Examining masculine gender-role conflict and stress in relation to religious orientation and spiritual well-being in Australian men.

Jurkovic, Dubravko ; Walker, Gordon A.

Even though an overwhelming majority of Australians find churches unappealing and irrelevant (new statistics confirm declining attendance at traditional churches), according to the latest figures up to 75% of the Australian population claim to be religious in some way (Australian Bureau of Statistic, 2001). Despite this fact, most psychotherapists receive no formal training in the psychology of religion, and many studies report that most psychotherapists either avoid the theme of religion or handle it with insufficient skills, feeling uncomfortable and ill-equipped to deal with the spiritual concerns of clients (Schreurs, 2002). In a religiously diverse society like Australia, mental health professionals are likely to encounter many persons (apparently three out of four) of different religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, for reasons of intellectual integrity, psychology cannot afford to ignore or dismiss millennia of religious and philosophical thought about the very essence of human nature and existence (Turbott, 1996).

According to Tacey (2000), rationality without spirituality leads to "dryness" and a lack of meaning, a scenario reported by many depressed and suicidal Australian men. Suicide is the greatest cause of unnatural death for men in Australia (Biddulph, 1995). Recent surveys across 14 industrialised nations have found Australia to be the leader in suicide rates among 15- to 24-year-olds and that the rate is significantly higher for males in all age groups than for women (Mann, 1997). Since the increase in suicides over the past 30 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000) happened at the same time as a marked upheaval in men's gender roles, some recent literature suggests that the nature of the male role in society itself may be the cause of the tendency for males toward suicide more often than females (Hassan, 1995; Kidd, 2002). This line of reasoning (Hassan, 1995; Kidd, 2002; Tacey, 2000) has great appeal and encourages closer examination of the relationship between gender-role restrictions and pressures observable in the socialization process of men on one hand and their religious orientation and spirituality on the other.

Since the topics of religiousness and spirituality are very broad and are discussed in detail elsewhere (see Argyle, 2000; Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi 1975; Loewenthal, 2000; Schreurs, 2002; Spilka, Hood, & Gorsuch, 1985; Tacey, 2000; Vaughan, 1991; Wulff, 1997), only certain aspects will be examined in this study--namely the measurement of religiousness and spirituality.

The dominant paradigm for measuring religion has been the distinction between extrinsic (E) versus intrinsic (I) religious orientation (Allport & Ross, 1967). Extrinsic religiousness is the religion of comfort and social convention, a self-serving instrumental approach shaped to suit oneself, while intrinsic religiousness is religion as a meaning-endowing framework in terms of which all life is understood (Allport & Ross, 1967). The most widely used measure of spirituality is The Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) (Ellison, 1983), which purports to assess two distinct dimensions. The vertical dimension (or religious well-being) refers to a sense of well-being in relation to God. The horizontal dimension (or existential well-being) refers to a sense of life purpose and life satisfaction (Slater, Hall, & Edwards, 2001).

One of the most consistent findings in the sociology of religion is that women tend to be more religious than men (Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi, 1975; deVaus & McAllister, 1987; Francis & Wilcox, 1996; Paloma & Gallup, 1991). In comparison to women, men generally avoid religious activities and neglect attending to their spiritual lives (Batson & Ventis, 1982). The explanations for that finding vary from psychological theories (Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi, 1975; Suziedelis & Potvin, 1981) to the structural location of women in society (de Vaus & McAllister, 1987). Thompson (1991) challenged existing explanations, arguing that gender differences in religiousness are due to the different gender-role socialization processes that men and women experience. A body of research that suggests that male clergy tend to reflect a feminine personality profile (Ekhardt & Goldsmith 1984; Francis, 1991; Goldsmith & Ekhardt, 1984) and the findings of Francis and Wilcox (1996) that both men and women who possess a feminine rather than a masculine outlook tend to be more religious add further support to Thompson's thesis. Following the work of Erikson (1958, 1969), who argued that one needs the feminine mode to be able to have a religious experience, Zock (1997) concluded that the feminine mode is the basis of internalised religious experience and expression.

According to Mahalik and Lagan (2001), a more heuristic framework for explaining men's religiousness and spiritual well-being should incorporate a comprehensive understanding of the restrictive nature of the masculine socialization process. Pleck (1981, 1985) argued that, when men internalise stereotyped societal norms around male ideals (that are often contradictory, inconsistent, and unattainable), a gender-role strain arises. One type of gender-role strain is gender-role conflict (O'Neil, 1981; O'Neil, Good, & Holmes, 1995). More specifically, this psychological state in men occurs when "rigid, sexist, or restrictive gender roles learned during socialization result in personal restrictions, devaluation, or violation of others or self" (O'Neil, 1990, p. 25). O'Neil theorized that traditional male role socialization produces messages that are contradictory and unrealistic and lead to a fear of femininity (O'Neil, 1981, 1982). In turn, men engage in gender-role conflict patterns (that restrict their roles and behavior to stereotypically masculine ones) because of a fear of being or appearing feminine.

Masculine gender-role stress (MGRS) refers to the cognitive appraisal of a specific situation as being stressful for men (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). MGRS is a theoretical construct that describes the stress experienced by men when they feel they are not meeting culturally sanctioned masculine gender-role behavior or when the situation forces men to act in stereotypically feminine ways (Eisler, 1995). The pressure men tend to place on themselves reflects stressful experiences around (a) physical inadequacy, (b) emotional inexpressiveness, (c) subordination to women, (d) intellectual inferiority, and (e) performance failure. In addition, under conditions of accelerated modernization and women's emancipation, one might argue that there is a strong element of negativity in contemporary Australian culture about men, which contributes to masculine gender stress (Hassan, 1995).

Accumulated evidence supports the view that the way men are traditionally socialized to be masculine can have deleterious mental and physical health consequences (Fragoso & Kashubeck, 2000). For example, gender-role conflict has been shown to be related to men's overall psychological distress (Good et al., 1995); lower self-esteem and higher anxiety (Sharpe & Heppner, 1991); higher levels of anger and substance use (Blazina, & Watkins, 1996); a higher level of depression (Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995); and sexual aggression against women (Rando, Rogers, & Brittan-Powel, 1998). Research on masculine gender-role stress shows similar results in that gender-role stress has been reported to be associated with problematic behaviors, negative emotions, anger, and hostility as well as elevated blood pressure and high-risk health habits (Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988; Watkins, Eisler, Carpenter, Schechtman, & Fisher, 1991). Social constructionists also relate gender-role conflict and stress to a higher likelihood of men committing suicide than women (Kid, 2002; Tacey, 2000). The line of reasoning in this approach is that men's "gender identity" is subsumed by an overall "dominant hegemonic masculinity" and that it results in men's being unable to seek help (Connell, 1996). More specifically, men do not usually talk about their problems to anyone out of fear or embarrassment of being seen as weak (i.e., it would not be considered manly). In addition, the relative loss of status experienced by men produces a social, psychological, and economic climate that is conducive to an increase in men's suicide (Hassan, 1995).

In contrast, research reports a strong relationship between religiousness, spiritual well-being variables, and positive mental and physical health. A large proportion of the published empirical data suggests that religious commitment may play a beneficial role in preventing mental and physical illness (Koenig, 1998). Individuals with strong religious faith report higher levels of life satisfaction, greater personal happiness, and fewer negative psychosocial consequences of traumatic life events (Ellison, 1991). Studies also indicate that a variety of religious practices (e.g., church attendance, prayer) tends to be inversely associated with psychoactive substance use (Gorsuch, 1995). Several studies have shown that religion has the capacity to moderate the effects of stress in coping with significant negative life events (Maton, 1989; Pargament & Brant, 1998). Research also indicates that persons who are more religious experience less anxiety (Thorson, 1998) and less depression (Kennedy, 1998; Koenig, 1998). Also, religious commitment may afford protection against one of the most severe outcomes of depression: suicide (Gartner, Larson, & Allen, 1991).

Overall, following the evidence of the opposite effects of gender conflict/stress and religiousness/spirituality on men's health, it could be argued that masculine gender-role conflict and stress factors would relate to less spiritual well-being. Using a U.S. sample, Mahalik and Lagan (2001) examined masculine gender-role conflict and stress in relation to religiousness and spiritual well-being. Because men are socialized to avoid all things feminine (Levant & Pollack, 1998), and because the feminine mode is the basis of internalised religious experience and expression (Zock, 1997), Mahalik and Lagan (2001) argued that "men do not internalise religiousness or experience spiritual well-being to the extent that they constrain themselves from activities that may be considered feminine" (p. 24). Specifically, men who experience greater gender-role conflict and stress are likely to restrict themselves in terms of developing intrinsically oriented religious behavior, values, and attitudes because of fear of being or appearing feminine as well as the stress involved in participating in "feminine" activities. The results of the study revealed a significant relationship between the measures assessing gender-role conflict and stress and those assessing religiousness and spiritual well-being (Mahalik & Lagan). Given the similarity between the U.S. and Australian cultures, that insight could be also relevant in Australia. However, in the United States, religion is much more a part of the dominant culture than it is in Australia. By taking that difference into account, Mahalik and Lagan's hypothesis may still have relevance in explaining some societal factors that work against the psychological well-being of men in Australia.

Following the lead established by Mahalik and Lagan (2001), the present study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between masculine gender-role conflict factors and stress, on one hand, and religious orientation and spiritual well-being, on the other, using a sample of Australian men. Participants were asked to identify their level of religiousness (ranging from "not at all" to "extremely religious") as well as to fill out four questionnaires: the Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRSC); the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS); the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale--I/E-ROS Revised; and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS). Three hypotheses were examined.

First, it was hypothesised that nonreligious men would exhibit higher levels of masculine gender-role conflict and stress than religious men. Second, it was predicted that masculine gender role conflict and stress factors would be related to less intrinsic religiousness for men. Finally, it was also hypothesised that masculine gender-role conflict and stress factors would be related to less spiritual well-being.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

The initial sample consisted of 147 volunteer males whose ages ranged from 18 to 83 years (M = 38.47, SD = 14.29). Four participants did not give an answer to more than 30% of the questions and were removed from the study. For data analysis, participants were separated into two groups: "religious" (committed to religion) and "nonreligious" (not committed to religion), based on their self-reported level of religiousness.

The religious group (with self-reported levels of religiousness: "somewhat," "very," and "extremely religious") consisted of 73 participants, who averaged 38.90 years of age (SD = 13.28). They reported their religion as Protestant (53.4%), Catholic (23.3%), nondenominational (12.3%), and Orthodox (1.4%). Seven participants (9.6%) did not specify any religion.

The seventy (70) participants who were assigned to the nonreligious group (with self-reported level of religiousness either "not at all" or "not very religious") averaged 36.73 years of age (SD = 15.29).

MATERIALS

A personal particulars sheet and four self-report questionnaires were used. The personal particulars sheet was used to obtain general information about participants such as religion, level of religiousness, age, marital status, and country of birth. Specifically, level of religiousness was assessed on a five-point scale ("not at all," "not very," "somewhat," "very." and "extremely").

The Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRSC) (O'Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986) was used to measure levels and patterns of gender-role conflict in men. The GRCS provides an assessment of four factors: (a) success, power, and competition (SPC); (b) restrictive emotionality (RE); (c) restrictive affectionate behavior between men (RABBM); and (d) conflict between work and family relations (CBWF). It consists of 37 items that asked about participants' reactions in potential gender-role conflicts. Each item was scored on a 1-to-6 Likert scale ("strongly disagree" = 1 to "strongly agree" = 6), and scores were obtained by summing across items for each of four factors. Higher scores indicate greater gender-role conflict and fear of femininity.

O'Neil et al. (1986) reported internal consistency for the four factors (alphas range from .75 to .85) and adequate test-retest reliabilities (ranging from .72 to .86). Construct validity is supported by findings of positive relations with depression (Good & Mintz, 1990), traditional male role norms, and psychological distress (Good et al., 1995).

The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRSS) (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987) consists of 40 items designed to assess men's experience of stress associated with cognitive, behavioral, and environmental events related to the male gender role. Eisler and Skidmore found five factors reflecting experiences typically perceived as more stressful by men than by women: (a) being in situations that require emotional expressiveness, (b) feeling intellectually inferior, (c) feeling physically inadequate, (d) experiencing performance failure, and e) being subordinate to women. The respondents answer each item using a six-point Likert type scale ranging from "not stressful" (0) to "extremely stressful" (5), in terms of its impact on them (as if they were in the situation). Thus, higher scores indicate greater masculine role stress.

The coefficient alpha internal consistency of the MGRS is .90, while alpha coefficients range from .64 to .83 for the MGRS factors (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). Validity is supported by findings of positive correlations between MGRS scores and measures of Type-A behavior and hostility (Watkins et al., 1991) as well as by findings from studies that report that men score significantly higher on the MGRS and the five MGRS factors than do women (Eisler & Skidmore). Thus, the MGRS scale shows that some stresses in men are gender specific, tap into negative aspects of commitment to traditional masculine ideology, and are related to psychological distress.

To measure religious orientation, participants completed the revised Age Universal Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale (I/E ROS) (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983; Maltby & Lewis, 1996). The I/E ROS can be used among both religious and nonreligious samples and among all age groups (Maltby & Lewis, 1996). The scale contains two separate subscales designed to measure two distinct religious orientations: an intrinsic (I) and an extrinsic (E) orientation. Nineteen of the 20 items are scored on the same three-point Likert continuum scale, with 1 indicating disagreement, 2 indicating that the respondent is not sure, and 3 indicating agreement. Item six (part of the I subscale), which measures the frequency of church attendance, was dropped from the analysis because it did not seem appropriate to treat intrinsic faith and participation in religious services together. It was found in previous studies (e.g., Genia, 1993) that frequency of worship attendance as part of the I scale presents theoretical as well as methodological problems. Gorsuch (1984) argued that the relationship between intrinsic commitment and frequency of worship attendance should be established empirically rather than assumed a priori. The remaining eight intrinsic and 11 extrinsic items were scored separately.

Gorsuch and Venable (1983) reported internal consistency reliability of .66 for the E subscale and .73 for the I subscale. Hood (1970) reported the test-retest reliability of .93 for the total scale. Construct validity is supported by finding that intrinsicness correlated positively with measures of religious commitment (.76), while extrinsicness remained uncorrelated (.03) (Hood, 1970). Also, it was found that intrinsicness correlates positively with a sense of purpose in life (Crandall & Rasmussen, 1975), internal locus of control (Kahoe, 1974), and empathy (Watson, Hood, Morris, & Hall, 1984). Negative correlations were found between intrinsicness and depression (Genia & Shaw, 1991), trait anxiety (Baker & Gorsuch, 1982), prejudice, and dogmatism (Donahue, 1985). Positive correlation was found between high intrinsic orientation scores on the I/E-ROS and high spiritual well-being scores on the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (Bassett et al., 1991; Ellison, 1983). It was also found that religious people with intrinsically oriented faith are more psychologically adjusted than those who are extrinsically oriented toward religion (Bergin, 1991; Donahue, 1985).

The Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982) is a general measure of the subjective quality of life. The scale is nonsectarian and may be used with people from a wide range of beliefs as well as with nonreligious people (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). It serves as a global psychological measure of one's perception of spiritual well-being. By design, the construction of the SWBS includes both a religious and a social psychological dimension. The scale provides an "overall measure of the perceived spiritual quality of life, as understood in two senses--a religious sense and an existential sense" (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982, p. 2). The religious dimension (religious well-being--RWB) focuses on how one perceives the well-being of her or his spiritual life as this is expressed in relation to God. The social psychological dimension (existential well-being--EWB) concerns how well the person is adjusted to self, community, and surroundings. This component involves the existential notions of life purpose and life satisfaction. Based on these concepts, the SWB scale is a 20-item self-assessment instrument constructed of two subscales, one that represents the RWB dimension and one that represents the EWB dimension; each subscale contains 10 items. All of the RWB items contain the word "God." The EWB items contain no specifically religious language and instead ask about such things as life purpose, satisfaction, and relations with the people and situations around us. In order to control for response set bias, approximately half of the items are worded in a reverse direction so that disagreement with an item represents higher well-being. Each item is rated on a six-point Likert scale with answer options ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree," and the items are scored from one to six with a higher number representing more well-being.

Research reports strong test-retest reliability over a one-week period for the RWB between .88 and .96, for the EWB between .73 and .98, and for total SWBS between .82 and .99 (Ellison, 1983). The index of internal consistency ranges from .82 to .94 (RWB), .78 to .86 (EWB), and .89 to .94 (SWB) (Bufford, Paloutzian, & Ellison, 1991). The SWBS has good face validity as is evident by the content of the items. The SWBS is correlated positively with sense of purpose in life, a positive self-concept, emotional adjustment, and physical health (Bufford, Paloutzian, & Ellison, 1983; Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982).

PROCEDURE

The Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans at Monash University approved this research study. Participants were recruited by several different methods. For the religious group, the investigator passed out the questionnaires after church meetings to those willing to participate or gave the questionnaires to clergy to distribute to other church members. Participants in both groups were also selected by a snowballing technique from everyday situations in which the investigator was involved (workplace, sport activities, philosophy group, university).

Participation was voluntary. The only prerequisite for participation was that the individual be a male 18 years or over. All participants received a package containing a document explaining the nature of the study, the personal particulars sheet, four questionnaires (the GRCS, the MGRS, the SWBS, and the I/E ROS), and a prepaid reply envelope.

The participants completed questionnaires on their own time and either returned them to the researcher directly or by mail. All participant responses were anonymous in an attempt to decrease the likelihood of socially desirable responses and to increase the chance of honest replies. Scores on the GRCS, MGRS, SWBS and I/E ROS subscales were calculated and together with the personal data were entered into a data file for further statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Raw data were analysed using SPSS Version 11.0 for Windows. Frequencies and descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the variables. Examination of the z-scores revealed 13 univariate outliers. Cases found to be outliers were adjusted (up or down) to the nearest score that was not an outlier so that they remained extreme cases but not outside the distribution, as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). Skewness and kurtosis were insignificant for all variables, and linearity between variables was assessed by inspection of bivariate scatter plots. No within-set multivariate outliers were identified at the p < .001 criterion for Mahalanobis distance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Assumptions regarding within-set multicollinearity were met.

Reliability measures for each subscale employed were checked using Chronbach's alpha, and all subscales showed acceptable internal reliability. Specifically, alphas for factors of the GRCS were .90 for SPC, .88 for CBWF, .86 for RE, and .89 for RABBM. Alphas for factors on the MGRS were .73 for physical inadequacy, .74 for emotional inexpressiveness, .83 for subordination to women, .72 for intellectual inferiority, and .82 for performance failure. Alphas for I/E ROS subscales were .90 for internal religious orientation (intrinsic) and .63 for external religious orientation (extrinsic). The SWBS yielded alphas of .90 for the RWB and .86 for the EWB subscale.

Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the predictor and criterion variables for both groups of men (religious and nonreligious) were calculated. Table 1 shows means and standard deviations for the religious and nonreligious groups on each of the subscales.

Table 1 shows that the means for all subscales of the GRCS and MGRSS were higher for the nonreligious than for the religious group, while means for subscales of the SWBS and I/E ROS were higher for the religious group.

To assess the difference between the religious and the nonreligious groups in the levels of gender conflict and stress (hypothesis 1), two independent-measures t-tests were conducted. Significant differences were found for the level of gender conflict, (t([sub.141]) = 3.67, p < .01), and for the level of masculine gender stress, (t([sub.141]) = 3.70, p < .01), with the nonreligious group showing significantly higher levels of conflict and stress than the religious group.

Pearson's product-moment correlations were used to examine the nature of the relationships between the subscales employed for both groups. These are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 indicates that significant positive relationships for the religious group were between SPC and external religious orientation (r = .37, n = 73, p < .01) and performance failure and external religious orientation (r = .31, n = 73, p < .01). Significant negative relationships were found between SPC and internal religious orientation (r = -.25, n = 73, p < .05), between performance failure and existential well-being (r = -.29, n = 73, p < .05), and between performance failure and religious well-being (r = -.34, n = 73, p < .01).

For the nonreligious group, Table 2 shows significant positive relationships between external religious orientation and RAM (r = .27, n = 70, p < .05), CBWF (r = .32, n = 70, p < .01), SW (r = .33, n = 70, p < .01), and with intellectual inferiority (r = .24, n = 70, p < .05). Significant negative relationships were found between EWB and SPC (r = -.26, n = 73, p < .05), RE (r = -.24, n = 70, p < .05), RAM (r = -.35, n = 70, p < .01), CBWF (r = -.24, n = 70, p < .05), physical inadequacy (r = -.46, n = 70, p < .01), emotional inexpressiveness (r = -.46, n = 70, p < .01), subordination to women (r = -.44, n = 70, p < .0 l), and intellectual inferiority (r = -.46, n = 70, p< .01).

To examine the hypotheses that gender-role conflict and gender-role stress would relate to religiousness and spiritual well-being in two distinct groups of men, separate canonical correlation analyses were conducted. Canonical correlation was used because it is the only technique available for examining the interrelationships among sets of multiple dependent variables and multiple independent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Canonical correlation's goal is to quantify the strength of the relationship between sets of variables. It identifies the optimum structure or dimensionality of each variable set for maximizing the relationship between independent and dependent variable sets (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). For each canonical analysis, the gender role conflict factors and gender-role stress variables formed one side of the model, and the measures of internal religiousness, external religiousness, existential well-being, and religious well-being formed the other side of the model.

Examining the religious group, the canonical correlation results indicated that one function was significant, Wilks's [lambda] = .42, [chi square] ([sub.36]) = 56.29, p < .05. The first canonical correlation was .60, and it accounted for 36% of the total variance. For the nonreligious group, results also indicated one significant function, Wilks's [lambda] = .42, [chi square] ([sub.36]) = 53.33,p < .05.

The first pair of canonical variates, therefore, accounted for the significant relationships between the two sets of variables in both groups. Data on the first pair of canonical variates appears in Table 3. Shown in the table are structure correlational coefficients (loadings) for the significant canonical function for the religious and the non-religious groups.

Table 3 indicates that the canonical function for the religious group was characterized by a strong positive loading on external religiousness, a moderate positive loading on PF and SPC, a strong negative loading on internal religiousness and religious well-being, and moderate negative loading on EWB. These structural coefficients suggest that religious men who experience greater rigidity about being successful/powerful/competitive (.47) and greater stress from performance failure (.54) reported less existential (-.32) and religious well-being (-.81) and had less of an internal (-.79) and more of an external (.84) religious orientation.

Table 3 also shows that the canonical function for the nonreligious group was characterized by strong positive loadings on RE (.79), RAM (.71), physical inadequacy (.74), emotional inexpressiveness (.80), subordination to women (.86), and intellectual inferiority (.80). There were moderate positive loadings on SPC (.64), CBWF (.59), performance failure (.55), and a strong negative loading on EWB (.89). These structure coefficients suggest that non-religious men who experience greater gender stress and gender conflict reported less existential well-being (-.89).

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between masculine gender-role conflict and stress factors on one hand and religious orientation and spiritual well-being on the other, using a sample of Australian men. Three hypotheses were examined using quantitative analyses. Support was found for the hypothesis that nonreligious men would exhibit higher levels of masculine gender-role conflict and stress than religious men. Support was also found for the prediction that masculine gender-role conflict and stress factors would be related to less intrinsic religiousness for men. Results also indicated that masculine gender-role conflict and stress factors were related to less spiritual well-being for both religious and nonreligious men.

The findings of this study that nonreligious men exhibited higher levels of masculine gender-role conflict and stress in comparison to religious men are consistent with findings by Maton (1989) and Pargament and Brant (1998) that religion can moderate the effect of stress. Also, the findings of the current study appear to be in line with Thorson's (1998) findings that persons who are more religious experience less anxiety as well as with findings from Ellison (1991) that individuals with strong religious faith report a higher level of life satisfaction and greater personal happiness.

The results of this study, that Australian men with higher levels of gender-role conflict and stress have less intrinsic and more extrinsic religious orientation, partly echo findings from the U.S. samples (Mahalik & Lagan, 2001). Also, the results are consistent with Mahalik and Lagan's view that rigidity in terms of traditional masculinity (as well as stress resulting from living up to traditional male roles) relates to less intrinsic religiousness. It could be argued that men who strive to live up to a stereotypical "masculine" ideal, and avoid anything that appears "feminine" (Levant & Pollack, 1998) are likely to restrict themselves in terms of developing intrinsically oriented religious behavior (Zock, 1997). Conversely, it is possible that men whose socialization experiences develop their "feminine outlook" seek out the connectedness inherent within religion (Thompson, 1991). Thompson argued that men who have developed a "feminine side" to their gender perspective might feel more comfortable crossing over traditional gender boundaries to participate actively in religion.

Although the inverse relationship between conflict/stress factors and intrinsic religious orientation was found for both groups (nonreligious and religious), the pattern was not the same. The results for the nonreligious group revealed an inverse relationship among all factors assessing gender-role conflict/stress and intrinsic religious orientation. Also, the loadings on those factors were high, suggesting strong rigid masculine identity. As expected, for the religious group, the loading on the intrinsic factor was much higher compared to the nonreligious group, and a strong inverse relationship was found only with the "success, power, competition" (SPC) factor and the "performance failure" (PF) factor. It appears that even religious men (with a "feminine mode" and less rigid "masculinity") are affected in their religious commitment to the degree that they have internalised messages about success, power, competition, and performance. Also, this finding indicates that the image of the Australian male as a strong, sexually active breadwinner is still present in Australian men. This is not surprising, since in Australia masculinity is historically associated with authority and power at all class levels (Connell et al., 1998), and the traditional image (symbol) of masculinity is of the self-sufficient, rough-and-ready bronzed man of the ANZAC legend (1) (Connell et al., 1998). Apparently, men are still socialized to believe in the importance of success, power, and competitiveness (the ANZAC ideal has been replaced by the successful sportsman).

One finding of this study is that men who exhibit a higher level of gender role conflict and stress experience less existential well-being (EWB). Since EWB is a reflection of a sense of life purpose and life satisfaction, this finding adds to previous findings (Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995; Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988; Good et al., 1995) that gender-role conflict and masculine gender-role stress are powerful predictors of men's psychological distress. This finding is also consistent with Ellison's (1991) study, which reported that religious belief enhances cognitive and affective perceptions of life quality. Again there is a different pattern of the results between the two groups. Specifically, for the nonreligious group all gender-role conflict and gender-role stress factors were inversely related to existential well-being. For the religious group, only SPC (success, power, and competition) and PF (performance failure) were strongly inversely related to existential well-being. It appears that both groups suffer stress, perhaps due to a lack of understanding that men's roles and society in Australia are changing (and things are not as they were for previous generations). Those men who are unsuccessful (i.e., unemployed) suffer, because acculturation and conditioning results in a man being valued in terms of "what he does."

Religion appears to be one important way to have a sense of well-being. The notion that religion provides a framework that gives meaning and purpose to life, providing a sense of well-being, has been supported by several empirical investigations (Chamberlain & Zika, 1992; Crandall & Rasmussen, 1975). Although religion may be only one of many ways in which meaning is assessed, Ellison (1991) found that a strong faith allows people to hold onto happiness after unemployment, serious illness, divorce, or bereavement.

Previous findings (Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995; Good et al., 1995; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991) that men with high levels of gender-role conflict and strong masculine identity experience more negative psychological consequences, including personal strain and stress, were confirmed by this study. In addition, the results of this study suggest that intrinsic religiousness--living one's religion--is associated with more positive psychological outcomes for men. As gender-role conflict/stress was significantly lower for the religious than for the nonreligious group, it could be speculated that such phenomena as the high rate of suicide among Australian men could be linked to the current low cultural valuation of religiousness/spirituality. Thus, it is advisable that psychologists, especially counselors, break away from viewing psychology as a one-dimensional science and recognize the multifaceted layers of existence. In keeping with the predominant "illness model," counselors are more often concerned with risk factors for depression, suicide, substance misuse, and violence than with the less-publicized protective factors, which include "connectedness" and "spirituality" (Hassed, 2000). Gauging a client's spiritual awareness, at the very least, should form an important part of a thorough client history. One cannot really be said to know another person without an understanding of his or her responses to the most important questions that human beings ask themselves (Hassed, 2000). A psychology that fails to recognize that religiousness and spirituality (in the context of life meaning) are very important aspects of human existence risks losing its human relevance and becoming a somewhat emotionally bankrupt discipline. In general, all those who are attempting to deal with men's health issues should give more attention to a spiritual dimension in men's lives. Also, society as a whole should accept men having a broader range of characteristics than the narrow view of stereotyped masculinity. A nonharmful action in redefining masculine roles would be to discard the pressures for men to exhibit high-risk behavior in order to be accepted as men. The boundaries of maleness need to be widened to include views that are presently considered feminine--that it is okay to show emotion, to talk about feelings, to be religious/spiritual.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Some of the participants objected to the limitations imposed by questions in the I/E ROS and the SWBS, often adding in margins qualifications or alternatives they felt were needed to represent their own views. While the measures used are validated instruments, those comments indicated how challenging it is to gather scientifically appropriate data of what religiousness and spirituality mean for the individual. What makes this task difficult is the fact that a religious tradition is a complex phenomenon of doctrine, community, identity, structure, and rituals. Since a person receives his or her religion through a form of religious tradition, it is important to remember that it is the individual who has internalized the religious formation, thus making the measurement of the concepts even more challenging. It is possible that the results of this study are affected by methodological flaws, such as inadequacies in the way religiousness and spiritual well-being were measured by using the I/E ROS-Revised and the SWBS, especially with the nonreligious participants. However, the large number of studies that have used both measures and the consistency of the psychometric properties across the range of different samples (some of which included nonreligious participants) provide a strong argument for not dismissing the results of this study.

A general criticism of self-report measures is that respondents may respond in a "socially desirable" fashion. Men who are inclined to portray themselves favorably would tend to provide lower scores on certain subscales of the GRCS and the MGRS (i.e., they would describe themselves as more sexually capable). For future research, additional insights could be gained by using a form for peer ratings (for the GRCS and the MGRS). Taking into account correlations between self-reported and peer-rated measures might be useful.

The fact that most of the religious participants were Christians indicates the need for caution in extending the findings to other religious groups in the Australian community. To draw any stronger conclusions and in order to be truly representative of the contemporary multicultural Australian society, future research could use a much larger and diverse sample, which would include men from at least the major religious denominations. A mix of denominational and congregational data is also required to clarify the precise links between collective religious participation, private beliefs, and various dimensions of personal well-being. Future research could also explore more fully the links between the various aspects of religiousness/spirituality and aspects of self-concept and personality. For example, Bochner's (1976) study of religious role salience showed that Christians and Moslems provide very different self-references. "I am a Moslem" is among the top three self-descriptions, while Christians either did not mention their faith at all or did so after giving other, for them, more salient self-references (Bochner, 1976).

CONCLUSION

By using a sample of Australian men, this study extended previous research by Mahalik and Lagan (2001) that tapped the area of the restrictive nature of masculine socialization in relation to men's religiousness and spiritual well-being. The results of this study supported the notion that men who hold less stereotyped views about being "male" experience less gender-role conflict and stress, more intrinsic religiousness, and more well-being. In the light of the unfortunate fact that in Australia a tragically high number of men take their own lives, it is believed that the results of this study shed some additional light on the negative affects of masculine gender-role strain. In addition, they give credence to the recommendation that, in order to help men, psychotherapists and psychologists should be prepared to address religious and spiritual issues in the context of their clinical and counseling interventions.

REFERENCES

Allport, G.W., & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.

Argyle, M. (2000). Psychology and religion: An introduction. London: Routledge.

Argyle, M., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The social psychology of religion. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2000). Australian Social Trends 2000--Health--Mortality and Morbidity: Suicide. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Australian Social Trends 2001--Religion. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Author.

Baker, M., & Gorsuch, R. (1982). Trait anxiety and intrinsic/extrinsic religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 119-122.

Batson, C.D., & Ventis, W.L. (1982). The religious experience: A socio-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bergin, A.E. (1991). Values and religious issues in psychotherapy and mental health. American Psychologist, 46, 394-403.

Bergin, A., Masters, K., & Richards, P. (1987) Religiousness and mental health reconsidered: A study of an intrinsically religious sample. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 197-204.

Blazina, C., & Watkins, C.E., Jr. (1996). Masculine gender role conflict: Effects on college men's psychological well-being, chemical substance use, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 461-465.

Bochner, S. (1976). Religious role differentiation as an aspect of subjective culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7, 3-19.

Bufford, R.K., Paloutzian, R.F., & Ellison, C.W. (1991). Norms for the spiritual well-being scale. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 56-70.

Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1992). Religiosity, meaning in life, and psychological well-being. In J.F. Schumaker (Ed.), Religion and mental health (pp. 138-148). New York: Oxford University Press.

Connell, R.W. (1996). Masculinities. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Connell, R.W., Schofield, T., Walker, L., Wood, J., Butland, D.L., Fisher, J., et al. (1998). Men's health: A research agenda and background report. Report submitted to the Commonwealth Department of Health & Aged Care, Canberra.

Cournoyer, R.J., & Mahalik, J.R. (1995). Cross-sectional study of gender role conflict examining college-aged and middle-aged men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 11-19.

Crandall, J., & Rasmussen, R. (1975). Purpose in life as related to specific values. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 483-485.

DeVaus, D., & McAllister, I. (1987). Gender differences in religion: A test of the structural location theory. American Sociological Review, 52, 472-481.

Donahue, M.J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.

Eisler, R.M. (1995). The relationship between masculine gender role stress and men's health risk: The validation of the construct. In R.F. Levant & W.S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 207-225). New York: Basic Books.

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.

Eisler, R.M., Skidmore, J.R., & Ward, C.H. (1988). Masculine gender stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 133-141.

Ekhardt, B.N., & Goldsmith, W.M. (1984). Personality factors of men and women pastoral candidates: Part 1. Motivational profile. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 12, 109-118.

Ellison, C.W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 330-340.

Ellison, C.G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 80-99.

Erikson, E.H. (1958). Young man Luther: A study in psychoanalysis and history. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E.H. (1969). Gandhi's truth. On the origin of militant non-violence. New York: Norton.

Fragoso, J.M., & Kashubeck, S. (2000). Machismo, gender role conflict, and mental health in Mexican American men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 87-97.

Francis, L.J. (1991). The personality characteristics of Anglican ordinands: Feminine men and masculine women? Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1133-1140.

Francis, L.J., & Wilcox, C. (1996). Religion and gender orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 119-121.

Gartner, J., Larson, D.B., & Allen, G. (1991). Religious commitment and mental health: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 6-25.

Genia, V. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the Allport-Ross I/E scales in a religiously heterogeneous sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 284-290.

Genia, G.E., & Shaw, D.G. (1991). Religion, intrinsic-extrinsic orientation, and depression. Review of Religious Research, 32, 274-283.

Goldsmith, W.M., & Ekhardt, B.N. (1984). Personality factors of men and women pastoral candidates: Part 2: Sex role preferences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 12, 211-221.

Good, G.E., & Mintz, L.B. (1990). Gender role conflict and depression in college men: Evidence for compounded risk. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 17-21.

Good, G.E., Robertson, J.M., O'Neil, J., Fitzgerald, L.F., Stevens, M., DeBord, K.A., et al. (1995). Male gender role conflict: Psychometric issues and relations to psychological stress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 3-10.

Gorsuch, R.L. (1984). Measurement: The boon and bone of investigating religion. American Psychologist, 39, 228-236.

Gorsuch, R.L. (1995). Religious aspects of substance abuse and recovery. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 65-83.

Gorsuch, R.L., & Venable, G.D. (1983). Development of an Age Universal I-E scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 181-187.

Hassan, R. (1995). Suicide explained: The Australian experience. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Hassed, C.S. (2000). Depression: Dispirited or spiritually deprived? The Medical Journal of Australia, 173, 545-547.

Hood, R., Jr. (1970). Religious orientation and the report of religious experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 9, 285-291.

Kahoe, R.D. (1974). Personality and achievement correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 812-818.

Kennedy, G.J. (1998). Religion and depression. In H.G. Koenig (Ed.), Handbook of religion and mental health (pp. 128-146). New York: Academic Press.

Kidd, M. (2002). Suicide and manhood. Manhood online. Retrieved October 18, 2002, from http://www.manhood.com.au/scripts/manhood.

Koenig, H.G. (1998). Handbook of religion and mental health. New York: Academic Press.

Levant, R.F., & Pollack, W.S. (1995). The new psychology of men. New York: Basic Books.

Loewenthal, K.M. (2000). The psychology of religion: A short introduction. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.

Mahalik, J.R., & Lagan. H.D. (2001). Examining masculine gender role conflict and stress in relation to religious orientation and spiritual well-being. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 2-33.

Maltby, J., & Lewis, C.A. (1996). Measuring intrinsic and extrinsic orientation toward religion: Amendments for its use among religious and non-religious samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 21,937-946. Mann, L. (1997). Youth suicide: Can primary care help? Australian Nursing Journal, 4, 5-7.

Maton, K.I. (1989). The stress-buffering role of spiritual support: Cross-sectional and prospective investigations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 310-323.

O'Neil, J.M. (1981). Male sex-role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Psychological implications for men, women, and the counselling psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 61-81.

O'Neil, J.M. (1982). Gender role conflict and strain in men's lives: Implications for psychiatrists, psychologists, and other human-service providers. In K. Solomon & N. B. Levy (Eds.), Men in transition: Theory and therapy (pp. 5-49). New York: Plenum.

O'Neil, J.M. (1990). Assessing men's gender role conflict. In D. Moore & F. Leafgren (Eds.), Problem solving strategies and interventions for men in conflict (pp. 23-38). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

O'Neil, J.M., Good, G.E., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen years of theory and research on men's gender role conflict: New paradigms for empirical research. In R.F. Levant & W.S. Pollack (Eds.), The new psychology of men (pp. 164-206). New York: Basic Books.

O'Neil, J.M., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. (1986). Gender role conflict scale: College men's fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-350.

Paloma, M.M., & Gallup, G.H., Jr. (1991). Varieties of prayer: A survey report. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.

Paloutzian, R.F., & Ellison, C.W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and the quality of life. In L.A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 224-236). New York: Wiley.

Pargament, K.I., & Brant, C.R. (1998). Religion and coping. In H.G. Koenig (Ed.), Handbook of religion and mental health (pp. 111-128). New York: Academic Press.

Pleck, J.H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge: 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). New York: Basic Books.

Pollner, M. (1989). Divine relations, social relations, and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 92-104

Rando, R.A., Rogers, J.R., & Brittan-Powell, C.S. (1998). Gender role conflict and college men's sexually aggressive attitudes and behavior. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20, 359-369.

Schreurs, A. (2002). Psychotherapy and spirituality: Integrating the spiritual dimension into therapeutic practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Sharpe, M.J., & Heppner, P.P. (1991). Gender role, gender role conflict, and psychological well-being in men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 323-330.

Slater, W., Hall, T.W., & Edwards, K.J. (2001). Measuring religion and spirituality: Where are we and where are we going? Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 4-24.

Spilka, B., Hood, R.W., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1985). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Yacey, D. (2000). Re-enchantment: The new Australian spirituality. Sydney: Harper Collins Publishers.

Thompson, E.H. (1991). Beneath the status characteristics: Gender variation in religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 381-394.

Thorson, J.A. (1998). Religion and anxiety: Which anxiety? Which religion? In H.G. Koenig (Ed.), Handbook of religion and mental health (pp. 147-160). New York: Academic Press.

Turbott, J. (1996). Religion, spirituality and psychiatry: Conceptual, cultural and personal challenges. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 30, 720-727.

Vaughan, F. (1991). Spiritual issues in psychotherapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 23, 105-119.

Watkins, P.L., Eisler, R.M., Carpenter, L., Schechtman, K.B., & Fisher, E.B. (1991). Psychosocial and physiological correlates of male gender role stress among employed adults. Behavioral Medicine, 17, 86-90.

Watson, P.J., Hood, R.W., Jr., Morris, R.J., & Hall, J.R. (1984). Empathy, religious orientation, and social desirability. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 211-216.

Wulff, D.M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York: Wiley.

Zock, H. (1997). The predominance of the feminine sexual mode in religion: Erikson's contribution to the sex and gender debate in the psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7, 187-198.

NOTE

(1.) ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. The soldiers in those forces quickly became known as ANZACs, and the pride they soon took in that name endures to this day. ANZAC Day (25 April) marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War. Australians recognize 25 April as an occasion of national commemoration. It is a day when Australians reflect on the many different meanings of war.

DUBRAVKO JURKOVIC and GORDON A. WALKER

Monash University, Australia

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gordon Walker, Department of Psychology, School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, Melbourne, Australia 3145. Electronic mail: gordon.walker@med.monash.edu.au.

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Religious (N = 73) and
Nonreligious (N = 70) Groups on Each of the Subscales Employed

 Religious Nonreligious

Variable M SD M SD

Gender Role Conflict Scale
 * success, power, and competition 34.05 11.75 40.04 14.84
 * restrictive emotionality 23.33 7.81 30.29 10.87
 * restrictive affectionate behavior
 between men 19.88 7.25 23.96 10.50
 * conflict between work and family 18.42 7.57 20.90 8.61
Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale
 * physical inadequacy 14.52 7.05 18.57 8.48
 * emotional inexpressiveness 8.23 4.77 11.07 5.70
 * subordination to women 5.26 3.89 7.51 6.52
 * intellectual inferiority 8.75 5.03 10.73 6.01
 * performance failure 19.77 7.36 24.56 5.74
Spiritual Well-Being Scale
 * existential well-being 49.49 7.73 42.13 9.86
 * religious well-being 49.53 10.24 22.20 10.97
Internal-External Religious Orientation Scale
 * internal orientation 20.19 3.43 10.93 2.80
 * external orientation 16.86 4.01 15.64 3.13

Table 2
Correlation Matrix for Gender-Role Conflict Factors, Gender-Role Stress
Factors, Spiritual Well-Being Scales, and Internal-External Religious
Orientation Scale Scores

 Variable 1 2 3 4 5

 1. SPC .46 ** .41 ** .50 ** .49 **
 2. RE .49 ** .63 ** .36 ** .38 **
 3. RAM .56 ** .64 ** .32 ** .40 **
 4. CBWF .64 ** .38 .51 ** .34 **
 5. PI .55 ** .40 ** .41 ** .32 **
 6. EI .39 ** .62 ** .54 ** .31 ** .72 **
 7. SW .56 ** .45 ** .47 ** .33 ** .75 **
 8. II .53 ** .51 ** .54 ** .40 ** .79 **
 9. PF .43 ** .27 * .35 ** .31 ** .76 **
10. EWB -.26 * -.24 * -.35 ** -.24 * -.46 **
11. RWB .02 -.11 -.09 -.11 -.01
12. IRO .03 -.09 -.10 -.02 -.09
13. ERO .33 .22 .27 * .32 ** .15

 Variable 6 7 8 9 10

 1. SPC .37 ** .32 ** .57 ** .56 ** -.23
 2. RE .45 ** .34 ** .42 ** .36 ** -.21
 3. RAM .53 ** .40 ** .47 ** .21 -.01
 4. CBWF .25 * .18 .48 ** .41 ** .14
 5. PI .57 ** .56 * .66 ** .71 ** -.20
 6. EI .53 ** .65 ** .32 ** -.16
 7. SW .70 ** .57 ** .34 ** -.04
 8. II .78 ** .77 ** .54 ** -.18
 9. PF .61 ** .54 ** .70 ** -.29 *
10. EWB -.46 ** -.44 ** -.46 ** -.33 **
11. RWB -.09 .12 -.03 -.12 .22
12. IRO -.13 -.05 -.04 -.23 .15
13. ERO .19 .33 ** .24 * .03 -.22

 Variable 11 12 13

 1. SPC -.18 -.25* .37**
 2. RE -.08 -.02 .12
 3. RAM .06 .07 .16
 4. CBWF -.11 -.18 .18
 5. PI -.19 -.08 .21
 6. EI -.12 -.07 .23
 7. SW .04 .00 .09
 8. II .05 .09 .06
 9. PF -.34 ** -.21 .31 **
10. EWB .66 ** .46 ** -.29
11. RWB .79 ** -.48 **
12. IRO .39 ** -.49 **
13. ERO .36 ** .51 **

* p < .05, two tailed. ** p < .01, two tailed

Note. Above the diagonal are correlations for the religious group
(n = 73); below the diagonal are correlations for the nonreligious
group (n = 70). SPC = success, power, and competition; RE = restrictive
emotionality; RAM = restrictive affectionate behavior between man;
CBWF = conflict between work and family; PI = physical inadequacy;
EI = emotional inexpressiveness; SW = subordination of women;
II = intellectual inferiority; PF = performance failure;
EWB = existential well-being; RWB = religious well-being;
IRO = internal religious orientation; ERO = external religious
orientation.

Table 3
Structure Correlational Coefficients (Canonical Loadings) for the
Significant Canonical Function Examining Masculine and Religious
Variables for Religious and Nonreligious Sample

 Function Function
Variable Religious Nonreligious

Gender-Role Conflict Scale
* success, power, and competition .47 .64
* restrictive emotionality .09 .79
* restrictive affectionate behavior .06 .71
 between men
* conflict between work and family .25 .59

Gender-Role Stress Scale
* physical inadequacy .29 .74
* emotional inexpressiveness .27 .80
* subordination to women .02 .86
* intellectual inferiority -.12 .80
* performance failure .54 .55

Spiritual Well-Being Scale
* existential well-being -.32 -.89
* religious well-being -.81 -.06

Internal-External Religious Orientation Scale
* internal orientation -.79 -.14
* external orientation .84 .56