Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS)

1. Abstract

The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) is an internationally recognized, 40-item psychometric instrument developed by Richard M. Eisler and Jay R. Skidmore in 1987. Designed within a cognitive-behavioral and transactional framework of stress appraisal, the MGRS quantifies the psychological distress, cognitive strain, and behavioral vulnerability experienced by men when confronted with situations that challenge traditional masculine gender-role norms, expectations, or perceived masculine competencies. Rather than evaluating adherence to masculine traits or attitudes per se, the instrument measures the degree of stress appraised when culturally prescribed mandates of masculinity are threatened, thwarted, or unattainable.

The scale encompasses five psychometrically validated, correlated factor dimensions: Physical Inadequacy (stress regarding physical fitness, athletic stamina, and sexual potency), Emotional Inexpressiveness (stress provoked by disclosing vulnerability, sadness, fear, or tender emotions), Subordination to Women (stress arising from being outperformed, commanded, or eclipsed by women in occupational, financial, or interpersonal spheres), Intellectual Inferiority (stress regarding mental acuity, professional competence, decision-making, and status among peers), and Performance Failures (stress provoked by economic hardship, occupational defeat, or inability to fulfill traditional provider and protector roles). Each item presents a specific situational vignette rated on a 6-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Not Stressful) to 6 (Extremely Stressful), yielding subscale scores as well as an omnibus global composite score.

Psychometric evaluations across diverse community, college, clinical, and forensic cohorts demonstrate exceptional internal consistency (Cronbach’s α coefficients consistently ranging from .88 to .94 for the total scale, and .70 to .88 for subscales) and robust test-retest stability (r > .80 over intervals up to four weeks). Construct, convergent, divergent, and predictive validities have been extensively corroborated, demonstrating significant positive correlations with cardiovascular reactivity, trait anger, elevated blood pressure, state-trait anxiety, depressive symptomatology, interpersonal violence, homophobic attitudes, substance abuse, and reluctance to utilize psychological and medical healthcare services. The MGRS represents a pioneering operationalization of gender-role strain theory, serving as an indispensable tool in clinical psychology, psychosomatic medicine, behavioral cardiology, and empirical studies of men and masculinities.

2. Keywords

Masculine Gender Role Stress, MGRS, Richard M. Eisler, Gender Role Strain, Masculinity, Men’s Health, Cardiovascular Reactivity, Physical Inadequacy, Emotional Inexpressiveness, Subordination to Women, Intellectual Inferiority, Performance Failures, Psychometrics, Trait Anger, Male Socialization

3. Authors

The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale was conceptualized, constructed, and psychometrically validated by:

• Richard M. Eisler, Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Clinical Psychology in the Department of Psychology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Dr. Eisler was a leading authority in behavioral medicine, behavioral assessment, family violence, and the psychology of men and masculinities.
• Jay R. Skidmore, Ph.D.: Professor of Clinical Psychology and Director of the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program at Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, Washington, United States. Dr. Skidmore co-developed the instrument during his doctoral training under Dr. Eisler at Virginia Tech, contributing significantly to empirical methodologies in behavioral stress assessment and cardiovascular psychophysiology.

Subsequent psychometric expansions, clinical validations, and psychophysiological laboratory paradigms were conducted in collaboration with notable investigators, including Celia H. Ward, Ph.D. and Janice A. Blalock, Ph.D., who contributed foundational research examining anger, cardiovascular reactivity, and health-risk behaviors.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale is to assess individual differences in the tendency of men to appraise specific masculine-norm-challenging situations as threatening, demanding, or distressing. Prior to the seminal publication of the MGRS in 1987, empirical research on masculinity predominantly relied on masculinity-femininity trait scales, such as the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) or the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). These early instruments operated under the conceptual assumption that masculinity constituted a collection of socially desirable instrumental personality traits (e.g., assertiveness, self-reliance, leadership). Consequently, high scores on traditional trait masculinity were frequently hypothesized to facilitate psychological resilience and effective environmental mastery.

However, emerging epidemiological and clinical evidence throughout the late 1970s and 1980s highlighted paradoxical health outcomes: despite possessing societal privileges, men exhibited significantly higher rates of premature mortality from cardiovascular disease, stress-mediated systemic illnesses, completed suicides, alcohol and substance use disorders, and involvement in fatal vehicular accidents or interpersonal violence. To resolve this empirical and theoretical paradox, Eisler and Skidmore developed the MGRS based on the rationale that rigid socialization into the traditional masculine gender role does not merely impart adaptive instrumental skills; rather, it creates substantial psychological and physiological vulnerability when men encounter everyday situations that they perceive as exposing their inadequacies according to rigid patriarchal expectations.

In clinical settings, the MGRS serves as a diagnostic and conceptualizing instrument to detect underlying gender-role conflicts in men presenting with:

• Uncontrolled trait anger, episodic rage, and intimate partner violence (IPV);
• Maladaptive suppression of emotion, alexithymia, and somatization;
• Severe cardiovascular reactivity, essential hypertension, and stress-related somatic complaints;
• Resistance to psychological therapy, vulnerability concealment, and therapeutic alliance rupture;
• Compulsive overworking, burnout, and acute anxiety linked to professional or economic setbacks;
• Sexual dysfunctions exacerbated by rigid performance anxiety and catastrophic appraisal of erectile difficulties.

In research contexts, the MGRS provides an empirical bridge linking cultural gender socialization, cognitive appraisal mechanisms, sympathetic nervous system hyperarousal, and destructive behavioral coping strategies. It enables social scientists, epidemiologists, and behavioral medicine researchers to evaluate how ideological gender mandates manifest as neuroendocrine strain, cardiovascular pathogenesis, and health disparities across the male lifespan.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the MGRS is Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS), defined as a cognitive-affective appraisal process wherein a male evaluates events that thwart culturally defined masculine standards or demand behaviors counter to masculine socialization as personally threatening, ego-dystonic, or intolerable. Grounded in factor analytic investigations, Eisler and Skidmore (1987) demonstrated that masculine stress is not a monolithic psychological experience; rather, it is organized into five distinct, functionally related behavioral and cognitive subscales.

Physical Inadequacy

The Physical Inadequacy dimension taps into severe distress elicited by perceived deficits in physical endurance, fitness, bodily strength, or sexual vigor. In traditional masculine socialization, the male body is constructed as an instrument of power, sexual competence, athletic prowess, and invulnerability. Situations that expose aging, illness, diminished stamina, poor athletic performance, or sexual failure directly assault this foundational ideal. Examples within the scale include item 1 (“Feeling that you are not in good physical condition”), item 20 (“Being unable to perform sexually”), item 26 (“Appearing less athletic than a friend”), and item 30 (“Being unable to become sexually aroused when you want”). Men who score high on this subscale perceive bodily vulnerability or sexual non-performance as catastrophic proof of emasculation.

Emotional Inexpressiveness

The Emotional Inexpressiveness dimension captures cognitive anxiety and resistance prompted by situations that require disclosing tender, vulnerable, fearful, or affectionate emotions, as well as handling emotional expressions from others. Western hegemonic masculinity dictates a stoic “stiff upper lip,” mandating emotional detachment, affective self-containment, and an avoidance of anything construed as sentimental weakness. Situations that challenge this mandate include item 2 (“Telling your spouse that you love her/him”), item 12 (“Telling someone that you feel hurt by what they said”), item 17 (“Admitting that you are afraid of something”), and item 22 (“Having your children see you cry”). Men with high scores on this dimension experience profound defensive avoidance when interpersonal intimacy demands affective exposure.

Subordination to Women

The Subordination to Women dimension reflects apprehension and anger triggered by circumstances in which a man feels controlled, dominated, outperformed, or economically eclipsed by a woman. Patriarchal ideology traditionally structures gender relations through male dominance and female deference. When these interpersonal hierarchies are inverted, high-MGRS men perceive an acute status threat. Specific scale items capturing this dynamic include item 3 (“Being outperformed at work by a woman”), item 7 (“Having a female boss”), item 9 (“Letting a woman take control of the situation”), item 13 (“Being married to someone who makes more money than you”), and item 18 (“Being with a woman who is more successful than you”). This dimension is strongly associated with hostile sexism, defensive interpersonal hostility, and resistance to gender equity.

Intellectual Inferiority

The Intellectual Inferiority dimension measures cognitive threat experienced in situations that call into question a man’s mental sharpness, professional competence, decisiveness, or rational mastery. Traditional male role norms demand rationality, logic, problem-solving mastery, and decisive authority. Situations that suggest intellectual deficit or indecisiveness provoke intense shame and defensiveness. Items representing this factor include item 14 (“Working with people who seem more ambitious than you”), item 24 (“Having people say that you are indecisive”), item 31 (“Being compared unfavorably to men”), and item 34 (“Working with people who are brighter than yourself”). Men who score elevated on this dimension struggle with imposter syndrome and react defensively to professional criticism.

Performance Failures

The Performance Failures dimension encompasses deep distress associated with professional, financial, and socioeconomic defeat. Traditional male socialization positions the man as the primary breadwinner, economic rock, and occupational achiever. Threats to vocational stability or financial provision strike at the core of perceived male utility. Illustrative items include item 5 (“Being unemployed”), item 10 (“Not making enough money”), item 15 (“Finding you lack the occupational skills to succeed”), item 35 (“Getting passed over for a promotion”), and item 40 (“Getting fired from your job”). High scorers on this dimension are exceptionally vulnerable to clinical depression, despair, and suicidal ideation following vocational displacement or financial downturns.

6. Theoretical Framework

The construction of the MGRS is situated at the intersection of two major psychological frameworks: Gender Role Strain Theory, pioneered by Joseph Pleck (1981, 1995), and the Cognitive-Mediational Theory of Stress and Coping formulated by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984).

Pleck’s Gender Role Strain Paradigm

Pleck challenged the traditional “gender role identity” paradigm, which posited that psychological adjustment requires internalizing personality traits matching one’s biological sex. Instead, Pleck formulated the Gender Role Strain Paradigm, which posits that:

1. Gender roles are socially constructed, contradictory, and internally inconsistent;
2. A vast majority of men violate cultural gender norms, producing pervasive feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem;
3. Norm violation leads to social condemnation and internal guilt or shame;
4. Actual or attempted conformity to masculine roles frequently produces dysfunctional physical, psychological, and relational consequences.

Eisler and Skidmore (1987) extended Pleck’s paradigm by translating sociological and structural concepts of gender role strain into an individual-difference psychological assessment capable of measuring cognitive vulnerability to male role demands.

Lazarus and Folkman’s Cognitive Appraisal Model

Eisler and Skidmore operationalized masculine stress explicitly through Lazarus and Folkman’s cognitive-phenomenological framework of stress appraisal. According to this model, an environmental event is not intrinsically stressful; rather, it becomes a stressor only when an individual engages in:

• Primary Appraisal: Evaluating whether an environmental encounter holds personal significance, represents a potential harm or loss, or threatens ego-identity and self-esteem. In the context of the MGRS, a man appraises an event (e.g., losing a job, having a female supervisor) as threatening because his socialization has tethered his fundamental worth to vocational domination and gender superiority.
• Secondary Appraisal: Evaluating whether one possesses adequate personal, social, and psychological coping resources to meet the demands of the situation. High-MGRS men experience secondary appraisal failure because their narrow behavioral repertoire prohibits them from deploying coping mechanisms deemed “unmanly”—such as seeking psychological support, crying, asking for directions, or admitting fear.

Because cognitive flexibility is constrained by rigid masculinity mandates, high-MGRS men are restricted to a narrow, often destructive repertoire of coping behaviors: behavioral aggression, emotional withdrawal, cardiovascular hyper-reactivity, substance misuse, or high-risk sensation seeking. The MGRS directly captures the output of these primary and secondary appraisal transactions across varied situational contexts.

7. Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity for the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale across clinical, collegiate, community, and military populations.

Construct and Factorial Validity

During its initial scale development, Eisler and Skidmore (1987) administered an experimental pool of 64 situational stress items to 157 male participants. Exploratory factor analyses with orthogonal and oblique rotations isolated five distinct, conceptually coherent factors that demonstrated eigenvalues greater than 1.5 and item factor loadings exceeding .40, culminating in the refined 40-item scale. Confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) investigations across diverse cross-cultural samples (e.g., in North America, Europe, Australia, and East Asia) have repeatedly supported this five-factor oblique structure, demonstrating acceptable comparative fit indices (CFI > .90; RMSEA < .06).

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through statistically significant associations between MGRS scores and established measures of psychological distress, personality traits, and behavioral pathology:

• Trait Anger and Hostility: Eisler, Skidmore, and Ward (1988) documented robust correlations between total MGRS scores and the Spielberger Trait Anger Scale (r = .46, p < .001) as well as the Cook-Medley Hostility Scale (r = .38, p < .01). Men with high MGRS consistently misattribute hostility to ambiguous interpersonal stimuli and respond with explosive anger when masculine pride is questioned.
• Anxiety and Depression: Total MGRS scores correlate moderately with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; r = .34 to .42) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; r = .28 to .39), underscoring that rigid adherence to masculine roles induces chronic dysphoria and apprehension.
• Alexithymia: Strong positive correlations have been observed between MGRS (particularly the Emotional Inexpressiveness subscale) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; r = .45 to .54), demonstrating that stress regarding emotional expression impairs emotional recognition and verbalization.

Discriminant Validity

The MGRS exhibits excellent discriminant validity by differentiating gender role stress from mere masculine identification or gender-typed personality traits. Research demonstrates that the MGRS correlates only weakly or negligibly with the Bem Sex-Role Inventory Masculinity (BSRI-M) scale (r ranging from −.08 to .14, non-significant) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire Instrumental (PAQ-I) scale. This critical psychometric divergence confirms that possessing instrumental masculine traits (e.g., leadership, independence) is psychologically distinct from experiencing severe cognitive-affective distress when one’s masculinity is challenged.

Predictive and Physiological Validity

One of the most profound psychometric accomplishments of the MGRS is its demonstrated capacity to predict objective laboratory-induced cardiovascular reactivity and real-world health risk:

• Cardiovascular and Neuroendocrine Reactivity: In controlled laboratory paradigms (Eisler et al., 1988; Watkins et al., 1991), high- and low-MGRS men were exposed to laboratory stressors classified as either gender-relevant (e.g., cold pressor task framed as an endurance challenge, competitive mental arithmetic with a female confederate) or gender-neutral. High-MGRS men exhibited significantly higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and frontalis electromyographic (EMG) muscle tension exclusively during gender-relevant challenges.
• Intimate Partner Violence: Empirical investigations by Jakupcak, Lisman, and Cappellasso (2002) and Cohn and Zeichner (2006) revealed that the MGRS Subordination to Women subscale significantly predicted laboratory-based physical aggression toward female confederates and self-reported domestic abuse perpetration.
• Health-Risk Behaviors: High MGRS scores predict chronic avoidance of preventive healthcare visits, underutilization of psychotherapy, excessive alcohol consumption, and driving under the influence.

8. Reliability

The MGRS has been subjected to extensive psychometric evaluations, confirming outstanding internal consistency, item-total correlation stability, and temporal reliability across repeated assessments.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the seminal validation study by Eisler and Skidmore (1987), the 40-item scale demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient of .92 for the omnibus total score. Subsequent empirical investigations across college, community, and clinical cohorts have systematically replicated alpha values ranging between .88 and .94 for the total instrument. The internal consistency estimates for the five distinct subscales are robust:

• Physical Inadequacy: Cronbach’s α ranges from .78 to .86.
• Emotional Inexpressiveness: Cronbach’s α ranges from .75 to .84.
• Subordination to Women: Cronbach’s α ranges from .71 to .81.
• Intellectual Inferiority: Cronbach’s α ranges from .72 to .83.
• Performance Failures: Cronbach’s α ranges from .73 to .85.

Corrected item-total correlations for all 40 items consistently exceed .30, with the vast majority clustering between .40 and .65, confirming that each item contributes uniquely and reliably to the measured latent constructs without excessive redundancy.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Eisler and Skidmore (1987) examined the test-retest reliability of the MGRS over a two-week interval with a non-clinical cohort of men, obtaining a total scale test-retest stability coefficient of r = .93 (p < .001). Subscale test-retest correlations were similarly elevated, ranging from .78 to .89 across the two-week timeframe. Extended test-retest investigations over four-week to six-week intervals conducted by subsequent independent laboratories confirmed temporal stability coefficients persisting above .80, indicating that masculine gender role stress represents a remarkably enduring, trait-like cognitive appraisal style rather than a transient, fluctuating state.

9. Factor Analysis

The architectural foundation of the MGRS was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures that established its structural and factorial validity.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original derivation study, Eisler and Skidmore (1987) subjected 64 candidate situational stress items to a principal components analysis followed by oblique (Promax) and orthogonal (Varimax) rotations. Both analytic techniques generated an identical, highly interpretable five-factor solution based on Kaiser-Guttman criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) and Cattell’s scree test:

• Factor 1 (eigenvalue = 11.2, accounting for 28.0% of the total variance) was termed Physical Inadequacy;
• Factor 2 (eigenvalue = 3.6, accounting for 9.0% of the total variance) was termed Emotional Inexpressiveness;
• Factor 3 (eigenvalue = 2.4, accounting for 6.0% of the total variance) was termed Subordination to Women;
• Factor 4 (eigenvalue = 1.9, accounting for 4.8% of the total variance) was termed Intellectual Inferiority;
• Factor 5 (eigenvalue = 1.6, accounting for 4.0% of the total variance) was termed Performance Failures.

Items were retained only if they met two rigorous mathematical thresholds: a primary factor loading ≥ .40 and secondary cross-loadings ≤ .25. Twenty-four items failing to meet these strict psychometric standards were discarded, yielding the final 40-item instrument. Inter-factor correlations ranged from .28 to .52, demonstrating that while the five dimensions are moderately intercorrelated as expressions of higher-order gender role strain, they represent non-redundant psychological facets.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric researchers have validated the factor structure using structural equation modeling (SEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In a comprehensive latent class and confirmatory structural investigation of college and adult populations, researchers (e.g., Orbell, 2013; Good et al., 1995) evaluated competitive structural models:

• Unidimensional Model: Hypothesizing that all 40 items load directly onto a single general masculine stress factor. This model exhibited poor fit across all conventional indices (χ²/df > 4.8, CFI < .72, RMSEA > .095).
• Five-Factor Orthogonal Model: Hypothesizing five independent, uncorrelated dimensions. Fit indices remained unacceptable (χ²/df > 3.6, CFI < .81, RMSEA > .078).
• Five-Factor Correlated / Hierarchical Model: Specifying five correlated first-order factors subsumed by a second-order global Masculine Gender Role Stress construct. This model yielded superior goodness-of-fit indices: χ²/df = 1.84, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .93, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .92, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .048, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .046 (90% CI: .041–.051).

These findings conclusively confirm that masculine gender role stress is best conceptualized as a multi-faceted construct united under a higher-order latent disposition.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale is a standardized, self-report psychometric questionnaire designed for paper-and-pencil, computer-administered, or clinical interview formats. Below is the operational summary of the instrument:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological appraisal inventory / psychometric rating scale.
• Format: Closed-ended situational vignette statements assessing cognitive appraisal of stress.
• Target Population: Adolescent males (aged 16+) and adult men across the lifespan.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Total Item Count: 40 authentic items.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Physical Inadequacy: 9 items (Items 1, 6, 8, 16, 20, 25, 26, 30, 36)
  • Emotional Inexpressiveness: 8 items (Items 2, 12, 17, 22, 27, 29, 32, 37)
  • Subordination to Women: 8 items (Items 3, 7, 9, 13, 18, 19, 23, 38)
  • Intellectual Inferiority: 7 items (Items 4, 11, 14, 21, 24, 31, 34)
  • Performance Failures: 8 items (Items 5, 10, 15, 28, 33, 35, 39, 40)
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert-type rating format:
  • 1 = Not Stressful
  • 2 = Minimally Stressful
  • 3 = Somewhat Stressful
  • 4 = Moderately Stressful
  • 5 = Very Stressful
  • 6 = Extremely Stressful
• Scoring Rules:
  • All 40 items are keyed positively; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • Subscale Raw Scores: Calculated by summing the numerical ratings of the items corresponding to each respective subscale. Alternatively, mean subscale scores can be derived by dividing the subscale sum by the number of completed items in that subscale (yielding a score ranging from 1.0 to 6.0).
  • Total MGRS Composite Score: Calculated by summing the responses across all 40 items (theoretical range: 40 to 240). A higher composite score signifies elevated masculine gender role stress, pronounced cognitive vulnerability to gender norm threats, and greater risk for stress-related somatic and behavioral maladjustment.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale was officially developed and published in 1987 by Richard M. Eisler and Jay R. Skidmore in the peer-reviewed journal Behavior Modification (Sage Publications). The instrument is widely treated as an open-access psychometric tool for academic, scientific, and non-commercial clinical research purposes. In accordance with fair-use scholarly standards, researchers may reproduce and administer the scale in non-commercial psychological investigations without paying licensing royalty fees, provided full academic attribution is granted to the original authors and primary publications.

For commercial assessments, proprietary digital health platforms, corporate human resources deployments, or inclusion within fee-charging psychological software batteries, permission must be formally sought through the copyright holder, Sage Publications, or the author estates. Clinical practitioners using the instrument are encouraged to consult Dr. Eisler’s original publications and affiliated institutional thesis repositories (e.g., Virginia Tech, University of Georgia) for comprehensive normative distributions across varying socioeconomic and demographic male cohorts.

12. References

• Cohn, A. M., & Zeichner, A. (2006). Effects of masculine identity and masculine gender role stress on physical aggression in men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7(4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.7.4.229
• Eisler, R. M., & Blalock, J. A. (1991). Masculine gender role stress: Implications for the assessment of men. Clinical Psychology Review, 11(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(91)90136-S
• 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(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455870112001
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_12
• Good, G. E., Robertson, J. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Stevens, M., & Bartels, K. M. (1995). The Male Role Norms Inventory: Examination of substance and structure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.1.3
• Jakupcak, M., Lisman, S. A., & Cappellasso, K. (2002). Masculinity, masculine gender role stress, and men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3(2), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Orbell, M. M. (2013). Anger management in college students: A latent class analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, University of Georgia Libraries. Available online at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-02012007-160430/unrestricted/FinalThesis.pdf
• Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. MIT Press.
• Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). Basic Books.
• Watkins, P. L., Eisler, R. M., Carpenter, L., Schechtman, K. B., & Fisher, E. B. (1991). Cardiovascular reactivity to laboratory stressors in high and low masculine gender role stress college men. Behavior Modification, 15(1), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455910151002

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)