61. Williams, K., & Umberson, D. (2004). Marital status, marital transitions, and health: Agendered life course perspective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 81-98.
  62. Wynd, C. A., Schmidt, B., & Schaefer, M. A. (2003). Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(5), 508-518.
  63. Yancey, G., & Emerson, M. O. (2014). Does height matter? An examination of height preferences in romantic coupling. Journal of Family Issues, 37(1), 53-73.

How to Cite this paper?

APA-7 Style
, H., Shahed, S. (2021). Development and Validation of Gender Role Strain Scale for Men. Pak. J. Psychol. Res, 36(1), 115-133.

ACS Style
, H.; Shahed, S. Development and Validation of Gender Role Strain Scale for Men. Pak. J. Psychol. Res 2021, 36, 115-133.

AMA Style
H, Shahed S. Development and Validation of Gender Role Strain Scale for Men. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research. 2021; 36(1): 115-133.

Chicago/Turabian Style
Hana Arshad, and Sarah Shahed. 2021. "Development and Validation of Gender Role Strain Scale for Men" Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 36, no. 1: 115-133.