A MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF MASCULINE GENDER ROLE STRAIN AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO DEGREES OF SUBSTANCE DEPENDENCE AND DEGREES OF VIOLENCE

IN AN ADULT INCARCERATED POPULATION by Lynda K. Hemann

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University February 2007

UMI Number: 3260872

Copyright 2007 by Hemann, Lynda K. All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3260872 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

 Lynda K. Hemann, 2007

A MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF MASCULINE GENDER ROLE STRAIN AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO DEGREES OF SUBSTANCE DEPENDENCE AND DEGREES OF VIOLENCE IN AN ADULT INCARCERATED POPULATION by Lynda K. Hemann has been approved February 2007 APPROVED: NANCY A. PIOTROWSKI, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair MARILYN MARKS-FREY, Ph.D., Committee Member STEVEN SCHNEIDER, Ph.D., Committee Member KENNETH SZYMKOWIAK, Ph.D., Committee Member ACCEPTED AND SIGNED: __________________________________________ NANCY A. PIOTROWSKI, Ph.D. __________________________________________ Garvey House, Ph.D. Dean, School of Psychology

Abstract A major area in the study of men and masculinity concerns how the internalized masculinity ideal contributes to aggression, violence, and substance disorders. The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship among masculine gender role strain and level of aggression and severity of substance dependence in a population of incarcerated male criminal offenders. A total of 783 incarcerated, adult, male, sentenced jail inmates participated in the study. Of these, 250 men were chosen for the second level of testing based on scoring in the .5 standard deviation range of potential scores on at least two of three masculine gender role measures placing them at the extremes (high/low) for masculine gender role strain. These two groups were then assessed for the presence of a substance disorder at a second interview and qualified if they had a diagnosis of substance dependence on at least one class of drug. A multivariate analysis of covariance procedure (MANCOVA) evaluated masculine gender role strain for its ability to predict level of aggression and severity of substance dependence. Predictor variables were measured using (a) the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory, (b) the Gender Role Conflict Scale-I, and (c) the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale. The dependent variables, substance use and aggression, were measured through (d) the Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic Schedule, and (e) the Aggression Questionnaire. Two covariates, narcissism and socially desirable responding, were assessed through the use of (f) the Margolis-Thomas Measure of Narcissism, and (g) the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Findings suggest that masculine gender role strain is useful to predict levels of aggression and severity of substance disorder in an incarcerated population (p < .001). Further, when all other predictor variables are controlled, masculine gender role ideology and desirable responding make the strongest unique contributions to predicting reports of aggression.

Dedication This work is dedicated to my mother and father, Mildred Foose and the late Marcellus Foose; my mother- and father-in-law, Joy Hemann and Charles Hemann; and my other mother and father, Cleova Weinert and the late George Weinert. Thanks for everything.

iii

Acknowledgments I wish to extend my gratitude to my close and dear friends and business associates whose loving patience, support, and encouragement were essential to the accomplishment of this lifelong goal. So, thanks Carole, Lynn, Patricia, Lynne C-M, Jacqueline, Debbie, Corrine, Tom, and Christine. Thanks also to Andrea, David, Eusebio, Oscar, Gabriel, Paul, Bob, Troy, Bunny, Elizabeth, Raynay, and Monica. Your help was invaluable. My indebtedness extends to Sergeant April Garza and all the other individuals at the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office who so willingly gave of their time and expertise to assist my efforts. Ms. Thelda Williams, Division Commander of the Custody Support Division and Ms. Judy Lorch, Administrator, were the driving forces behind all this. A special thanks to Judy for the extra work and planning she so willingly coordinated to make sure my research efforts came together. The time and laughs we shared together were most special to me. Special thanks to Dr. Nancy Piotrowski, my dissertation committee chair and mentor, who has earned my utmost respect and sincere appreciation for her patience and guidance with me. A warm thank-you to Dubravka Svetina is extended for her extra special mentoring in statistics and the finer nuances of SPSS. My brother-in-law, Jeff, was always there for me with his wonderful grin when I needed it the most, and for that I am deeply thankful. Deep heartfelt appreciation is extended to my daughter, Tina, who always was willing to share of herself, was always able to sense when I needed a hug the most and whose gentle presence and lively conversation made many a dark hour seem much lighter. Her smile and laugh always made my world a better place to be. My most loving gratitude is extended to my husband and partner, Les who, without question has accepted my quest to accomplish my educational goals. He always believed in me, listened, gave iv

feedback, explained computers, and essentially helped make this dream come true. His devotion, support, strength, resilience, and unfailing love have sustained me over the years.

Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Research Hypotheses Nature of the Study Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions Limitations Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Conceptual Framework Variables Target Population Research Method Psychometric Instruments Summary vi iv ix 1 1 1 3 4 5 6 6 7 12 12 13 14 14 14 17 21 23 24 35

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Restatement of Purpose Research Design Target Population Selection of Participants Testing Environment Variables Measures Procedures Null Hypotheses Power Analysis Data Analysis Expected Findings CHAPTER 4. RESULTS Introduction Descriptive Results CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction Major Findings Testing Concerns Limitations Conclusions Recommendations and Future Directions vii

36 36 36 37 38 38 39 41 43 46 47 47 48 50 50 50 65 65 65 70 73 73 75

REFERENCES APPENDIX A. INITIAL ENTRY INTO THE SYSTEM APPENDIX B. RECRUITMENT ANNOUNCEMENT FLYER APPENDIX C. INITIAL TESTING PHASE OPENING PREPARED SCRIPT APPENDIX D. RESEARCH SUBJECT INFORMED CONSENT FORM AND PREPARED SCRIPT APPENDIX E. DEFINITIONS OF WORDS ANTICIPATED AS CHALLENGING APPENDIX F. PREPARED SCRIPT FOR PHASE 2 TESTING INTRODUCTION AND CLOSING

79 94 96 97 99 106 107

viii

List of Tables Table 1. Research Variable Labels and Descriptions Table 2. Demographics of the Initial Recruitment Population, the Research Sample Selected for the Second Phase of Testing Based on High/Low Masculine Gender Role Strain, the Research Sample Not Selected for Testing, Those who Refused, and a National Sample Table 3. Tests of Homogeneity of Variance-Covariance and Equality of Variance Assumptions Pertinent to MANCOVA Comparing HICAT (n = 111) and LOCAT (n = 101) Across the Dependent Variables of MAXSUB and AQTOT Table 4. 2 X 2 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance, With Substance Dependence Severity and Aggression as Dependent Variables (N = 212) Table 5. Independent T Tests on Narcissism and Socially Desirable Responding Based on Masculine Gender Role Strain Table 6. 2 X 2 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance, With Substance Dependence Severity Computed as a Continuous Lifetime Variable (SEVALL) and Aggression as Dependent Variables (N = 212) Table 7. Follow-Up Analysis Independent T Tests on the Four Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Based on Masculine Gender Role Strain (HICAT n = 111; LOCAT n = 101) Table 8. Follow-Up Analysis Independent T Tests on the Two Subscales of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Subscales Based on Masculine Gender Role Strain (HICAT n = 111; LOCAT n = 101) Table 9. Correlations Between the Total Score on Narcissism as Measured by the MT and the Two Subscales of the BIDR as Measured by BIDR SelfDeceptive Enhancement and BIDR Impression Management (N = 212) Table 10. Summary of Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Aggression (N = 212) Table 11. Summary of Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Substance Dependence Severity Level as Measured by the Continuous Variable SEVALL (N = 213) 51 53

54

56 57 59

61

61

62

63 64

ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem Over time, a vast amount of literature has accumulated that examines linkages among substance use, aggression, narcissism, and male psychology. That there are connections is apparent, but their unique inter-relationships are more elusive. Independent examination of each of these variables reveals additional valuable information, but analysis of their combined associations offers the potential for more thorough understanding of the factors resulting in the disproportionate representation of men experiencing substance use disorders and violent behaviors.

Background of the Study For over 3 decades, research has demonstrated a relationship between traditional Western world norms of the masculine role, such as the emphasis on aggression, competition, status, and emotional stoicism, and problems such as substance use and all levels of violence (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Brooks, 1990; Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Cochran, 2005; Copenhaver, Lash, & Eisler, 2000; Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995; Efthim, Kenny, & Mahalik, 2001; Eisler, 1995; Eisler & Blalock, 1991; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Good, Dell, & Mintz, 1989; Graham & Wells, 2002; Hayes & Mahalik, 2000; Hill & Fischer, 2001; Isenhart, 1993; Jakupcak, Salters, Gratz, & Roemer, 2003; Jakupcak, Tull, & Roemer, 2005; Jennings & 1

Murphy, 2000; Kilianski, 2003; Kupers, 2005; Levant, 1995; Lippa, 1995; Luddy & Thompson, 1997; Ludlow & Mahalik, 2002; Mahalik, 1999a, 1999b; Mahalik & Cournoyer, 2000; Mahalik, Cournoyer, DeFranc, Cherry, & Napolitano, 1998; Mahalik, Good, & Englar-Carlson, 2003; Mahalik & Lagan, 2001; Mejia, 2005; Moore & Stuart, 2005; Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002; O'Neil, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1990; ONeil, Good, & Holmes, 1995; Parrott & Zeichner, 2003; Pleck, 1995; Shepard, 2002; Tschanz, Morf, & Turner, 1998; Walters, 2002; Weisbuch, Beal, & O'Neil, 1999; Whitley, 2002; Wong, Pituch, & Rochlen, 2006; Wong & Rochlen, 2005; Zamarripa, Wampold, & Gregory, 2003). This, in combination with the corroborating evidence offered by demographic trends on crime data (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005), jail populations (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 2004, 2005), and substance use (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program [ADAM], 2003a, 2003b; U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 2000, 2004, 2005; Greenfeld & Henneberg, 2001) reinforces the magnitude of the need to examine these issues more closely. Intense empirical investigations have been done to accurately identify the nature of these relationships and have resulted in the assumption that there is not a single, homogeneous, universal standard for masculinity. Instead, there is a dynamic interaction between psychological and social-psychological factors resulting in a cultural definition of manhood that has the potential to create problems resulting in conflict, stress, and strain for men who are held to this definition (Addis & Cohane, 2005; Good, Thomson, & Brathwaite, 2005). To this end, the work by Mahalik, Locke, et al. (2003), ONeil, Helms, Gable, David, and Wrightsman (1986), and Eisler and Skidmore (1987) resulted in robust psychometric instruments to accurately assess

these areas in the hopes of clarifying the malignant relationships between masculine gender role constructs and societal problems.

Statement of the Problem The connection between criminal activity and men is staggering with 1 out of 75 men in the United States reported to be living in prison or jail (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 2004). In addition, the relationships between substance use and violence in men is overwhelming with the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs statistics (2003) reporting over 26% of jail inmates incarcerated for violent offenses, over 64% admitting to regular drug use, and over 40% indicating they were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their committed offense. A study by Blazina and Watkins (1996) demonstrated a significant relationship between gender role conflict and a decrease in psychological well-being, an increase in alcohol usage, and negative attitudes toward help seeking. Citations by Copenhaver et al. (2000), Graham and Wells (2002), Jennings and Murphy (2000), Murnen et al. (2002), and Weisbuch et al. (1999) indicate that traditional male socialization and rigid sex role stereotyping lead to a hyper-masculine identity related to female battering. Baumeister, Smart, and Boden (1996), Bushman and Baumeister (1998), and Tschanz et al. (1998) expand on this theory to address the relationship between masculine gender roles and a narcissistic self-esteem consisting of inflated, unstable, or tentative beliefs in the selfs superiority that results in violence and aggression when somehow threatened by someone or some event. In a similar vein, Hill and Fischer (2001) examined the construct of masculine entitlement and its relationship to rape related variables. Luddy and Thompson (1997) discovered in a study conducted on masculine ideology and perceptions of 3

rape in college men and their fathers that masculine ideology did not vary significantly over generation and that their judgments of whether a woman was raped were independent of generation but not of masculinity ideology.

Purpose of the Study Although the research examining the relationship between masculine gender role norms and various social problems is voluminous, the specific focus of the present study was with substance dependence and the continuum of violence in the adult male incarcerated population. Upon review, it was apparent that a vast majority of the identified citations were conducted on demographically homogeneous populations that were dominated by the Caucasian psychology student (Auster & Ohm, 2000; Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Burk, Burkhart, & Sikorski, 2004; Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995; DeFranc & Mahalik, 2002; Deux, 1984; Deux, Winton, Crowley, & Lewis, 1985; Eisler, Franchina, Moore, Honeycutt, & Rhatigan, 2000; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988; Franchina, Eisler, & Moore, 2001; Good et al., 1989; Good et al., 1995; Hayes & Mahalik, 2000; Jakupcak et al., 2003; Kilianski, 2003; Levant et al., 1992; Ludlow & Mahalik, 2002; Mahalik & Cournoyer, 2000; Mahalik et al., 1998; Mahalik, Good, et al., 2003; Mahalik & Lagan, 2001; Mahalik, Locke, et al., 2003; McCoy & Snell, 2001; Moradi, Tokar, Schaub, Jome, & Serna, 2000; ONeil et al., 1986; Shepard, 2002; Snell, 2001; Snell, Belk, & Hawkins, 2001; Thompson & Pleck, 1986; Wade & Brittan-Powell, 2001; Weisbuch et al., 1999; Whitley, 2002; Zamarripa et al., 2003). This researcher identified few published studies that used an incarcerated adult male criminal offender population to specifically analyze any of these areas. Of those studies reviewed that did use an incarcerated population (Copenhaver et al., 2000; Isenhart, 1993; Phillips, 2001; Schwartz, Bublotz, 4

Seemann, & Flye, 2004) a prison population was sampled. There were no studies examined that used an incarcerated adult male jail population. In addition, few studies treated the areas of substance use and aggression as continuous variables. Given the methodological concerns with the extant articles, such as limited diverse populations, differences between trait and state characteristics of masculine gender role strain, and level of measurement for substance use and aggression, this research study was designed to identify the relationship among masculine gender role strain and degrees of severity in both substance use and aggressive behaviors as exhibited in an incarcerated adult male population. Additionally, masculine gender role strain was analyzed from both a trait and state perspective. As such, masculinity ideology represented the more stable trait construct exhibiting a relatively enduring disposition of a person to respond with consistency in various situations prototypical for the trait (Zuckerman, 1999). Masculine gender role conflict and stress represented the contrasting state construct that may exhibit variation from day to day (Zuckerman).

Research Hypotheses 1. Relative to those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate low masculine gender role strain, male criminal offenders exhibiting high levels of masculine gender role strain will manifest significantly higher severity levels on scales assessing substance dependence and aggression. Narcissistic traits will be significantly higher in those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate high levels of masculine gender role strain relative to those with low levels of masculine gender role strain. Even when controlling for the effects of narcissism, relative to those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate low masculine gender role strain, male criminal offenders exhibiting high levels of masculine gender role strain will manifest significantly higher severity levels on scales assessing substance dependence and aggression. 5

2.

3.

4.

There will be a significant socially desirable response bias effect identified in the testing population.

Nature of the Study This research study examined the differences between a number of groups on multiple but related dependent (criterion/outcome) variables. As such, the type of research methodology chosen for this research study was a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). This procedure was chosen specifically to analyze the relationships between more than one independent (predictor) variable with more than one dependent variable. Since it was hypothesized that there would be at least one confounding variable that would mitigate the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables, analysis of covariance is applied (ANCOVA). It was expected that the use of this combined procedure (MANCOVA) would not only determine if there were any overall effects (interaction, main), but would also identify outcome variable intercorrelations to analyze variable subsets that accounted for group separation, identify relative contributions to this separation by outcome variables, and articulate through identification and interpretation underlying constructs associated with the MANCOVA results (Bird & Hadzi-Pavlovic, 1983; Biskin, 1980; Bray & Maxwell, 1982, 1985; Field, 2000; Grimm & Yarnold, 1995, 2000; Huberty & Morris, 1989; Huberty & Smith, 1982; Kachigan, 1991; Pallant, 2001; Salkind, 2000; Share, 1984; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Significance of the Study The results of this study have provided additional evidence regarding the utility of measures such as the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) by Mahalik, Locke, et 6

al. (2003), the Gender Role Conflict Scale-I (GRCS-I) by ONeil et al. (1986), and the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) by Eisler and Skidmore (1987) for studies of this sort. Furthermore, information regarding the relationship among masculine gender role strain, degree of substance dependence, and degree of aggressive behaviors in an offender population has provided clinicians and administrators with necessary knowledge for constructive treatment planning and treatment program development both within and outside forensic settings. Additionally, analysis of masculine gender role strain from both a trait and state perspective assists clinicians in identifying internal conflicts, personal stress, and confusion related to a clients incongruence between behaviors and beliefs over gender roles. This provides the foundation for the choice of appropriate clinical intervention approaches that target the cognitive and affective domains specific to this construct.

Definition of Terms Adult male criminal offender. The adult male criminal offender was defined as a male inmate 18 years of age or older being held in the county jail, who had been convicted of criminal acts, and had been sentenced to a term of incarceration (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 2004). County jail facility. County jail facilities were defined as locally operated correctional facilities that confine persons before or after adjudication (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 2004). Inmates sentenced to jail usually have a sentence of 1 year or less. Jails receive individuals pending arraignment and hold them awaiting trial, conviction, or sentencing; readmit probation, parole, and bail-bond violators; temporarily detain juveniles pending transfer to juvenile authorities; hold mentally ill persons pending movement to appropriate health 7

facilities; hold individuals for the military, for protective custody, for contempt, and for the courts as witnesses; release convicted inmates to the community upon completion of sentence; transfer inmates to Federal, State, or other authorities; house inmates for Federal, State, or other authorities because of crowding of their facilities; and sometimes operate community-based programs as alternatives to incarceration (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs). Jail population. For the purpose of this study, jail population was defined as male individuals only who were at that time incarcerated in a county facility housing inmates for 1 year or less. This operational definition was provided by the United States Department of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 2003). Male gender role strain. The male gender role strain model provided a structural framework for the interpretation of psychological dynamics associated with masculinity. It specifically identified the cultural definition of manhood itself as the location for the problem of masculinity. For the purposes of this research study, it was defined as a composite of the following individual constructs: (a) masculinity ideology, (b) masculine gender role conflict, and (c) masculine gender role stress. This combination of individual constructs was seen as a composite of both more stable and enduring trait characteristics and the more variable state characteristics and is discussed next. Masculine gender role conflict. Masculine gender role conflict was defined as the cognitive, emotional, unconscious, or behavioral problems caused by the socialized gender roles learned in sexist and patriarchal societies (ONeil, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1990; ONeil et al., 1995). This conflict is experienced directly or indirectly when men: deviate from or violate gender role norms; fail to meet gender role norms of masculinity; experience discrepancies 8

between real and ideal self-concept based on gender role stereotypes; experience personal devaluation, restriction, or violations from others, engage in these behaviors against themselves, or perpetrate these behaviors on others (ONeil et al.). It was viewed as a more variable state construct as compared to masculinity ideology. It was measured by the Gender Role Conflict Scale-I (GRCS-I) as developed by ONeil et al. (1986). This instrument presented 37 items measuring four factors (subscales) scored using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Masculine gender role stress. Masculine gender role stress was defined as the emotional distress exhibited by men in their utilization of traditional masculine strategies for dealing with lifes problems. As with masculine gender role conflict, it was also seen as a more variable state construct. This construct was measured by the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) developed by Eisler and Skidmore (1987). It was a 40-item scale that measured a respondents manner of appraising situations representative of five domains that hypothetically were more stressful for men than women (Eisler & Skidmore). Scoring uses a 6-point Likert scale (0 = not stressful to 5 = extremely stressful). Masculinity ideology. Masculinity ideology is central to male gender role strain and was seen as a more stable and enduring trait construct. It constituted an endorsed and internalized cultural belief system that was defined as a socially constructed gender ideal based on norms established by the most dominant or powerful group in a society. It assumed there was not a universal standard for masculinity. The established cultural norms affect men held up to those standards. It was measured by the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) developed by Mahalik, Locke, et al. (2003). This instrument contained 94 items answered on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree to 3 = strongly agree) designed to measure normative 9

masculinity through affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions across 11 factors (subscales). This instrument assessed conformity as a continuous variable from extreme conformity to extreme nonconformity to the feelings, actions, and thoughts reflective of masculinity norms in the dominant culture in the United States society (Mahalik, Locke, et al.). Narcissism. The construct of narcissism was defined as: a constellation of attitudes that may characterize a persons relationships with others and includes exhibitionism, feelings of entitlement involving the expectation of special privileges over others and special exemptions from normal social demands, a tendency to see others as extensions of oneself, feelings and thoughts of omnipotence involving the control of others, an intolerance for criticism from others that involves the perception of criticism as a demand for changing oneself, a tendency to be critical of others who are different from oneself, suspiciousness, jealousy, and a tendency to focus on ones own mental products. (Raskin & Terry, 1988, p. 891) It was measured by the Margolis-Thomas Narcissism Scale (MT) developed by Margolis and Thomas (1980). The version of the instrument chosen for this research study used 24 dyadic statements with one representing a pathologically narcissistic orientation and the other reflecting a socially acceptable form of narcissism (Mullins & Kopelman, 1988). The total score was configured by adding 1 point for each pathologically narcissistic statement endorsed. Although it was accepted that a level of narcissism (referred to as normal or healthy narcissism) was necessary for the development of healthy self-esteem, recognition was given to a continuum of narcissism ranging from normal (or healthy) to pathological (Emmons, 1984, 1987; Ronningstam, 1999; Wink, 1991). Pathological narcissism was identified as a disturbed selfesteem regulated through a distorted self-structure with a pathological grandiose self resulting in defensive processes (Ronningstam, p. 675) and often related to aggression (Baumeister, Catanese, & Wallace, 2002; Baumeister et al., 1996; Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003; Hill & Fischer, 2001). 10

Severity levels of aggressive behaviors. Degree of aggressive behavior was defined by the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). This self-report instrument presented 29 items measuring four subscales of aggression (physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility) that when combined provided a global score of aggression. These items were scored using a 5-point Likert scale in which 1 = least like me and 5 = most like me. Aggression was not defined as a global construct by this instrument, but as a composite of various subclasses of hostility. These subclasses, that included physical violence against others, temper tantrums, slamming doors, quick temper, rudeness, oppositional behavior, jealousy/hatred of others, anger at the world over real or imagined mistreatment, suspicion, arguing, shouting, screaming, threats, and curses provided meaningful distinctions between both overt and covert hostility. Substance use severity. Substance use severity was defined by the Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic Schedule-IV (SUDDS-IV; Hoffmann & Harrison, 1995). This instrument was a structured in-depth interview covering current and lifetime indications of abuse and dependence based on criteria for substance abuse and dependence as identified by the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Disorders, fourth edition , text revision (DSM-IV-TR, 2000). This instrument identified degrees or levels of severity of substance use through the development of respondent profiles based on the number of criteria endorsed as determined by their answers to the structured questions about their particular substance use. Use of the DSM-IV-TR definition for substance abuse and dependence was chosen instead of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth edition (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 1992) due to its compelling efforts at establishing scientifically based nomenclature (Widiger & Clark, 2000), the clarity of its text and diagnostic criteria, and its more commonly accepted use in the field of psychology (Spitzer, 1991). 11

Assumptions 1. 2. 3. 4. All the individual dependent variables will be normally distributed (Grimm & Yarnold, 1995). Covariance for all unique pairs of dependent measures will be equal for all experimental groups (Grimm & Yarnold, 1995). Participants will truthfully respond to all items on the self-report psychometric instruments chosen for the research study (Grimm & Yarnold, 1995). Participants will truthfully respond to all interview inquiries (Grimm & Yarnold, 1995).

Limitations This study had recognized limitations to its generalizability due to use of only one jail facility, lack of privacy in the testing environment, use of sentenced jail inmates only, and sample population characteristics such as poor reading and comprehension levels. Other limitations related to methods and design. For instance, causality was not assumed. In addition, the truthful response by participants to all items on the psychometric instruments, although assumed, was not expected in an incarcerated population. Furthermore, the lack of normative information generated on adult male jail inmates for most of the psychometric instruments chosen for this research clearly represented a limitation.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will discuss the relevant literature associated with the conceptual framework of the masculine gender role strain model and its association with numerous social problems. Furthermore, it will address the formal assessment of the constructs composing gender role strain 12

to include masculinity ideology, masculine gender role conflict, and masculine gender role stress. In addition, it will also clarify the trait versus state characteristics of these constructs. Chapter 3 will describe and discuss the research methodology selected, the design of the study, the sample population chosen, instrumentation, data collection procedure, and data analysis rationale regarding the identified hypotheses. Chapter 4 will introduce and systematically examine the data collected consistent with the data analysis described in chapter 3. The research study will conclude with chapter 5, which will summarize conclusions that follow from the data analysis in chapter 4 and present recommendations for future empirical endeavors.

13

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction This chapter is divided into six sections. The first section provides a conceptual overview of the masculine gender role strain paradigm and its component constructs. The second section defines and describes the variables associated with this research study and provides the rational for their choice, while the third describes the incarcerated male offender representing the target population. The fourth and fifth sections describe the research methodology, instrumentation, and reasoning behind the choice of instrumentation. The sixth section addresses the pertinent topic areas of substance disorders, narcissism, self-esteem, antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, and the cultural aspects of correctional institutions.

Conceptual Framework Masculine Gender Role Strain Paradigm Historically, the theoretical perspective that dominated American social science was the gender role identity model of masculinity that held an innate need by boys to develop a masculine sex role identity to ensure they developed normally into adult men (Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Pleck, 1995). From this perspective, mental health problems would arise not from the imposition of culturally inspired gender roles, but rather from the failure of men to learn gender roles appropriate to their biological sex (Eisler, 1995). The current perspective, a model 14

called the gender role strain paradigm, evolved through the work of Joseph Pleck (1981). Pleck advanced a social constructionism philosophy and posited that gender roles were defined by gender role stereotypes and norms and were imposed on the developing child by parents, teachers, and peersthe cultural transmitters who subscribed to the prevailing masculinity ideology (Pleck, 1995). It further posited that notions of masculinity and femininity were relational, socially constructed, and subject to change (Levant, 1995, 1996; Ludlow & Mahalik, 2002; Mahalik, Locke, et al., 2003; Pleck, 1995). Plecks landmark work, central to which is the concept of masculinity ideology (i.e., the belief system about the importance of men adhering to culturally defined standards for male behavior) provided the structural framework for the masculine gender role conflict theory (ONeil, 1981a, 1981b) and the masculine gender role stress model (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). The concept of masculinity ideology as a belief system is seen as representing an amalgam of traits that are relatively enduring and consistent, while masculine gender role conflict and masculine gender role stress are conceptualized as more representative of state constructs. Masculine Gender Role Conflict Theory Masculine gender role conflict theory postulated that there are cognitive, emotional, unconscious, or behavioral problems caused by the socialized gender roles learned in sexist and patriarchal societies (ONeil, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1990; ONeil et al., 1995). It further stated that Men experience gender role conflict directly or indirectly in six contexts: when they [a] deviate from or violate gender role norms; [b] try to meet or fail to meet gender role norms of masculinity; [c] experience discrepancies between their real self-concept and their ideal self-concept, based on gender role stereotypes; [d] personally devalue, restrict, or violate themselves; [e] experience personal devaluations, restrictions, or violations from others; and [f] personally devalue, restrict, or violate others because of gender role stereotypes. (ONeil et al., 1995, p. 167) 15

Masculine Gender Role Stress Model The masculine gender role stress model, according to Eisler and Skidmore (1987) and Eisler (1995), furthered the notions that (a) men have been externally directed by societal expectations to live up to culturally imposed definitions of masculinity, (b) the struggle to attain these masculine characteristics may frequently have undesirable consequences for many or even most men, and (c) the routine deployment of masculine strategies for dealing with lifes problems may produce dysfunctional solutions and emotional distress for many men. The results of a study conducted by Franchina, Eisler, and Moore (2001) suggested a relationship between masculine gender role ideology, stress, and situation variables to the cognitive and affective precursors of abusive male behavior. In a previous study by Eisler et al. (2000), high masculine gender role stress was directly related to male endorsement of aggressive responding toward female partners. Isenhart (1993) conducted a study that showed male participants who scored high on the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) as developed by Eisler and Skidmore also scored higher on measures of alcohol abuse. Mahalik (1999b) explored the manner in which masculine gender role strain contributed to mens cognitive distortions and led to aggressiveness, an overemphasis on achievement, and relational and emotional disconnection. He further identified a relationship between depression in men and gender role conflict (Mahalik & Cournoyer, 2000). In combination, these theories provided a structural framework of masculinity that considered the dynamic interaction between psychological and social-psychological factors on this construct as well as trait and state characteristics. Furthermore, it locates the problem of masculinity in the cultural definition of manhood itself, not in mens inability to live up to it (Pleck, 1995, p. 23). 16

Variables This research study addressed multiple continuous variables that also represented both trait and state characteristics. These were (a) substance dependence, (b) aggression, (c) masculine gender role strain, (d) narcissism, and (e) socially desirable responding. For the purposes of this research study, substance use and aggression were considered from a lifetime perspective while masculine gender role strain was examined from both trait and state perspectives. Narcissism was viewed from a trait position, while socially desirable responding was identified as a state variable. A common denominator present with all these variables was stress. Of significance was the individuals biologic response to stress, his sensory awareness of personal stress, his perception of it, evaluation of it, and personal confidence in his capacity to deal with it effectively (Arborelius, Owens, Plotsky, & Nemeroff, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Seligman, 1975; Zuckerman, 1999). It was this common thread in the literature on male psychology that provided the structural framework for an examination of the relationship between masculine gender role strain, degree of substance use, and severity level of aggression with a population of incarcerated adult male offenders (Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Copenhaver et al., 2000; Efthim et al., 2001; Eisler & Blalock, 1991; Eisler et al., 2000; Franchina et al., 2001; Hayes & Mahalik, 2000; Isenhart, 1993; Jakupcak et al., 2003; Kilianski, 2003; Levant, 1996; Mahalik, Good, et al., 2003; Mosher & Tomkins, 1988; Murnen et al., 2002; Parrott & Zeichner, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2004; Shepard, 2002; Snell, 2001; Stark, 1991; Weisbuch et al., 1999). The analysis of masculine gender role strain from both a trait and state perspective was believed to provide a more thorough understanding of the dynamics of this variable as it related to other more enduring constructs.

17

Substance Dependence The preponderance of evidence at the time this research was conducted pointed to acceptance that the substance disorders of abuse and dependence, as defined by the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition, text revision (DSMIV-TR, 2000) resulted from a complex interaction of multiple vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities included the influence of genes, the environment, biochemical changes, and neural circuits that may have combined in various proportions at different times to confer primary risk for development of the disorder (Anthenelli & Schuckit, 1997; Devor, 1994; Gardner, 1997; Goodwin, 1976; Goodwin & Gabrielli, 1997; Lyvers, 1998, 2000; Schuckit, 1998; Uhl, Blum, Noble, & Smith, 1993; Valenzuela & Harris, 1997). As such, the behavioral expression of biological vulnerabilities associated with substance abuse and dependence were influenced by an individuals exposure to and threshold for stress, his personality, and his cognitive trait factors (Brown, Hammen, Craske, & Wickens, 1995; Carey & DiLalla, 1994; Coyne & Whiffen, 1995; DiLalla, Carey, Gottesman, & Bouchard, 1996; Hamburg, 1998; Krueger et al., 2002; E. Walker & Diforio, 1997). This model represented a biopsychosocial position and offered a unique blend and balance of biological, behavioral, and cognitive theories, emphasizing that substance abuse and dependence were expressed differently depending on the complex interactions of these variables in each individual. These vulnerabilities were necessary but not necessarily sufficient by themselves to result in the expression of substance abuse and dependence disorders. Substance dependence was examined in this study as a continuous dependent (criterion) variable levels of severity of dependence.

18

Aggression Aggression involves a complex interaction between genetic factors, multiple areas of the brain, and developmental pathways involving neurotransmitter systems coupled with environmental factors (Cadoret, Leve, & Devor, 1997). Robust evidence for early appearing temperamental differences having a pervasive influence on life-course development and offering insights about personality structure, interpersonal relations, psychopathology, and crime in adulthood was offered through the Dunedin study as reported by Caspi (2000). In this research study, aggressive behaviors were examined as a continuous dependent (criterion) variable from nonaggressive behaviors to severe aggressive (violent) behaviors. Masculine Gender Role Strain Extensive literature was available that examined the linkage between mens proscribed roles, or male psychology, and numerous health and social problems such as substance abuse, homelessness, perpetration of family and interpersonal violence, devaluation of women, detached fathering, neglect of health needs, homophobia, suicide, homicide, and vehicular fatalities (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Brooks, 1990; Brooks & Silverstein, 1995; Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Copenhaver et al., 2000; Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995; Eisler, 1995; Eisler & Blalock, 1991; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Good et al., 1989; Graham & Wells, 2002; Hayes & Mahalik, 2000; Hill & Fischer, 2001; Isenhart, 1993; Jakupcak et al., 2003; Jennings & Murphy, 2000; Kilianski, 2003; Levant, 1995; Lippa, 1995; Luddy & Thompson, 1997; Ludlow & Mahalik, 2002; Mahalik, 1999a, 1999b; Mahalik & Cournoyer, 2000; Mahalik, Good, et al., 2003; Mahalik & Lagan, 2001; Mahalik, Locke, et al., 1998; Murnen et al., 2002; ONeil, 1981a, 1982; ONeil et al., 1995; Parrott & Zeichner, 2003; Pleck, 1995; Shepard, 2002; Snell, 2001; Tschanz et al., 1998; Walters, 2002; Weisbuch et al., 1999; 19

Whitley, 2002; Zamarripa et al., 2003). Masculine gender role strain was defined by masculinity ideology, masculine gender role conflict, and masculine gender role stress in this research study and functioned as the continuous independent (predictor) variable. Narcissism Developmentally, narcissism relates to the aspects of regulating self-esteem to include self-preservation, self-regard, self-assertiveness, and normal levels of entitlement, competitiveness, and affiliativeness with empathy and compassion (Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2001; Ronningstam, 1999) all of which are connected to attachment theories (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991; Diamond & Blatt, 1994; Lyddon & Sherry, 2001). Consideration of the synergistic and multifactorial interaction of nature and nurture is emphasized here. At the time this research was undertaken, the same biologic systems appeared to be implicated with the anger, aggression, behavioral disinhibition, mood dysregulation, depression, dysphoria, and emotional lability associated with narcissistic personality features as well as with substance abuse and dependence, and aggression in general (Rivas-Vazquez & Blais, 2002). Narcissism, as measured by the specific traits of exploitativeness and entitlement, which are identified as the maladaptive aspects of narcissism (Emmons, 1984; Kubarych, Deary, & Austin, 2004) was addressed as a continuous covariate in this research. Socially Desirable Responding Response bias was a systematic tendency to respond to a range of questionnaire items on some basis other than the specific item content (i.e., what the items were designed to measure) (Paulhus, 1991, p. 17). One of the most frequently researched response biases has been that of socially desirable responding, or the tendency to give answers that make the respondent look good (Barger, 2002; Nederhof, 1985; Paulhus, 1991, 1998, 2002; Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Roth & 20

Ingram, 1985). Given the environment in which this research occurred (a large county jail), the possible motivations of an incarcerated population, and the level of psychological threat inherent to questions about gender role constructs, aggression, and substance use socially desirable responding as measured by self-deceptive enhancement and impression management was addressed as a continuous covariate in this research. In addition, an indirect measure of faking good or faking bad was addressed by three questions designed by the researcher and scored using a Likert scale. These questions were (a) How much do you think the gentlemen who took these tests answered the questions truthfully? (b) How much do you think the gentlemen who took these tests would lie to look good? and (c) How much do you think the gentlemen who took these tests would lie to look bad?

Target Population The incarcerated population residing in either jail or prison represents a unique cultural community onto itself and Appendix A is offered to enhance the readers understanding of this. Cullen and Sundt described prisons as distinctive communities whose fabric is affected by the inherent nature of confining people 24 hours a day within a limited space and by the characteristics of those who are forced to reside in close company (2000, p. 473). According to Haney, inmates are able to maintain very little personal privacy in these conditions and the psychological consequences of living like this for extended periods of time are predictably destructive [with the] potential for these psychic stressors to precipitate various forms of psychopathology being evident (2001, p. 469). The national demographic profile of this population, as offered by statistics through the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (2003) revealed that there are almost 2.1 21

million people residing in jail or prison and that over 90% of the jail population is male and between the ages of 18 and 44. In addition, 6 in 10 jail inmates are racial or ethnic minorities and approximately 75% are either divorced or have never been married with the largest percentage represented by the never married category. Over 73% of jail inmates report either some high school or being a high school graduate. These statistics (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs) revealed that over 44% of jail inmates had current or past violent offenses, over 82% of jail inmates indicated they had ever used an illegal drug, over 36% of convicted jail inmates reported using drugs at the time of their offense while over 41% reported using alcohol at the time they committed their offense. Over 42% of violent offenders in jail said they were using alcohol at the time of the offense. The literature review revealed a paucity of research on the incarcerated population relating to the construct of masculine gender role strain. An article by Phillips (2001) approached this topic through the use of a qualitative methodology examining the cultural construction of manhood in prison. Over the period of 1 year, she observed men in psycho-educational groups of 12 weeks duration. From these observations, she chose a sample of 20 men for extended taped interviews. Although providing an interesting narrative of prison enculturation, Phillips only referenced comments by 8 of the 20 men she sampled. In addition, she did not elaborate on the methods employed to ensure scientific rigor in her article or identify her biases. There were no demographics offered for the readers analysis. Instead she stated, The men interviewed were representative of a range in age, race, and ethnicity (Phillips, p. 14). A citation by Schwartz et al. (2004) using multiple regression offered an analysis of the relationship between personality styles and gender role conflict on incarcerated male prison inmates, however, the study presented some methodological concerns. Among these concerns were the following: (a) it was not clearly 22

articulated how the participants were recruited, (b) the participants were primarily African American, (c) the temporal characteristics of the psychometric instruments being used (the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory and the Gender Role Conflict Scale) were not addressed, (d) the factor purity of the subscales used to measure the construct of gender role conflict was not articulated so possible confounding effects were not identified, and (e) demographics of the participants were not offered. Clearly, there is a scientific gap examining the construct of masculine gender role strain in relation to aggression and substance use in incarcerated populations.

Research Method This research study used a one-shot survey design to examine the differences among two groups (high and low masculine gender role strain) on multiple but related dependent (criterion/outcome) variables where two confounding variables mitigated the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables. It was therefore expected that the use of MANCOVA would not only determine if there were any overall effects (interaction, main) but would also identify outcome variable intercorrelations to analyze variable subsets that would account for group separation, identify relative contributions to this separation by outcome variables, and articulate through identification and interpretation underlying constructs associated with the MANCOVA results (Bird & Hadzi-Pavlovic, 1983; Biskin, 1980; Bray & Maxwell, 1982, 1985; Field, 2000; Grimm & Yarnold, 1995, 2000; Huberty & Morris, 1989; Huberty & Smith, 1982; Kachigan, 1991; Pallant, 2001; Salkind, 2000; Share, 1984; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The instruments used for data collection were mixed methods.

23

Psychometric Instruments Overview One cannot assume there is a single, homogeneous, universal standard for masculinity since it varies by factors such as race, culture, age, socioeconomic status, educational level, and social subgroups. Although psychometric instruments purporting to measure masculinity may assess a single masculinity ideology, as operationally defined, contextual elements must always be considered and one must not assume the existence of a unidimensional construct. In addition, theoretical concerns exist that must be addressed. Fundamental to this are the trait and normative perspectives, which represent different approaches to the conceptualization of masculinity as a construct. The trait perspective presumes that masculinity is inherent to biological or psychological differences between men and women and represents a more limited scope, while the normative perspective views masculinity as a socially constructed gender ideal for men and male roles and is much broader (Ludlow & Mahalik, 2002; Mahalik, Locke, et al., 2003; Thompson & Pleck, 1995). Of consideration also is whether the conceptualization of masculine ideology includes attitudes toward men alone, attitudes toward women, attitudes toward gender relations, attitudes toward feminism, attitudes toward sex role traditionality, or attitudes toward other related participants since conceptually this could mean that one is confounding masculine ideology with gender attitudes in general (Thompson & Pleck). Finally, the construct must be interpreted from whether it is based on the assumption that there exist multiple types of masculinity or one dominant form (Ludlow & Mahalik; Mahalik, Locke et al.; Thompson & Pleck). The psychometric instrument chosen for analysis of masculinity ideology was the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) by Mahalik, Locke, et al. This particular instrument was chosen due to its social constructionist approach that views masculinity as a 24

culturally based ideology providing the structural framework for gender relations, attitudes, and beliefs. In addition, the CMNI offered a broader assessment of masculine gender role norms through analysis of both conformity and nonconformity to affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions. This was considered to be especially pertinent because one man may behaviorally comply with a certain masculinity norm but not conform affectively or cognitively to it, whereas another man may internalize that same norm and conform behaviorally, affectively, and cognitively to it (Mahalik, Locke, et al., p. 5). A final reason for choosing the CMNI over other measures of masculinity ideology had to do with its robust factor analysis identifying a larger number of potentially salient masculine norms for examination (Ludlow & Mahalik; Mahalik, Locke, et al.; Mahalik, Talmadge, Locke, & Scott, 2005). Conceptually distinct from but related to masculine ideologies is the experience with gender as identified by levels of personal conflict or stress related to particular masculinity standards or personal application of these standards. The assessment instruments chosen to examine this area of masculinity-related constructs included (a) the Gender Role Conflict Scale-I (GRCS-I) by ONeil et al. (1986), and (b) the Masculine Gender Role Stress scale (MGRS) by Eisler and Skidmore (1987). These instruments were selected due to research identifying these constructs as conceptually separate (D. Walker, Tokar, & Fischer, 2000) while providing an important link between societal norms that script traditional masculinities and an individuals adaptation to them (Thompson & Pleck, 1995). In a study conducted by D. Walker et al., factor purity of the MGRS was demonstrated when this instrument tended not to combine on the same factor as the GRCS-I. In addition, both the MGRS and the GRCS-I exhibit robust structural validity (Eisler & Skidmore; Eisler et al., 1988; Moradi et al., 2000; ONeil et al.).

25

The Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic Schedule-IV (SUDDS-IV) was specifically chosen to examine the construct of substance disorders due to the strength of its construct validity, its normative data on an inmate population, and its categorization of data on a continuous measure providing symptom profiles of severity for analysis (Hoffmann, 2002a, 2002b; Hoffmann, DeHart, & Campbell, 2002; Hoffmann & Harrison, 1995; Hoffmann & Hoffmann, 2003). Choosing a valid instrument to measure the construct of narcissism proved to be a most challenging endeavor. At least part of this challenge was accounted for by lack of scientific consensus on the definition of the construct (e.g., a personality trait exhibited on a continuum between normality and abnormality with all people possessing varying degrees of it versus a categorical disorder that one either has or does not have) and the contradictions inherent to its dimensional conceptualization (e.g., pathological versus adaptive narcissism; overt versus covert narcissism; healthy versus maladaptive narcissism) lending itself to difficulties in the development of reliable, valid, and easily administered nonprojective instruments to identify this societal and clinical phenomenon (Auerbach, 1984; Calhoun, Glasner, Stefurak, & Bradshaw, 2000; Emmons, 1984, 1987; Kopelman & Mullins, 1992; Kubarych et al., 2004; Mullins & Kopelman, 1988; Raskin & Hall, 1981; Raskin & Novacek, 1989; Raskin & Terry, 1988; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998; Soyer, Rovenpor, Kopelman, Mullins, & Watson, 2001; Tschanz et al., 1998; Watson & Biderman, 1993; Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984; Wink, 1991; Wink & Gough, 1990). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) developed by Raskin and Hall (1979, 1981) and modified through the work of Emmons (1984, 1987), Raskin and Terry, and Kubarych et al., considered the most widely used measure of the construct of narcissism (Auerbach; Calhoun et al.; Kubarych et al.; Rhodewalt & Morf; Soyer et al.; Tschanz 26

et al.; Watson & Biderman; Watson et al.; Wink; Wink & Gough), was not without criticisms. Studies conducted by Mullins and Kopelman, and Soyer et al. questioned the construct validity of the NPI. These citations all demonstrated the lack of convergent validity of the NPI with multiple accepted measures of narcissism. In addition, these authors demonstrated higher construct validity for a measure of narcissism developed by Margolis and Thomas (1980) called the Margolis-Thomas Measure of Narcissism (MT; Kopelman & Mullins; Mullins & Kopelman; Soyer et al.). Based on these studies, the MT was chosen to measure the construct of narcissism for this research study. The Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992; Buss & Warren, 2000) was chosen over other instruments to measure the multidimensional construct of hostility based on its use of subscales to identify various components of aggression/hostility, its use of a Likert scale to provide continuous versus dichotomous data, its strong test-retest reliability, and its additional robust psychometric properties (Bushman, Cooper, & Lemke, 1991; Buss & Durkee, 1957; Buss & Perry; Buss & Warren). Given the possibility for a response bias when administering a self-report questionnaire containing items considered to represent a more psychologically threatening domain and using a population with a possible motivation for desirable responding, the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1998) was chosen due to its use of two separate subscales (selfdeceptive enhancement and impression management) available for independent analysis or a global measurement of the socially desirable responding construct and its robust psychometric properties (Paulhus, 1991, 2002; Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Roth & Ingram, 1985; Stober, Dette, & Musch, 2002).

27

Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) Developed by Mahalik, Locke, et al. (2003), this instrument contained 94 items answered on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree to 3 = strongly agree) designed to measure normative masculinity through affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions across 11 factors (subscales). These factors (subscales) were (a) winning, (b) emotional control, (c) risk taking, (d) violence, (e) power over women, (f) dominance, (g) playboy, (h) self-reliance, (i) primacy work, (j) disdain for homosexuals, and (k) pursuit of status. In addition, this instrument assessed an individuals position within the range of the conformity continuum from extreme conformity to extreme nonconformity to the feelings, actions, and thoughts reflective of masculinity norms in the dominant culture in United States society (Mahalik, Locke et al.). Mahaliks theoretical position was based on the premises that (a) masculinity norms constructed from the most dominant or powerful group in a society affect men held up to those standards, (b) the importance of particular masculinity norms vary for individuals, and (c) conformity or nonconformity to masculinity norms each has benefits and costs (Ludlow & Mahalik, 2002; Mahalik, 1999a, 1999b; Mahalik, Good, et al., 2003). The range of scores on this instrument was from zero to 282. The reading level of the CMNI as evaluated by the Kincaid-Slice scale was grade 5 (J. Mahalik, personal communication, August 23, 2004). Reliability and validity data on this instrument were encouraging, although generalizability was limited to a population of mostly Caucasian, heterosexual, and young adult students. This represented a distinct limitation. Ludlow and Mahalik (2002) and Mahalik, Locke, et al. (2003) demonstrated (a) an internal consistency coefficient alpha of .94 for the total CMNI score with alpha ranges for the 11 subscales from .72 to .91, and (b) that scores for each of the 11 subscales correlated significantly and positively to the total score and correlated to each other in 28

the expected directions. They further demonstrated a strong correlation to the Brannon Masculinity Scale (.79) but only a moderate correlation with the Gender Role Conflict Scale (.56) and even less with the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (.40) indicating good convergent validity with other established instruments measuring similar constructs. It is noted here that the strong correlation with the Brannon Masculinity Scale may imply that the CMNI is measuring more of the normative aspects of masculinity (ideology) than those constructs that are masculinity-related (conflict and stress associated with masculine gender roles). Concurrent and predictive validity were also established between the total score on the CMNI and attitude toward seeking psychological help and global psychological distress respectively (Ludlow & Mahalik, 2002; Mahalik, Locke, et al., 2003). A major strength of this instrument was in the breadth of its assessment of the masculinity construct through identification not only of a larger number of masculinity norms but also in its dimensional assessment of these norms and its assessment of a conformity continuum. In addition, its strong correlation to the Brannon Masculinity Scale was a strength. This conclusion was based on the Brannon Masculinity Scales apparent factor purity with the construct masculinity ideology, as demonstrated in a study conducted by D. Walker et al. (2000) where 8 masculinity measurement instruments with 18 subscales were factor analyzed to determine dimensional overlap. Gender Role Conflict Scale-I (GRCS-I) This scale was developed by ONeil et al. (1986) as an inventory of mens reactions to commonly faced gender expectations. Based on the gender role strain paradigm (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; ONeil, 1981a, 1981b, 1982; Pleck, 1981, 1995), ONeil et al. (1986) introduce the gender role conflict construct. The instrument presented 37 items measuring four factors 29

(subscales) scored using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). These factors (subscales) were (a) success, power, competition; (b) restrictive emotionality; (c) restrictive affectionate behavior between men (homophobia); and (d) conflicts between work and leisure. All test items were worded in the first-person and appeared to tap the respondents anxiety and distress through implication of gender role conflict. Scores for this instrument ranged from 37 to 222. According to personal written communication with J. ONeil on March 1, 2005, the reading level of the GRCS-I had not been calculated. He indicated the reading level calculated on the recently published Gender Role Conflict Scale for Adolescents (GRCS-A), which contained similar items to the GRCS-I, was 5.8 and stated that one may be able to assume that the reading level of the GRCS-I is not real high. Upon conducting an informal word processing scan of this instrument, the Flesch-Kincaid reading level was determined to be at grade 6.3. The subscales demonstrated internal consistency reliability alphas of .85, .82, .83, and .75. Test-retest reliabilities over a 4-week period ranged from .72 to .86 for each factor. Construct validity for the GRCS-I was established in a number of studies (Blazina & Watkins, 1996; DeFranc & Mahalik, 2002; Good et al., 1989; Good et al., 1995; Hayes & Mahalik, 2000; Moradi et al., 2000; Shepard, 2002; Stillson, ONeil, & Owen, 1991; D. Walker et al., 2000; Zamarripa et al., 2003). A strength of this instrument was found in its data analysis. Cross-loading on factors was eliminated through the use of orthogonal and oblique rotations on factor analyses with additional construct validity provided through multivariate analysis of variance. Limitations included the possibility that the success, power, competition subscale purporting to measure the construct of masculine gender role conflict may be measuring masculine ideology instead (D. Walker et al., 30

2000). In addition, the subscale with the lowest construct validity support (Conflict Between Work and Family Relations; Good et al., 1995) appeared to be more related to pro-feminist attitudes as indicated by its shared overlapping variance with instruments measuring this particular factor (D. Walker et al.). Although a review of a list of empirical studies using the GRSC-I provided by Dr. ONeil revealed a plethora of citations, their sample populations were overwhelmingly Caucasian college students and represented a definite limitation. Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) Theoretically based on the cognitive stress model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the gender role strain paradigm (ONeil, 1981a, 1981b; Pleck, 1981, 1995), Eisler and Skidmore (1987) developed the 40-item MGRS Scale to measure a test respondents manner of appraising situations representative of five domains that hypothetically were more stressful for men than women (Eisler, 1995; Eisler & Skidmore; Eisler et al., 1988; Thompson & Pleck, 1995). These domains (subscales) were (a) physical inadequacy, (b) emotional inexpressiveness, (c) subordination to women, (d) intellectual inferiority, and (e) performance failure (work and sex). Scoring was with a 7-point Likert scale with 7 = extremely stressful and 1 = not at all stressful. Possible scores on this instrument ranged from 40 to 280. Preliminary validation of this scale supported that the MGRS scores: [a] significantly distinguish men from women; [b] are unrelated to global measures of sex-typed masculinity; and [c] are significantly associated with at least two measures of self-rated stress, that is, anger and anxiety (Eisler & Skidmore, p. 133). Internal consistency coefficient alpha was in the 90s while the 2-week test-retest reliability was .93 (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Eisler et al., 1988). Construct validity was supported by multiple citations (DeFranc & Mahalik, 2002; Eisler, 1995; Eisler & Blalock, 1991; Eisler et al.; Franchina et al., 2001; Isenhart, 1993; Mahalik & Lagan, 2001). There was no 31

empirical data discovered that addressed the reading level of this instrument, so it was informally scanned for a Flesch-Kincaid score using word processing software. This scan revealed a grade level of 9.4 for reading. According to D. Walker et al. (2000), a factor analysis of 8 masculinity measurement instruments with a total of 18 masculinity-related scales supported the claim that the MGRS is factor pure measuring a unique construct (masculine gender role stress) as compared to the other instruments. This represented a strength with this particular instrument in terms of its discriminant validity. Other strengths included its focus on mens gender-related stresses and its scope of gender-relevant situations (Thompson & Pleck, 1995). A significant limitation was related to the lack of diversity in the population on which this test was initially validated and the lack of subsequent research minimizing this. Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic Schedule-IV (SUDDS-IV) The SUDDS-IV was developed by Hoffmann and Harrison (1995). This instrument was a structured in-depth interview covering current and lifetime indications of abuse and dependence based on criteria for substance abuse and dependence as identified by the American Psychiatric Association (2000). It documented the onset of individual life problems by substance and identifies degrees or levels of severity of substance use through the development of respondent profiles based on the number of criteria endorsed as determined by respondent answers. Internal consistency reliability findings ranged from .94 to .97 for dependence and from .84 to .93 for abuse (Hoffmann, 2002a, 2000b; Hoffmann et al., 2002; Hoffmann & Hoffmann, 2003). The reading level of this instrument was estimated to be grade 6 or 7 (N. Hoffmann, personal communication, March 1, 2005). Since this is a structured interview, however, of relevance would be the comprehension level of the respondent. 32

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) The Aggression Questionnaire, originally developed by Buss and Perry in 1992 and further revised by Buss and Warren in 2000, represented a fully revised version of the BussDurkee Hostility Inventory (1957). The 1992 version was a self-report instrument that presented 29 items measuring four subscales of aggression (physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility) that when combined provided a global score of aggression. The items were scored using a 5-point Likert scale in which 1 = least like me and 5 = most like me. Scores ranged from 29 to 145. Internal consistency range was .55 to .94 and criterion validity was acceptable (Buss & Perry, 1992; Buss & Warren, 2000). The population upon which normative data were provided was described as nonclinical, mixed ethnicity, and varied socioeconomic status (Buss & Warren). There was no normative data offered on an offender population. No data on the reading level of this instrument were found but an informal Flesch-Kincaid scan through word processing software determined a reading grade level of 5.2. Margolis-Thomas Narcissism Scale (MT) The Margolis-Thomas Narcissism Scale (MT) as originally developed in 1980 by Margolis and Thomas had 122 dyadic statements with one representing a pathologically narcissistic orientation and the other reflecting a socially acceptable form of narcissism (Soyer et al., 2001). These were subsequently reduced to 60 items with a Kuder-Richardson reliability of .84 and a split-half reliability of .92 (Mullins & Kopelman, 1988). The version chosen for this research study uses 24 of the original 60 items derived by eliminating those items with discrimination indexes less than .15 (Mullins & Kopelman). Possible scores range from zero to 24. This abbreviated version demonstrated a reliability level of .69 and adequate construct validity (Kopelman & Mullins, 1992; Mullins & Kopelman,). In a study by Soyer et al., the MT 33

displayed a higher adjusted reliability than three accepted measures of narcissism and predicted higher scores on all these measures. It further correlated directly with Machiavellianism and autonomy and displayed a parallel with data obtained for overt and covert narcissism (Wink, 1991; Wink & Gough, 1990). All these studies were conducted on a nonclinical population and none was conducted on an offender population. Reading level data were not offered, so this instrument was informally scanned through word processing software for a Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level determination. That grade level was 4.9. Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) developed by D. Paulhus (1998, 2002) as a measure of and control for response bias, represented a refinement of the Selfand Other-Deception Questionnaires as described by Sackeim and Gur (1978). It represented a widely used instrument (Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Roth & Ingram, 1985; Stober et al., 2002). Using 40 items stated as propositions, the BIDR measured the construct of socially desirable responding through the use of two factors. These two factors were self-deceptive positivity, [or] the tendency to give self-reports that are honest but positively biased, [and] impression management, [which is] deliberate self-presentation to an audience (Paulhus, 1991, p. 37). Respondents rated their agreement or disagreement using a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = not true, 4 = somewhat, and 7 = very true (Paulhus, 1991). Total scores ranged from zero to 20 with high scores attained only by participants who gave exaggeratedly desirable responses. Paulhus (1991, 1998) demonstrated strong convergent validity between the impression management scale of the BIDR and the lie scales of the Eysenck Personality Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory as well as a robust coefficient alpha of .83 for all 40 items. Test-retest correlations over a 5-week period were .69 and .65 for the self-deceptive 34

enhancement and impression management scales respectively (Paulhus, 1991, 1998). Concurrent validity was established through high correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne scale and the Multidimensional Social Desirability Inventory (Paulhus, 1991, 1998). The BIDR was calculated to be at a reading grade level of 5 (D. Paulhus, personal communication, March 4, 2005). The BIDR was chosen over other instruments that measure response bias due to its robust psychometric features, its provision of separate measures for the two major factors associated with socially desirable responding, and recent research comparing both dichotomous and continuous scoring protocols for the instrument (Stober et al., 2002).

Summary The instruments chosen for this research study were selected based on their robust psychometric properties and the supporting research documenting their use. With the exception of the SUDDS-IV none of the instruments had normative data provided on an incarcerated population, so data were exploratory and offered an opportunity to examine a unique subset of individuals. In addition, the BIDR scores were compared to the responses offered to the researchers three questions on faking good or faking bad to further examine testing biases in an incarcerated population.

35

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Restatement of Purpose The construct of masculinity presents a complex undertaking in terms of definition and operationalization. Visualizing masculinity as a composite of values, attitudes, and belief systems constructed by the social forces in a cultural society distinct from gender orientation (Thompson & Pleck, 1995) enables one to grasp the nature of a heterogeneous ideological construct. Furthermore, appreciation for and evaluation of mens experience of their gender, separate from their ideologies, adds yet another dimension to the understanding of masculinity. Identifying the relationship between the extent to which men experience conflict or stress in relation to traditional masculinity ideologies, their substance use, and aggressive behavioral choices is this research studys focus.

Research Design This study utilized a one-shot, two group, quasi-experimental (nonrandom assignment to group) research design for the purpose of examining the relationship among masculine gender role strain as experienced by adult male incarcerated criminal offenders and the degree of severity for both substance dependence and aggressiveness. It was conceptualized as quasiexperimental assignment to groups because the design involved the comparison of select groups

36

of individuals (high and low masculine gender role strain) who could not be randomized to those conditions. The two groups (high and low) were established based on combinations of factors representing masculine gender role strain, as measured by scores on the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) developed by Mahalik, Locke, et al. (2003), the Gender Role Conflict Scale-I (GRCS-I) developed by ONeil et al. (1986), and the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) developed by Eisler and Skidmore (1987). Specifically, these two groups were formed by those individuals scoring in the .5 standard deviation range on at least two of the three masculine gender role strain instruments and then compared to the degree of severity for both substance dependence and aggressiveness, as measured by the SUDDS-IV (Hoffmann & Harrison, 1995) and the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992).

Target Population The target population was adult males (ages 18 and older) remanded to the Maricopa County Jail, Estrella Tents facility in Phoenix, Arizona, and adjudicated. Prior to placement in the Tents facility, these men received a physical examination and were assessed as not displaying any overt psychotic behaviors or behavioral indicators of danger to self or others. Those individuals not meeting the behavioral stability criteria required for placement in the Tents or demonstrating episodes of behavioral instability were removed from the population and housed in a different facility for further evaluation. As such, inclusion criteria were: participants must be able to read and write in English; exhibit behavioral stability (as demonstrated by their eligibility to be in this specific facility). Exclusion criteria were: behavioral instability (as demonstrated by lack of eligibility for this facility). Recognizing that medications and/or mental health diagnoses 37

present confounding variables, questions about these areas were included in a separate questionnaire completed by each participant.

Selection of Participants Participants (N = 783) were a nonrandom sample of convenience from the aforementioned county jail. Initial recruitment of participants was through inmate volunteering (self-selection) to an informational flyer posted in an approved information area on the jail yard (Appendix B). On each day of testing, an announcement was broadcast over the public address system to the entire yard requesting those inmates interested in participating in the posted research study report to the designated area. From these initial volunteer participants, two groups were formed based on masculine gender role strain scores. Those participants who scored .5 SD above on at least two measures of masculine gender role strain composed the high group while those participants who scored .5 SD below made up the low group.

Testing Environment The initial testing environment was the dayroom afforded those individuals assigned to the tents facility. The dayroom was a cement block building approximately 50 yards by 20 yards with a cement floor. It was the only air-conditioned structure on the yard and was noisy and chaotic. The area contained inmate lockers for approved personal items, a common shower and toilet area, and steel tables approximately 12 feet long with attached round steel seats. It was the area used for meals, programs, and correctional officer central control activities. Testing was handled by cordoning off multiple steel tables and using a bullhorn to read directions to the 60 or 70 respondents who volunteered. Eventually, testing was moved to a self-contained classroom 38

with individual student desks located within the dayroom and groups decreased to approximately 20 to 30 men.

Variables Independent Variable The independent variable in this research study was masculine gender role strain composed of (a) masculinity ideology as measured by the CMNI (Mahalik, Locke, et al., 2003); (b) masculine gender role conflict as measured by the GRCS-I (ONeil et al., 1986); and (c) masculine gender role stress as measured by the MGRS (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). Masculine gender role strain, as defined and measured in this study, was seen as a composite of both trait (masculinity ideology) and state (masculine gender role conflict and masculine gender role stress) characteristics. Participants were categorized into either high or low groups based on their scores for these instruments. Those participants who scored .5 SD above the mean on at least two of the three measures were placed in the high masculine gender role strain group, while those who score .5 SD below the mean on at least two of the measures were placed in the low masculine gender role strain group. Dependent Variables The dependent variables in this research were continuous variables: (a) substance dependence severity measured as a continuous variable through the use of the SUDDS-IV (Hoffmann & Harrison, 1995); and (b) degree of aggressive behavior measured as a continuous variable through the use of the AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992). Level of substance dependence. Substance dependence severity level was operationally defined as the greatest number of symptoms, to include dependence and abuse symptoms, 39

reported for any one substance meeting a dependence diagnosis as scored from answers to the SUDDS-IV. For those individuals who met the inclusion criteria for dependence (yes), the substance for which the participant had the greatest number of symptoms determined their score. This number ranged from 3 to 11 symptoms (at least 3 out of 7 symptoms for dependence criteria and up to 4 for abuse). The higher the score, the more severe the level of substance dependence. For those not meeting dependence diagnosis criteria for any substance a score of zero was recorded. Level of aggression. Aggression was determined by the total score on the AQ, which measured anger, hostility, verbal and physical aggression. Aggression severity was operationally defined as a range of scores from 29 to 145 as determined by the AQ. The higher the score, the more severe the level of aggression. Covariates Narcissism. The first covariate in this research study was narcissism as a continuous variable. It was determined by the total score on the MT, which measured clinical and nonclinical narcissism. Narcissism was operationally defined as a range of scores from zero to 24 as determined by the MT. The higher the score, the more narcissistic the individual was. Socially desirable responding. The second covariate was socially desirable responding as a continuous variable determined by the total score on the BIDR. The BIDR measured two components of social desirability: the tendency to give self-reports that are honest but positively biased (self-deceptive enhancement) and deliberate self-presentation to an audience (impression management) (Paulhus, 1991, p. 37). This instrument could be scored using either a continuous or dichotomous technique but higher Cronbachs alphas and convergent correlations were exhibited with continuous scoring (Stober et al., 2002). Based on this, the continuous 40

scoring method was chosen with scores ranging from 40 to 280. Three questions designed by the researcher served as an indirect measure of faking.

Measures Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) Developed by Mahalik, Locke, et al. (2003), this instrument contained 94 items answered on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree to 3 = strongly agree) designed to measure normative masculinity as currently experienced through affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions across 11 factors (subscales). These subscales included (a) winning, (b) emotional control, (c) risk-taking, (d) violence, (e) power over women, (f) dominance, (g) playboy, (h) selfreliance, (i) primacy work, (j) disdain for homosexuals, and (k) pursuit of status. This instrument was identified as assessing trait factors. Gender Role Conflict Scale-I (GRCS-I) Developed by ONeil et al. (1986), this instrument was an inventory of mens current reactions to commonly faced gender expectations. As such, it was considered to measure more state factors than trait. It presented 37 items measuring four factors scored using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). The subscales included (a) success, power, competition; (b) restrictive emotionality; (c) restrictive affectionate behavior between men/homophobia; and (d) conflicts between work and leisure. Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) Developed by Eisler and Skidmore (1987), this instrument presented 40-items scored using a 6-point Likert scale (0 = not at all stressful to 5 = extremely stressful) to measure a respondents current manner of appraising situations representative of five domains that 41

hypothetically are more stressful for men than women (Eisler, 1995; Eisler & Skidmore; Eisler et al., 1988; Thompson & Pleck, 1995). It was viewed as measuring state factors. The subscales included (a) physical inadequacy, (b) emotional inexpressiveness, (c) subordination to women, (d) intellectual inferiority, and (e) performance failure (work and sex). Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic Schedule-IV (SUDDS-IV) Developed by Hoffmann and Harrison (1995), this instrument was a structured in-depth interview covering current and lifetime indications of abuse and dependence based on criteria for substance abuse and dependence as identified by the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Disorders, fourth edition, text revision (DSMIV-TR, 2000). It identified degrees or levels of severity of substance dependence through the development of respondent profiles based on the number of criteria endorsed as determined by their answers. Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Developed by Buss and Perry (1992), this self-report instrument presented 29 items measuring four subscales of current aggression (physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility) that when combined provided a global score of aggression with higher scores indicating a higher level of aggression. The items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale in which 1 = least like me and 5 = most like me. The test-retest reliability of this instrument was .80 over 9 weeks with internal consistency of subscales ranging from .72 to .85 (Buss & Perry). Margolis-Thomas Narcissism Scale (MT) Developed by Margolis and Thomas (1980) and modified through the work of Kopelman and Mullins (1992) and Mullins and Kopelman (1988) this instrument presented 24 dyadic statements with one representing a pathologically narcissistic orientation and the other reflecting 42

a socially acceptable form of narcissism (Soyer et al., 2001). Narcissism was viewed on a continuum with all individuals seen as possessing aspects of the trait. A global score was obtained by totaling the responses to the pathologically narcissistic statements. Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) Developed by Paulhus (1998), this instrument presented 40 items, stated as propositions, that measure the constructs of self-deceptive positivity and impression management as response biases (Paulhus, 1991). Respondents rated their agreement or disagreement using a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = not true, 4 = somewhat, and 7 = very true (Paulhus, 1991). Total scores ranged from zero to 20 with high scores attained only by participants who give exaggeratedly desirable responses.

Procedures All necessary approvals were granted by the Capella University IRB, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, and the Maricopa County Jail facilities. Flyers announcing the study were posted in the facility on the information board in the open jail yard. At least 14 days after the flyer was posted, the study commenced. An announcement was made over the public address system informing those inmates interested in participating in the posted research study to report to the dayroom. A scripted introduction and explanation were read and upon completion, those men who were not interested in participating were dismissed. Those men who remained were provided an informed consent and had it explained through a formulated script. Before signing the informed consent, the men were given another opportunity to leave the room. Informed consents were signed by each participant and collected. These men composed the recruitment population from which two groups were ultimately formed for participation in the second phase 43

of testing. During the initial questionnaire sessions, a packet of questionnaires was given to each participant; the package was labeled with a unique identifier (a number) to protect the identity of the participant and insure accurate matching of completed instruments. The packet contained a demographic questionnaire, the CMNI, GRCS-I, MGRS, MT, BIDR, and AQ questionnaires. The CMNI, GRCS-I, MGRS, MT, BIDR, and AQ were administered by this researcher and four trained proctors using a standard pencil-and-paper administration protocol to groups of 20 to 70 inmates. The four trained assistants were individuals who were previously authorized for facility clearance through successful completion of required training explaining security issues, personnel deportment, and security procedures. They were under the supervision of the researcher. The testing room was located in the dayroom of the facility and was air-conditioned. Golf pencils were provided by the researcher and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department, handed out to each inmate, and collected upon completion of the inventories. A Maricopa County Sheriffs Department Detention Officer was present in the immediate area for safety concerns and to monitor movement of inmates to the testing facility. Before testing began, the researcher explained the nature of the research from a prepared script (Appendix C). Those inmates who were not interested in participating were excused. For those inmates who remained, the Informed Consent Form (Appendix D) was distributed and reviewed. After review of this form, those inmates who did not want to continue were excused. For those inmates who remained, a prepared script was read (Appendix D) and a numbered testing packet was disseminated to each containing a demographic questionnaire, the CMNI, GRCS-I, MGRS, MT, BIDR, and AQ. The inmates booking number was recorded in a separate log corresponding to the testing packet he received. The testing instructions for each instrument were reviewed and the inmates were instructed to complete all questionnaires. A list of words anticipated as 44

challenging was put on a grease board in anticipation of possible inmate difficulties. These words and definitions are presented in Appendix E. Standardized definitions were provided for these terms and reviewed with the inmates prior to testing. Upon completion, the researcher or her assistants scanned the questionnaires to insure that the respondents did not inadvertently omit answers for any missing items and verified the inmates booking number with the testing packet number. Approximate time commitment for this phase of the research study was 3 hours. Upon data tabulation, three groups of participants were identified. One group was comprised of those participants who scored in the plus .5 standard deviation range of potential scores on at least two of three masculine role strain measures (high group). The second group was composed of those participants who scored in the minus .5 standard deviation range of potential scores on at least two of three masculine role strain measures (low group). The third group contained individuals who did not fall into either of the two previous groups and were not invited to participate in the second phase of testing. Contact was then made with those inmates who fell into the high and low groups for the second phase of the research study. In the second phase of the study, this researcher administered the SUDDS-IV using mixed methods in small groups of 4 to 18 and read a script for testing introduction and closing (Appendix F). Time required for phase two of the research study was approximately 2 hours. Given the protected status of the incarcerated population, confidentiality issues were paramount. Confidentiality of data was maximized by the use of code numbers that only temporarily linked the questionnaire data with the booking number of the individual participants. Inmate booking numbers were accessed by the researcher, her assistants, and the County Jail Inmate Programs Administrator only. These numbers did not have any identifying information with them, and were considered private confidential communication. The purpose of the research 45

was not known to any other jail personnel. All log forms containing linking data (questionnaire number to booking number) were destroyed if participants indicated they were not interested in the second phase of testing. Linking data (e.g., booking number) allowing connection between first and second interview information were unlinked immediately upon completion of the second interview. Any logs provided to the County Jail Inmate Programs Administrator to assist with arranging follow up interviews were returned to the researcher following resolution of the list (e.g., participants either completed the second interview or said they were no longer interested). At that time, the researcher destroyed the logs linking questionnaire numbers and booking numbers. Lists of booking numbers were kept only to insure that individuals did not participate more than once in the study as a whole. Those numbers were destroyed as soon as the research sample was achieved for the study.

Null Hypotheses 1. There will be no statistically significant score differences between those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate low levels of masculine gender role strain and those adult male criminal offenders exhibiting high levels of masculine gender role strain on degree of severity levels of substance dependence and aggressive behaviors. There will be no statistically significant effect of narcissism on the scores of those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate low levels of masculine gender role strain and those adult male criminal offenders exhibiting high levels of masculine gender role strain. There will be no statistically significant effect of socially desirable responding on the scores of those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate low levels of masculine gender role strain and those adult male criminal offenders exhibiting high levels of masculine gender role strain.

2.

3.

46

Power Analysis This study formed two groups (high/low) of n = 125 each from a nonrandom sample of 783. These two groups were compared analytically. The total N for the sample analysis was 250. The number in the analysis was smaller to the total sample number because participants were selected for inclusion in the analysis based on their meeting cut off scores for being in the high or low groups defining gender role strain. The high gender role strain group was comprised of those participants who scored .5 SD above the mean of the scores on at least two of the three measures of masculine gender role strain (i.e., masculinity ideology as measured by the CMNI; masculine gender role conflict as measured by the GRCS-I; and masculine gender role stress as measured by the MGRS). The low gender role strain group was comprised of those participants who scored .5 SD below the mean of the scores on at least two of these three measures of masculine gender role strain. The power analysis conducted suggested that to achieve a power level of .9, the two comparison groups needed 125 per group for comparison (Stevens, 2002). This was based on assuming a one-tailed multivariate analysis of variance strategy, with X = .05, and anticipating a small effect size in the range of .15 to .20.

Data Analysis Through the use of statistics maintained by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department and the United States Justice Department, the ethnic composition of the sample population was contrasted against the demographic composition of the entire adult male jail population in Maricopa County and the adult male jail population nationally to assess representativeness. This was done to examine the limitations imposed upon this study through the use of a nonrandomized sample. 47

Group mean differences were elucidated with a MANCOVA to study the main hypothesis and secondary hypothesis regarding the effect of narcissism. Level of significance was established at p < .05, and independent t tests, correlations, chi-square, regression analysis, with a repetition of the MANOVA were used to separately understand the effects of state versus trait gender role strain in follow up exploratory analyses. All computations were completed by this researcher using the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences Graduate Pack 11.5 for Windows (SPSS, 2002). All data were anonymous, secured, and stored in a locked file drawer in this researchers office.

Expected Findings Masculine gender role strain, as measured by scores on masculinity ideology, masculine gender role conflict, and masculine gender role stress, will predict degree of severity in substance use and levels of aggression. Follow up analyses for the main hypothesis for the study as designed will also allow for teasing apart of the relative contribution of state versus trait variables to the outcomes. Pathologically narcissistic traits will exhibit a significant effect on masculine gender role strain as measured by scores on masculinity ideology, masculine gender role conflict, and masculine gender role stress. A significant socially desirable response bias will be demonstrated in the inmate population. This response bias will demonstrate that the inmate population has a tendency to answer questions on some basis that interferes with accurate self-reporting. Potentially, the results of this study will provide additional empirical support regarding construct validity and predictive validity for the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory 48

(CMNI) by Mahalik, Locke, et al. (2003); the Gender Role Conflict Scale-I (GRCS-I) by ONeil et al. (1986); and the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) by Eisler and Skidmore (1987). It will also offer more normative data for these instruments on an understudied population. Furthermore, information regarding the relationship between masculine gender role strain, degree of substance use, and degree of aggressive behaviors in an offender population will provide clinicians and administrators with additional pertinent knowledge for constructive treatment interventions, treatment planning, and treatment program development both within and outside forensic settings.

49

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction Using a MANCOVA quasi-experimental design with a power level of .9 and level of significance established at X < .05, this study addressed the relationship between masculine gender role strain, severity of substance disorder, and level of aggression in an adult, male, incarcerated population from a large county jail located in Phoenix, Arizona. Analyses were completed to determine group differences and to discover any relationships between the studys primary variables and its covariates of narcissism and socially desirable responding. In addition, the primary predictor variable of masculine gender role strain was analyzed from both a trait and state perspective. Table 1 identifies the variable names used in this research study. This chapter presents the studys results in four sections. The first section provides a general overview of the descriptive results for the entire recruited population and for the samples comprising each of the research groups. Section 2 addresses assumptions testing, while sections 3 and 4 examine the tests of each research hypothesis and follow-up analyses.

Descriptive Results Participants Recruitment sample. A total of 783 incarcerated, adult, male, sentenced, jail inmates participated in the study. They were recruited through a flyer posted in the communication area 50

at the Estrella Tents facility (Appendix A) and through detention officer announcement of the flyer in inmate dormitories. All participants received their choice of at least two snacks for their time. Out of those responding in the recruitment population, the average age was 31.58 years of age (N = 767, SD = 9.6, range = 17-77).

Table 1. Research Variable Labels and Descriptions ___________________________________________________________________________ Variable label Description ___________________________________________________________________________ HILOCAT MAXSUB AQTOT MTTOTAL Grouping variable (high/low) for masculine gender role strain.* Outcome variable. Substance dependence severity level, range 3-11.* Outcome variable. Level of aggression, range 29-145.* Covariate. Narcissism , range 0-24.*

BIDRTOT Covariate. Desirable responding, range 40-280.* ___________________________________________________________________________

*Instrument description is provided in chapter 3.

Of these men, 50.3% were Caucasian, 30.8% were Latino, and 18.8% were other. Fiftytwo percent indicated they were never married, 24.6% were divorced or separated, and 22.2% were either married or living as married. Educationally, 42.3% reported either a GED or high school diploma while 35.3% reported no high school diploma, with 22.4% falling into the other category. Out of these men, two groups (n = 125) for the second level of testing were identified representing high and low masculine gender role strain (independent variable) with a total n of 250. A total of 9 men refused to complete the masculinity questionnaires with three of those men also refusing to complete the demographic questionnaire. Table 2 presents pertinent 51

sociodemographic characteristics of all recruitment respondents broken down by subpopulations of those selected, not selected, and refused along with available national jail population comparisons. The comparisons between all the research populations reveal no significant differences. The comparison with national demographics indicates limited generalizability. It is noted here that only about 10% of this population of men asked any questions for clarification purposes. Selection sample. Out of these 250 men who were administered the second level of testing, 213 qualified with a diagnosis of substance dependence on at least one category of drug. One case was ultimately dropped due to his failure to complete all necessary testing instruments. This resulted in a final n of 212 (high masculine gender role strain n = 111 and low masculine gender role strain n = 101; see Table 2). This final n is smaller than the original recruitment N due to data entry difficulties, inmate relocation, no shows, disciplinary segregation, and other environmental barriers to data collection and missing data. Assumption Testing Before proceeding with the main analysis, pertinent assumptions associated with MANCOVA were tested. MANCOVA is robust to assumption of normality given a large sample size (20+ per cell). In this study, N = 213 with 100+ per cell, the assumption for normality was met. Using Mahalanobis distance procedure, one outlier was detected (case 191). Because there was only one person and his score was not too high (14.95 against 13.82 critical value) this respondent was kept in the data file. Examination of the reliability of covariates resulted in Cronbachs alpha of .8 for each of the covariate scales indicating appropriate selection of the instruments (narcissism scale Cronbachs alpha = .80; desirable responding Cronbachs alpha = .81). 52

Table 2. Demographics of the Initial Recruitment Population, the Research Sample Selected for the Second Phase of Testing Based on High/Low Masculine Gender Role Strain, the Research Sample Not Selected for Testing, Those who Refused, and a National Sample ______________________________________________________________________________ All populations ______________________________________________________ Recruitment Selected Not Selected Refused Nationala Characteristics (N = 783) (n = 213) (n = 328) (n = 9) ______________________________________________________________________________ Age1 Mean and SD Range Ethnicity2 Caucasian Hispanic Other Missing Marital Status2 Never Married Divorced/Separated Married/Cohabiting Other Missing 31.6 (9.6) 17-77 9.9 30.5 18.8 .8 52.0 24.6 22.2 .5 .8 32.2 (10.1) 18-77 50.2 32.9 16.9 31.5 (9.2) 17-58 50.6 30.2 18.9 .3 52.1 25.3 21.7 .3 .6 25.2 (11.4) 18-48 33.3 33.4 33.6 44.4 11.1 11.1 33.4 44.3 15.0 -

53.1 25.3 21.1 .5

Education2 High School Diploma/GED 41.0 39.9 43.6 11.1 40.0 No High School Diploma 34.2 33.8 33.2 33.4 46.5 Other 21.7 24.9 20.2 11.1 13.5 Missing 3.1 1.4 3.0 44.4 ______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Age is in years and all other characteristics are percents. Data not obtained or not available is indicated by a dash. The data in column 5 are from Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005 (p. 8), by U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 213133), 2006, Washington, DC: Author. a n = 2,186,230. 1 T test conducted on differences between means of age for selected and not selected groups was not significant. 2 Chi-square conducted on ethnicity, marital status, and education between selected and not selected groups was not significant.

53

Although there is a moderate correlation between the covariates (r = -.46) theory suggests keeping these variables in the study. No multicollinearity problem was detected between the dependent variables (r = .04). There was no violation of the linearity assumption as evidenced by examination of scatterplots between the dependent variables and each of the covariates. The assumptions of homogeneity of variance-covariance and equality of variance were also met (see Table 3). Tests of Research Hypotheses Null hypothesis 1. There will be no statistically significant score differences between those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate low levels of masculine gender role strain and those adult male criminal offenders exhibiting high levels of masculine gender role strain on degree of severity levels of substance dependence and aggression.

Table 3. Tests of Homogeneity of Variance-Covariance and Equality of Variance Assumptions Pertinent to MANCOVA Comparing HICAT (n = 111) and LOCAT (n = 101) Across the Dependent Variables of MAXSUB and AQTOT ___________________________________ Test F p ___________________________________ Boxs M Levenes MAXSUB .045 .832 1.57 .194

AQTOT .491 .484 ___________________________________

A one-way between groups MANCOVA was performed to investigate two levels of masculine gender role strain (high and low) in substance dependence severity and level of 54

aggression. The two dependent variables used were: Severity level of substance dependence (MAXSUB) and level of aggression (AQTOT). The independent variable was masculine gender role strain (HILOCAT). Two covariates were employed: Narcissism (MTTOTAL) and socially desirable responding (BIDRTOT). There was a statistically significant difference between high and low masculine gender role strain on the combined dependent variables of substance dependence and aggression: F(2,207) = 9.92, p < .001; Wilkss [ = .91; partial \2 = .09. There was a statistically significant difference between high and low masculine gender role strain on each of the covariates: Narcissism F(2,207) = 9.92, p < .001; Wilkss [ = .91; partial \2 = .09; Desirable responding F(2,207) = 12.25, p < .001; Wilkss [ = .89; partial \2 = .11. Table 4 presents the complete results of these analyses. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, the only variable that suggested statistical significance was aggression: F(1,208) = 18.58, p < .001, partial \2 = .08. An inspection of the mean scores indicated that high gender role strain reported higher levels of aggression (M = 103.83, SD = 19.68) than low gender role strain (M = 81.14, SD = 17.39). Null hypothesis 2. There will be no statistically significant effect of narcissism on the scores of those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate low levels of masculine gender role strain and those adult male criminal offenders exhibiting high levels of masculine gender role strain. An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare the narcissism score for those criminal offenders scoring high in masculine gender role strain and those scoring low in masculine gender role strain. There was a statistically significant difference in the score for the covariate of narcissism between high and low masculine gender role strain groups t(210) = 8.54, p < .001. 55

Table 4. 2 X 2 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance, With Substance Dependence Severity and Aggression as Dependent Variables (N = 212) ______________________________________________ Variable Wilkss [ F Partial \2 ______________________________________________ MTTOTAL BIDRTOT .91 .89 9.92** 12.25** .09 .11

HILOCAT .91 9.91** .09 ______________________________________________

Note. The dfs for the MANCOVA were (2, 207). **p < .001.

The results supported rejection of the null hypothesis with inmates in the high masculine gender role strain group displaying more narcissism (M = 9.63, SD = 4.12) than those in the low masculine gender role strain group (M = 5.02, SD = 3.61). The magnitude of the difference in the means was large (\2 = .26). Table 5 presents the complete results of this analysis as well as that for null hypothesis 3. Null hypothesis 3. There will be no statistically significant effect of socially desirable responding on the scores of those adult male criminal offenders who demonstrate low levels of masculine gender role strain and those adult male criminal offenders exhibiting high levels of masculine gender role strain. An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare the socially desirable responding score for those criminal offenders scoring high in masculine gender role strain and those scoring low in masculine gender role strain. There was a statistically significant difference in the score for the covariate of socially desirable responding between high and low masculine gender role strain groups t(210) = -6.37, p < .001. The results supported rejection of the null 56

hypothesis with inmates in the high masculine gender role strain group displaying less socially desirable responding (M = 135.26, SD = 23.57) than those in the low masculine gender role strain group (M = 156.98, SD = 26.11). The magnitude of the difference in the means was large (\2 = .16).

Table 5. Independent T Tests on Narcissism and Socially Desirable Responding Based on Masculine Gender Role Strain Source MTTOTAL HICAT (n = 111) LOCAT (n = 101) BIDRTOT HICAT (n = 111) LOCAT (n = 101) Mean SD df 210 9.63 5.02 135.26 156.98 4.20 3.61 210 23.57 26.11 -6.37** .16 t 8.54** \2 .26

Note. Eta squared computed based on the following equation: t2 / t2 + (N1 + N2 2), with N1 = 111 and N2 = 101. **p < .001.

Exploratory Analyses Alternative operationalization of substance dependence. How is the dependent variable measuring severity level of substance dependence (MAXSUB) affected when it is operationalized and computed differently? To address this, the dependent variable of substance disorder severity (MAXSUB) was reconfigured as a continuous variable totaling lifetime symptoms of dependence and abuse for all reported substances with a range of 3 to 440 (SEVALL). The second dependent variable of level of aggression (AQTOT) remained the same. A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of covariance was performed to investigate 57

masculine gender role strain in substance dependence severity and level of aggression. Two dependent variables were used: Severity level of substance dependence computed with all reported lifetime dependence and abuse symptoms (SEVALL) and level of aggression (AQTOT). The independent variable (grouping variable) was masculine gender role strain (HILOCAT). Two covariates were used: Narcissism (MTTOTAL) and socially desirable responding (BIDRTOT). There was a statistically significant difference between high and low masculine gender role strain on the combined dependent variables: F(2,207) = 9.354, p < .001; Wilkss [ = .02; partial \ squared = .08. There was a statistically significant difference between high and low masculine gender role strain on each of the covariates: Narcissism F(2,207) = 14.08, 9 , .001; Wilkss [ = .88; partial \ squared .12 and socially desirable responding F(2,207) = 9.12, p < .001; Wilkss [ = .92; partial \ squared = .08. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, statistical significance was reached with the differences on aggression with all three variables (HILOCAT, MTTOTAL, and BIDRTOT) while substance disorder severity only suggested difference in statistical significance with one variable (BIDRTOT). An inspection of the mean scores indicated that high gender role strain reported higher levels of substance disorder severity (M = 79.48, SD = 56.30) and higher levels of aggression (M = 103.83, SD = 19.68) than low gender role strain (M = 62.09, SD = 46.59) and (M = 81.14, SD = 17.39). Table 6 presents the complete results of these analyses. Questioning assumptions of aggression. The assumption was made that those men scoring higher on masculine gender role strain would score higher on each of the four subscales comprising the total score for the instrument measuring the dependent variable of aggression (AQTOT) than those scoring low on masculine gender role strain. Follow-up analysis on the relationship between the grouping variable of masculine gender role strain (HILOCAT) and the 58

four subscales comprising the dependent variable of aggression (AQTOT) was examined through the use of individual t tests. For each of the four subscales, significant difference among the levels of masculine gender role strain (high and low) was detected. The results showed that inmates in the high gender role strain group displayed increased levels of physical aggression (M = 33.13, SD = 7.57) than those in the low masculine gender role strain group (M = 24.80, SD = 6.99). Furthermore, those in the high gender role strain group displayed increased levels of verbal aggression (M = 18.25, SD = 4.03) than those in the low masculine gender role strain group (M = 15.60, SD = 3.71). With regards to anger, those in the high gender role strain group displayed more anger (M = 23.72, SD = 6.16) than those in the low masculine gender role strain group (M = 18.25, SD = 5.72). Lastly, those in the high masculine gender role strain group showed increased levels of hostility (M = 28.73, SD = 5.85) than those in the low masculine gender role strain group (M = 22.49, SD = 5.67). The magnitude of the differences in the means was substantial. Table 7 presents the complete results of these analyses.

Table 6. 2 X 2 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance, With Substance Dependence Severity Computed as a Continuous Lifetime Variable (SEVALL) and Aggression as Dependent Variables (N = 212) ______________________________________________ Variable Wilkss [ F Partial \2 ______________________________________________ MTTOTAL BIDRTOT .88 .92 14.08** 9.12** .12 .08

HILOCAT .92 9.35** .08 ______________________________________________

Note. The dfs for the MANCOVA were (2, 207). **p < .001.

59

Examination of desirable responding. What is the relationship between high and low masculine gender role strain and the subscales (self-deceptive enhancement and impression management) comprising desirable responding (BIDRTOT)? Follow-up analysis on this relationship was also conducted through the use of individual t tests. The results indicated that those inmates scoring high in masculine gender role strain displayed less self-deceptive enhancement (M = 78.99, SD = 11.01) than those individuals scoring low in masculine gender role strain (M = 87.42, SD = 12.77) and those inmates scoring high in masculine gender role strain also displayed less socially desirable responding (M = 56.27, SD = 18.16) than those scoring low in masculine gender role strain (M = 69.56, SD = 18.71). The magnitude of the difference in the means was in the moderate to high range for both subscales. Table 8 presents the complete results of these analyses. Relationship between narcissism and desirable responding. Is the relationship between narcissism and the two subscales comprising the BIDR consistent with extant research on a predominantly antisocial population? A follow-up correlation analysis indicated that there was an inverse relationship between narcissism and the two subscales of the BIDR (impression management and self-deceptive enhancement). This is consistent with the research available on a predominantly antisocial population. Table 9 presents the results of this analysis. Predictors of aggression. How much of the variance in the criterion variable of aggression can be explained by the predictor variables? In analyzing the unique contributions of the predictor variables to the criterion variable of aggression, a regression analysis was conducted with the following predictors entered freely: MTTOTAL, BIDRTOT, CMNITOT, GRCSTOT, MGRSTOT, MAXSUB, and SEVALL.

60

Table 7. Follow-Up Analysis Independent T Tests on the Four Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Based on Masculine Gender Role Strain (HICAT n = 111; LOCAT n = 101) Source AQ PHYSICAL AGGRESSION HICAT LOCAT AQ VERBAL AGGRESSION HICAT LOCAT AQ ANGER SUBSCALE HICAT LOCAT AQ HOSTILITY SUBSCALE HICAT LOCAT Mean SD df 210 33.13 24.80 18.25 15.60 23.72 18.25 28.73 22.49 6.99 7.57 210 4.03 3.71 210 6.16 5.72 210 5.85 5.67 -7.88** .23 -6.68** .18 -4.96** .10 t -8.29** \2 .25

Note. Eta squared computed based on the following equation: t2 / t2 + (N1 + N2 2), with N1 = 111 and N2 = 101. **p < .001.

Table 8. Follow-Up Analysis Independent T Tests on the Two Subscales of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Subscales Based on Masculine Gender Role Strain (HICAT n = 111; LOCAT n = 101) Source SELF-DECEPTIVE ENHANCEMENT HICAT LOCAT IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT HICAT LOCAT Mean SD df 210 78.99 80.42 56.27 69.56 11.01 12.77 210 18.16 18.71 5.25** .12 t 5.16** \2 .11

Note. Eta squared computed based on the following equation: t2 / t2 + (N1 + N2 2), with N1 = 111 and N2 = 101 ** p < .001.

61

Table 9. Correlations Between the Total Score on Narcissism as Measured by the MT and the Two Subscales of the BIDR as Measured by BIDR Self-Deceptive Enhancement and BIDR Impression Management (N = 212) _________________________________________________________________________ Scale MT NARCISSISM BIDR SELF-DECEPTIVE ENHANCEMENT BIDR IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT MT NARCISSISM _ BIDR SDE -.396** .387** BIDR IM -.379** _ _ _________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________
Note. SDE = self-deceptive enhancement; IM = impression management.

The results of this analysis showed that the linear combination of predictors was significantly related to aggression, F(7,204) = 29.17, p < .001. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .71, with R2 = .50, indicating that 50% of the variance in the criterion variable of aggression was explained by this linear combination of predictor variables. In addition, examination of standardized coefficients beta revealed that the variable making the strongest unique contribution to aggression when the variance explained by all other variables in this model was controlled for was BIDRTOT (desirable responding), ^ = -.260, p < .001. Closely following was CMNITOT (masculine gender role ideology) with a ^ = .259, p < .001. Table 10 presents the complete results of these analyses. Predictors of substance dependence severity. How much of the variance in the criterion variable of substance dependence severity can be explained by the other predictor variables? In analyzing the unique contributions of the predictor variables to the criterion variable of substance dependence severity, a regression analysis was conducted with the following predictors entered 62

freely: AQTOTAL, MTTOTAL, BIDRTOT, CMNITOT, GRCSTOT, MGRSTOT, and HILOCAT. The results of this analysis showed that the linear combination of predictors was significantly related to substance dependence severity as measured by SEVALL, F(6,205) = 3.27, p < .05.

Table 10. Summary of Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Aggression (N = 212) Variable SEVALL MAXSUB CMNI TOTAL SCORE GRCS TOTAL SCORE MGRS TOTAL SCORE MT TOTAL SCORE BIDR TOTAL SCORE
Note. *p < .05. **p < .001.

B .038 -.032 .185 .071 .031 .866 -.210

SE B .023 .702 .050 .050 .036 .309 .047

^ .095 -.003 .259** .111 .067 .181* -.260**

Further examination revealed, however, that the sample multiple correlation coefficient was .30, with R2 = .087 indicating that 8.7% of the variance in substance dependence severity appeared to be explained by this linear combination of predictor variables. This was hardly a robust contribution to the variable. Upon examination of standardized coefficients ^, and consideration of which predictor variables made the strongest unique contributions to the

63

explanation of substance dependence severity, none attained significance. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Summary of Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Substance Dependence Severity Level as Measured by the Continuous Variable SEVALL (N = 213) Variable AQ TOTAL SCORE CMNI TOTAL SCORE GRCS TOTAL SCORE MGRS TOTAL SCORE MT TOTAL SCORE BIDR TOTAL SCORE B .429 .116 -.054 .063 -.996 -.279 SE B .225 .166 .162 .118 1.017 .159 _ .178 .068 -.035 .057 -.086 -.144

64

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction The reader is referred back to the first chapter of this dissertation for review of research clearly demonstrating a relationship between traditional Western world norms of the masculine role and problems such as substance disorders and all levels of violence. The dynamic interaction between psychological and social-psychological factors has resulted in a cultural definition of masculinity that has the potential to create problems resulting in conflict, stress, and strain for men who rigidly adhere to this definition. The focus of this study was on examining the complex interactions of these variables along with the covariates of narcissism and socially desirable responding.

Major Findings Differentiating High and Low Masculine Gender Role Strain Groups There were clear differences between those inmates grouped into the high masculine gender role strain group and those in the low masculine gender role strain group. First, those in the high masculine gender role strain group scored significantly higher on the combined dependent variables of substance dependence and aggression. Upon further examination of these groups, however, and when considering aggression and substance dependence each independently, aggression was the only variable that meaningfully differentiated the two groups 65

as it was conceptualized in this study. This suggested that aggression was by far the more robust variable and was certainly an unexpected finding. Although research has provided a strong connection between various masculine gender role constructs and aggression, the extant research also has drawn an equally vigorous relationship between substance dependence and these same constructs. It certainly is possible that in an incarcerated population, substance dependence is too homogeneously represented in the entire population to provide an accurate differentiation between high and low masculine gender role strain groups and that aggression offers better differentiation. The contradiction that this appears to raise with extant research, however, cannot be summarily dismissed. Certainly if substance dependence is related to masculine gender role strain, it should be apparent in an incarcerated population. The high and low masculine gender role strain groups did not exhibit much variance in their reported substance dependence symptoms. The obtained means were high on substance dependence level and did not display much difference between either high or low masculine gender role strain groups. This lack of variance, however, appeared to be related to how the substance dependence level of severity variable (MAXSUB) was operationalized. Originally, this was defined as the greatest number of symptoms, to include dependence and abuse symptoms, reported for any one substance meeting a dependence diagnosis as scored from answers to the SUDDS-IV. What did emerge was a population that overwhelmingly met dependence diagnoses for more than one substance and displayed complex profiles composed of multiple dependence and abuse symptoms experienced with numerous substances over their lifetime. Clearly, by not somehow addressing this symptomatic trajectory being identified and reported by these men for multiple substances used in their lifetime, the global severity level for this population of mens substance dependence was not being adequately tapped. 66

Substance Use and Gender Role Strain The original conceptualization for substance use for this study was to examine lifetime severity for the drug where the most problems had been experienced. Using that conceptualization, no differentiation was found between high and low masculine gender role strain groups. However, when using an alternative conceptualization, specifically examining substance use from a lifetime severity for all drugs used with all problems experienced, a finding consistent with previous research did emerge. Substance dependence severity levels clearly differentiated those men in the high masculine gender role strain group from those in the low masculine gender role strain group. Of significance here is the continuous nature of the variable called substance use, the dimensionality of that variable, the wide range it spans, the multiple ways to operationalize it, and how valuable data are lost as a result of these choices. Of significance also is that in an incarcerated population where substance use is a rather homogeneous variable, it is especially important to operationalize it from a dimensional perspective in order to more accurately measure it. This supported the use of a continuous variable that includes all symptoms of dependence and abuse for all substances ever used in ones lifetime when considering at least one aspect of severity level of substance use. Aggression, Socially Desirable Responding, and Gender Role Strain In general, those inmates in the high masculine gender role strain group tend to be more aggressive than those in the low masculine gender role strain group and to also rank significantly higher in all four subscales comprising the total aggression score. The men in the high masculine gender role strain group score considerable higher in physical and verbal aggression than those in the low masculine gender role strain group and demonstrate much higher average scores in the anger and hostility subscales than those men in the low masculine gender role strain group. The 67

high masculine gender role strain group also tends to be more narcissistic and less likely to engage in desirable responding as evidenced by lower scores on both the self-deceptive enhancement and impression management subscales of the BIDR than those in the low masculine gender role strain group. Although this finding appears to contradict thoughts surrounding narcissism, it is quite consistent with those of Paulhus (1991, 1998, 2002) and Paulhus and Reid (1991) who demonstrated an inverse relationship between antisocial traits and BIDR scores such that the higher one scored on antisocial traits, the lower their BIDR scores. It is noted here that the two variables making the strongest unique contributions to aggression when all the other predictor variables are controlled for are BIDRTOT (desirable responding) and CMNITOT (masculine gender role ideology). These findings are consistent with the literature reviewed previously in chapter 1. Narcissism Reemphasized here is the difficulty encountered in operationalizing and measuring the construct narcissism. Narcissism is an extremely complex and seemingly contradictory conceptualization that captures aspects of both low self-esteem and exaggerated levels of selfesteem with the most malignant combination for aggressive behaviors being that of narcissism and low self-esteem (Barry, Frick, & Killian, 2003). There are various components of this construct identified as being adaptive and necessary for well-developed self-esteem and components identified as maladaptive and associated with exploitativeness and entitlement. Furthermore, it is a construct that appears to overlap substantially with other psychological constructs but in convoluted ways.

68

Trait Versus State Constructs In regards to trait versus state constructs. Overall, this inmate population chose to respond to all the variables from trait positions. All three masculine gender role constructs (i.e., ideology, conflict, stress) operationalized to compose gender role strain were overwhelmingly responded to from a trait position in this population. It was hypothesized that the inmates would respond to the construct of masculine gender role ideology (operationalized by the CMNI) from a trait perspective, and this was supported. Because the constructs of masculine gender role conflict (operationalized by the GRCS) and masculine gender role stress (operationalized by the MGRS) place an emphasis more on the pathology associated with masculinity, rather than simply conformity or nonconformity, it was hypothesized that these measures would solicit more of a state response from the inmates. This was not supported. It was also originally hypothesized that the covariate socially desirable responding (operationalized by the BIDR) would be identified as a state construct, however, this was not corroborated either. The implications of this are quite important. Stress was identified as the common denominator present with all the research variables. It was certainly obvious in the testing environment. Given that the jail environment is highly stressful and one that is fear driven, it is assumed the influence of these state variables must be confounding the respondents scores in some manner, but how and to what extent are not clear. Of further consideration is the anecdotal evidence that the jail environment represents less stress than the free world for some inmates. This presents yet another confounding variable that must be considered. Correlations An unexpected but very interesting correlation emerged between the masculinity inventories measuring conflict (GRCS) and stress (MGRS). Previous research (D. Walker et al., 69

2000) had indicated that the MGRS was considered to be factor pure from the GRCS and other masculine gender role construct inventories. In this population, however, it was correlated to the total GRCS at .733 and would appear to be measuring the same construct.

Testing Concerns Conducting research within a jail environment presents numerous challenges that for the sake of clarity can be categorized into four broad areas: (a) environmental, (b) logistical, (c) overall characteristics of inmate populations, and (d) currently available testing instruments. Environmental Challenges It must be understood that the goal of a jail is the orderly operation of the facility. Maintaining the safety of staff, inmates, and visitors is a statutory and administrative mandate. Permission to conduct research is a distinct privilege but represents an intrusion into the orderly operation of the daily activities of the unit. The deviation caused by the presence of an outsider on the unit caused disruption in the normal flow of activities. There were times when research activities had to be cancelled due to scheduling conflicts with canteen, or available space. Sometimes, research efforts were cancelled due to security overrides or lockdowns that completely restricted access to all inmates. Other environmental challenges included the noisy and chaotic nature of the open yard from which the testing population was recruited. The size of this yard necessitated a bullhorn to give directions to the men. There is no where on a jail yard where an inmate can complete a research packet with total privacy. He is always aware that someone could be looking at his responses and in fact appears to be hypervigilant. This observation is supported by many questions about the confidential nature of responses given in the research. An essential element to the validity of a research participants responses is that he 70

feels comfortable giving honest answers (Mahalik et al., 2005). Given the magnitude of the privacy issues inherent to a jail environment, one would have to question how this variable can be controlled for. Logistical Challenges Logistical challenges included testing when other activities were being conducted (e.g., medication distribution, commissary, mail, legal visits, visitation, work) necessitating an inmate entering and leaving the area. Movement of inmates is monitored and access to the research project was obtained through inmate identification badge. Due to this movement, some respondents were lost when they left and did not return. There is constant activity and noise occurring on a jail yard with the potential for distraction quite high. With distraction comes the possibility for danger. Characteristics of Inmate Populations Overall, this population was guarded. Most of their questions related to confidentiality issues, links to their identity, and who could access the information they would give in the research questionnaires. Their level of distrust was apparent as evidenced by inquiries and clarifications of questions on measurement instruments that they claimed were trick questions. They displayed a low tolerance for ambiguity and sought black-and-white definitions for all terms. They often asked, So, what do you really want to know here? Other inmate characteristics that presented challenges included short attention spans; they are easily bored; they are easily irritated and easily frustrated. The instruments used were rather lengthy and possibly some of the reactance noticed on the measurement tools was related to their boredom. The length of the testing instruments, the nature of the research, the lack of privacy in jail, the low trust level, the low reading level, and the low patience level were probably all related to the 71

characteristics of increased irritability and frustration noticed. Food is a luxury in jail, is a controlled item, is of limited quantity and quality, and becomes one of the most powerful incentives for inmates. Researchers must take into consideration certain factors however. For instance, in this jail peanut butter was served often so any snack with peanut butter in it was not as valuable as an incentive. Chocolate was highly valuable and encouraged more participation from inmates. Beef jerky was also a favorite. Consideration had to be made for those many inmates who do not have teeth and for those inmates who have allergies, so when using food as an incentive, having a variety to choose from is best and saves complaints from participants. When dealing with inmates and food, more is better. In other words, more than one snack seemed to produce happier, more trusting and less bored participants. Testing Instruments The challenges related to testing instruments are the practical concerns surrounding the fact that most have been normed on the ubiquitous psychology 100 student and are worded in a manner to which most inmates will not respond or do not understand. Keep in mind that this inmate population has a documented low education level with 34% having no high school diploma, and even though the reading levels of the testing instruments were between the fifth and seventh grades, they had difficulty with some words (e.g., biases, heterosexual, feminism, subservient). This brings up the concern of comprehension level. Furthermore, these instruments asked some questions that did not apply to an inmate population (e.g., questions about voting or customs). As a result of this, the instruments may not be capturing the same constructs with the incarcerated populations that they are with their normative populations. Nederhof (1985) suggested that questions viewed as more threatening, such as those concerning sexuality or drugs, were particularly susceptible to socially desirable response bias. It is assumed there was a 72

response bias occurring but the available testing instrument was not able to detect it because of its inappropriateness for the population.

Limitations It is recognized that this research used a sample with limited generalizability to a national population. Furthermore, there were no mechanisms that controlled for a possible difference in characteristics of those men in the testing sample who were on their way to the Department of Corrections or those men who were incarcerated for violent offenses. Lack of normative information on an adult male jail population with the psychometric instruments used in this research related to the pertinent psychological constructs was a clear limitation. The instruments used for this study were not normed on this population, nor made specifically for use with this population. This study informs how these instruments perform with this population, but is also limited by the lack of normed data prior to this work.

Conclusions This research specifically chose an incarcerated population because it is an understudied population that represents a tremendous cost to society. It is undeniably an extremely difficult population to test. Given the environmental barriers, the respondent characteristics, and psychometric instrument limitations, it becomes a tremendous challenge. These issues need to be addressed, however, because this population must be understood in order to be effectively assisted. In fact, the trajectory from nonoffender to offender needs to be more clearly followed and understood in order to facilitate earlier and more effective interventions. Obviously, long

73

before these adult men became jail inmates they were male youth experiencing various levels of masculine gender role strain. With this in mind, it is especially salient that these inmates overwhelmingly chose to respond to all the testing instruments from a lifetime perspective. In effect, they are saying that their experience of the impact of these constructs has had a more pervasive effect, a more enduring and synergistic effect so-to-speak. The significance of this must not be overlooked. It relates to the importance of precedence and interaction with the variables in the hypotheses, and ultimately concludes with the need for multidimensional approaches to constructs. This leads back to biopsychosocial. It would appear from this data that the order of variables is: high aggression precedes substance dependence and that high masculine gender role strain and high narcissism precede aggression. One can argue that narcissism is theoretically foundational to those final variables, and is clearly supported by research. Stress, however, is the common denominator that must not be overlooked, is uniquely present in all the variables (Arborelius et al., 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Seligman, 1975; Zuckerman, 1999) and has clear neurodevelopmental linkage to support this premise (Rivas-Vazquez & Blais, 2002). This research speaks to prevention, intervention, and treatment strategies. It undeniably supports the extant research in the field of the psychology of men and masculinity and suggests that any jail treatment program addressing the issues of parenting, anger management, domestic violence, aggression, and/or substance use in men cannot ignore gender role issues in their clinical programming. In fact, to do so would be reckless.

74

Recommendations and Future Directions Multidisciplinary Collaboration The complex relationships only begun to be addressed in this research lead to consideration of how we, as scientists, must further efforts to advance multidisciplinary collaboration. There is some outstanding longitudinal work on aggressive and antisocial tendencies that has been advanced in the field of criminology and parallels some similar constructs as addressed in this research (Caspi, 2000; Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). Utilization of a multidisciplinary approach that capitalizes on the work advanced by both these areas would promote a more thorough understanding of these highly complex constructs. Comparison Research Research on an incarcerated juvenile population using the same masculine gender role variables and then comparing it to an adult population would advance our knowledge of the continuum of these constructs. Advancing our knowledge of how narcissism and masculine gender role ideology, conflict, and stress contribute to the developmental trajectory of aggression and substance disorders is crucial. This would advance the research efforts of Barry et al. (2003). Longitudinal Research With Mixed Methods Approach Since there is very little research that has been done on incarcerated populations at all, and the developmental trajectory of aggression, substance disorders, narcissism, and masculine gender role ideology is important, longitudinal research would be most helpful when considering these issues. Furthermore, it is suggested that a mixed methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative would provide the best of both analytical worlds in its quest to discern truth especially when conducting research on an incarcerated population. There is considerable 75

support for blending methodologies. These advocates (Bensley, 1998; Patton, 2002; Robson, 1999) argue that use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches increases validity by a balancing of strengths and weaknesses while providing a researcher the ability to address a phenomenon more thoroughly from a standardized group perspective and a unique individualized perspective. Emotional Inexpressiveness/Male Alexithymia Emotional inexpressiveness was an extremely robust subscale on all the masculinity instruments where it was measured. Given that there has been established empirical evidence for restrictive emotional expression as foundational to traditional masculine ideology (Levant, 1996; Levant et al., 1992; Mahalik, Good, et al., 2003; ONeil, 1981a, 1981b; ONeil et al., 1986), exploration of the contribution of this dynamic would add significant information to an extremely valuable area of mens studies. Furthermore, it would advance the research efforts begun on a normative male alexithymia measurement scale by Levant et al. (2006). In addition, emotional inexpressiveness might be the factor that was causing the correlation between the GRCS and the MGRS when previous research (D. Walker et al., 2000) indicated the MGRS was factor pure from the GRCS. Exploration of this constructs relationship to the variables in this research has unlimited possibilities. Conflict and Strain Constructs in an Incarcerated Population The GRCS and MGRS appear to not be differentiating between the factors of conflict and strain in an incarcerated population. These constructs may in fact be so similar for an incarcerated population that the instruments as developed currently do not distinguish between the two. Conflict and strain could, however, be experienced quite differently by this population.

76

A series of factor analytical processes are suggested using this population to revisit these masculinity constructs. More Research and Psychometric Instruments There must be more research conducted on incarcerated populations. The lack of empirical research conducted on these populations is staggering; yet their cost to society is tremendous. In addition, for those existing psychometric instruments normative data need to be generated on incarcerated populations so comparisons and changes can be made if necessary to improve the tools. In addition, there must be the development of new psychometric tools specifically for incarcerated populations. Operationalization and Measurement Issues for Substance Dependence Clearly, the richness of analyzing a disorder called substance dependence is viewing it not simply as a categorical variable; an either/or phenomenon. In fact, relying on the DSM-IV-TR criteria limits ones perspective of the substance disorders to 3 out of 7 for dependence and 1 out of 4 for abuse. Full appreciation for the true nature and impact of these disorders cannot be appreciated unless one considers the continuous nature of them. One needs to analyze them dimensionally. This proves to be quite challenging. Operationalizing substance dependence severity as a continuous variable from a dimensional perspective was not an easy task, and clearly was just a beginning. The SUDDS-IV is meant to be used as an individual structured interview in a private or semi-private setting. It was not the best choice for a measurement instrument given the large number in the sample population and the inherent problems presented when conducting research in a jail environment. This is a fascinating area and certainly one that needs considerable work.

77

Operationalization and Measurement Issues for Narcissism While the DSM-IV-TR (2000) offers established criteria for the empirical study of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it does not necessarily clarify the variable nature and clinical complexity of this diverse construct. Developmentally, narcissism relates to aspects of regulating self-esteem to include self-preservation, self-regard, self-assertiveness, and normal levels of entitlement, competitiveness, and affiliativeness with empathy and compassion (Conger et al., 2001; Ronningstam, 1999). Foundationally, these are all connected to attachment theories (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991; Diamond & Blatt, 1994; Lyddon & Sherry, 2001). The continuum ranges from normal or healthy to pathological or unhealthy. Of importance, however, are the recent contributions of the neurobiological discipline which has found linkages between the biologic systems implicated with the anger, aggression, behavioral disinhibition, mood dysregulation, depression, dysphoria, and emotional lability associated with narcissistic personality features as well as with substance abuse and dependence, and aggression in general (Rivas-Vazquez & Blais, 2002). The difficulty one encounters is how does one measure such a complex construct found in varying degrees in all individuals when its expression in populations is moderated by multiple variables? Test Construction Developing questions that are meaningful to inmates, utilizing words that they comprehend, with questions that are phrased to avoid ambiguity and be nonrepetitive, with questions that they do not second guess and actually solicit a genuine answer appears to be a research project unto itself. This is an area that needs considerable work and would impact the entire field.

78

REFERENCES Addis, M., & Cohane, G. (2005). Social scientific paradigms of masculinity and their implications for research and practice in mens mental health. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 633-647. Addis, M., & Mahalik, J. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58, 5-14. Ainsworth, M., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46, 333-341. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author. Anthenelli, R., & Schuckit, M. (1997). Genetics. In J. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R. Millman, & J. Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook (pp. 41-51). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Arborelius, L., Owens, M., Plotsky, P., & Nemeroff, C. (1999). The role of corticotrophinreleasing factor in depression and anxiety disorders. Journal of Endocrinology, 160, 1-12. Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. (2003a). 2000 annual report. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from www.ojp.usdoj.gov;nij/adam/welcome.html Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. (2003b). Preliminary data on drug use and related matters among adult arrestees and juvenile detainees, 2002. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from www.ojp.usdoj.gov;nij/adam/welcome.html Auerbach, J. (1984). Validation of two scales for narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 649-653. Auster, C., & Ohm, S. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 43, 499-527. Barger, S. (2002). The Marlowe-Crowne affair: Short forms, psychometric structure, and social desirability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 286-305.

79

Barry, C., Frick, P., & Killian, A. (2003). The relation of narcissism and self-esteem to conduct problems in children: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 139-152. Baumeister, R., Catanese, K., & Wallace, H. (2002). Conquest by force: A narcissistic reactance theory of rape and sexual coercion. Review of General Psychology, 6, 92-135. Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33. Bensley, D. (1998). Critical thinking in psychology: A unified skills approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Bird, K., & Hadzi-Pavlovic, D. (1983). Simultaneous test procedures and the choice of a test statistic in MANOVA. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 167-178. Biskin, B. (1980). Multivariate analysis in experimental counseling research. The Counseling Psychologist, 8, 69-72. Blazina, C., & Watkins, C. (1996). Masculine gender role conflict: Effects on college mens psychological well-being, chemical substance usage, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 461-465. Bray, J., & Maxwell, S. (1982). Analyzing and interpreting significant MANOVAs. Review of Educational Research, 52, 340-367. Bray, J., & Maxwell, S. (1985). Multivariate analysis of variance. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Research Methods (Vol. 54). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brooks, G. (1990). Post-Vietnam gender role strain a needed concept? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 18-25. Brooks, G., & Silverstein, L. (1995). Understanding the dark side of masculinity: An interactive systems model. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 280333). New York: Basic Books. Brown, G., Hammen, C., Craske, M., & Wickens, T. (1995). Dimensions of dysfunctional attitudes as vulnerabilities to depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 431-435. Burk, L., Burkhart, B., & Sikorski, J. (2004). Construction and preliminary validation of the Auburn Differential Masculinity Inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 4-17.

80

Bushman, B., & Baumeister, R. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229. Bushman, B., Bonacci, A., van Dijk, M., & Baumeister, R. (2003). Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1027-1040. Bushman, B., Cooper, H., & Lemke, K. (1991). Meta-analysis of factor analyses: An illustration using the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 344-349. Buss, A., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343-349. Buss, A., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459. Buss, A., & Warren, W. (2000). Aggression questionnaire: Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713. Cadoret, R., Leve, L., & Devor, E. (1997). Genetics of aggressive and violent behavior. Anger, Aggression, and Violence, 20, 302-321. Calhoun, G., Glasner, B., Stefurak, T., & Bradshaw, C. (2000). Preliminary validation of the Narcissistic Personality Inventoryjuvenile offender. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 564-580. Carey, G., & DiLalla, D. (1994). Personality and psychopathology genetic perspectives. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 32-43. Caspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continuities from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 158-172. Cochran, S. (2005). Evidence-based assessment with men. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 649-660. Conger, R., Cui, M., Bryant, C., & Elder, G. (2001). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Prevention and Treatment, 4. Retrieved August 8, 2001, from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/ volume 4/pre0040011a.html 81

Copenhaver, M., Lash, S., & Eisler, R. (2000). Masculine gender-role stress, anger, and male intimate abusiveness: Implications for mens relationships. Sex Roles, 42, 405-414. Cournoyer, R., & Mahalik, J. (1995). Cross-sectional study of gender role conflict examining college-aged and middle-aged men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 11-19. Coyne, J., & Whiffen, V. (1995). Issues in personality as diathesis for depression: The case of sociotrophy-dependency and autonomy-self-criticism. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 358378. Cullen, F., & Sundt, J. (2000). Imprisonment in the United States. In J. F. Sheley (Ed.), Criminology: A contemporary handbook (3rd ed.; pp. 473-515). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. DeFranc, W., & Mahalik, J. (2002). Masculine gender role conflict and stress in relation to parental attachment and separation. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 51-60. Deux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decades research on gender. American Psychologist, 39, 105-116. Deux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., & Lewis, L. (1985). Level of categorization and content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3, 145-167. Devor, E. (1994). A developmental-genetic model of alcoholism: Implications for genetic research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1108-1115. Diamond, D., & Blatt, S. (1994). Internal working models and the representational world in attachment and psychoanalytic theories. In M. Sperling & W. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 72-97). New York: Guilford Press. DiLalla, D., Carey, G., Gottesman, I., & Bouchard, T. (1996). Heritability of MMPI personality indicators of psychopathology in twins reared apart. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 491-499. Efthim, P., Kenny, M., & Mahalik, J. (2001). Gender role stress in relation to shame, guilt, and externalization. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 430. Eisler, R. (1995). The relationship between masculine gender role stress and mens health risk: The validation of a construct. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 207-225). New York: Basic Books. Eisler, R., & Blalock, J. (1991). Masculine gender role stress: Implications for the assessment of men. Clinical Psychological Review, 11, 45-60. 82

Eisler, R., Franchina, J., Moore, T., Honeycutt, H., & Rhatigan, D. (2000). Masculine gender role stress and intimate abuse: Effects of gender-relevance of conflict situations on mens attributions and affective responses. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 30-36. Eisler, R., & Skidmore, J. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11, 123136. Eisler, R., Skidmore, J., & Ward, C. (1988). Masculine gender-role stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 133-141. Emmons, R. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291-300. Emmons, R. (1987). Narcissism theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11-17. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Franchina, J., Eisler, R., & Moore, T. (2001). Masculine gender role stress and intimate abuse: Effects of masculine gender relevance of dating situations and female threat on mens attributions and affective responses. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 34-41. Gardner, E. (1997). Brain reward mechanisms. In J. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R. Millman, & J. Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook (pp. 51-85). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situations of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Anchor Books. Good, G., Dell, D., & Mintz, L. (1989). Male role and gender role conflict relations to help seeking in men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 295-300. Good, G., ONeil, J., Stevens, M., Robertson, J., Fitzgerald, L., DeBord, K., et al. (1995). Male gender role conflict: Psychometric issues and relations to psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 3-10. Good, G., Thomson, D., & Brathwaite, A. (2005). Men and therapy: Critical concepts, theoretical frameworks, and research recommendations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 699-711. Goodwin, D. (1976). Is alcohol dependence hereditary?. New York: Oxford University Press.

83

Goodwin, D., & Gabrielli, W. (1997). Alcohol: Clinical aspects. In J. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R. Millman, & J. Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook (pp. 142148). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Graham, K., & Wells, S. (2002). The two worlds of aggression for men and women. Sex Roles, 45, 595-622. Greenfeld, L., & Henneberg, M. (2001). Victim and offender self-reports of alcohol involvement in crime. Alcohol Research & Health, 25, 20-31. Grimm, L., & Yarnold, P. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Grimm, L., & Yarnold, P. (2000). Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hamburg, S. (1998). Inherited hypohedonia leads to learned helplessness a conjecture updated. Review of General Psychology, 2, 384-403. Haney, C. (2001). Infamous punishment: The psychological consequences of isolation. In E. J. Latessa, A. Holsinger, J. W. Marquart, & J. R. Sorensen (Eds.), Correctional contexts: Contemporary and classical readings (2nd ed.; pp. 464-473). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Haney, C., Banks, W., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97. Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53, 709-727. Hayes, J., & Mahalik, J. (2000). Gender role conflict and psychological distress in male counseling center clients. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 116-125. Hill, M., & Fischer, A. (2001). Does entitlement mediate the link between masculinity and raperelated variables. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 39-50. Hoffmann, N. (2002a). Annual report 2001: Diagnosis of substance use disorders (Report prepared for the Minnesota Department of Corrections). Smithfield, RI: Evince Clinical Assessments. Hoffmann, N. (2002b). Assessment is the key. Addictions Today, 14, 17-19. Hoffmann, N., DeHart, S., & Campbell, T. (2002). Dependence: Whether a disorder or a disease; it is not a concept. Journal of Chemical Dependency Treatment, 8, 45-56.

84

Hoffmann, N., & Harrison, P. (1995). Substance use disorders diagnostic schedule-IV. Smithfield, RI: Evince. Hoffmann, N., & Hoffmann, T. (2003). Construct validity for alcohol dependence as indicated by the SUDDS-IV. Journal of Substance Use and Misuse, 38, 295-308. Huberty, C., & Morris, J. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308. Huberty, C., & Smith, J. (1982). The study of effects in MANOVA. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17, 417-432. Isenhart, C. (1993). Masculine gender role stress in an inpatient sample of alcohol abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 7, 177-184. Jakupcak, J., Salters, K., Gratz, K., & Roemer, L. (2003). Masculinity and emotionality: An investigation of mens primary and secondary emotional responding. Sex Roles, 49, 111120. Jakupcak, J., Tull, M., & Roemer, L. (2005). Masculinity, shame, and fear of emotions as predictors of mens expressions of anger and hostility. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 275-284. Jennings, J., & Murphy, C. (2000). Male-male dimensions of male-female bettering: A new look at domestic violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 21-29. Kachigan, S. (1991). Multivariate statistical analysis. New York: Radius Press. Kilianski, S. (2003). Explaining heterosexual mens attitudes toward women and gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine identity. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 37-56. Kopelman, R., & Mullins, L. (1992). Is narcissism inversely related to satisfaction? An examination of data from two U.S. samples. The Journal of Psychology, 126, 121-130. Krueger, R., Hicks, B., Patrick, C., Carlson, S., Iacono, W., & McGue, M. (2002). Etiologic connections among substance dependence, antisocial behavior, and personality modeling the externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 411-424. Kubarych, T., Deary, I., & Austin, E. (2004). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Factor structure in a non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 857-872. Kupers, T. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 713-724. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. 85

Levant, R. (1995). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 229-251). New York: Basic Books. Levant, R. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 259-265. Levant, R., Good, G., Cook, S., ONeil, J., Smalley, K., Owen, K., et al. (2006). The normative male alexithymia scale: Measurement of a gender-linked syndrome. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 212-224. Levant, R., Hirsch, L., Celentano, E., Cozza, T., Hill, S., MacEachern, M., et al. (1992). The male role: An investigation of contemporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325-337. Lippa, R. (1995). Gender-related individual differences and psychological adjustment in terms of the big five and circumplex models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1184-1202. Luddy, J., & Thompson, E. (1997). Masculinities and violence: A father-son comparison of gender traditionality and perceptions of heterosexual rape. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 462-477. Ludlow, L., & Mahalik, J. (2002). Congruence between a theoretical continuum of masculinity and the Rasch model: Examining the conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2, 205-221. Lyddon, W., & Sherry, A. (2001). Developmental personality styles: An attachment theory conceptualization of personality disorders. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 405-414. Lyvers, M. (1998). Drug addiction as a physical disease: The role of physical dependence and other chronic drug-induced neurophysiological changes in compulsive drug selfadministration. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 6, 107-125. Lyvers, M. (2000). Loss of control in alcohol dependence and drug addiction: A neuroscientific interpretation. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8, 225245. Mahalik, J. (1999a). Mens gender role socialization: Effect on presenting problems and experiences in psychotherapy. Progress: Family Systems Research and Therapy, 8, 1318. Mahalik, J. (1999b). Incorporating a gender role strain perspective in assessing and treating cognitive distortions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 333-340. 86

Mahalik, J., & Cournoyer, R. (2000). Identifying gender role conflict messages that distinguish mildly depressed from non-depressed men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 109115. Mahalik, J., Cournoyer, R., DeFranc, W., Cherry, M., & Napolitano, J. (1998). Mens gender role conflict in relation to their use of psychological defenses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 247-255. Mahalik, J., Good, G., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2003). Masculinity scripts, presenting concerns, and help seeking: Implications for practice and training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 123-131. Mahalik, J., & Lagan, H. (2001). Examining masculine gender-role conflict and stress in relation to religious orientation and spiritual well-being. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 24-33. Mahalik, J., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M., Gottfried, M., Scott, R., et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 3-25. Mahalik, J., Talmadge, W., Locke, B., & Scott, R. (2005). Using the conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory to work with men in a clinical setting. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 661-674. Margolis, H., & Thomas, V. (1980). The measurement of narcissism in adolescents with and without behavioral and emotional disabilities. Unpublished masters thesis, United States International University, San Diego, CA. McCoy, G., & Snell, W. (2001). Gender role tendencies and personality disorders. In W. E. Snell, Jr. (Ed.), New directions in the psychology of gender roles: Research and theory. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from http://csti-cia.semo.edu/snell/books/gender/gender.htm Mejia, X. (2005). Gender matters: Working with adult male survivors of trauma. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 29-40. Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent offending: A complementary pair of developmental theories. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 11-54). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behavior: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. New York: Cambridge University Press. Moore, T., & Stuart, G. (2005). A review of the literature on masculinity and partner violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 46-61. 87

Moradi, B., Tokar, D., Schaub, M., Jome, L., & Serna, G. (2000). Revisiting the structural validity of the gender role conflict scale. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 62-69. Mosher, D., & Tomkins, S. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine socialization and enculturation. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 60-84. Mullins, L., & Kopelman, R. (1988). Toward an assessment of the construct validity of four measures of narcissism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 610-625. Murnen, S., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If boys will be boys, then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359-375. Nederhof, A. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263-280. ONeil, J. (1981a). Male sex role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Psychological implications for men, women, and the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 6180. ONeil, J. (1981b). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in mens lives. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 203-210. ONeil, J. (1982). Gender-role conflict and strain in mens lives: Implications for psychiatrists, psychologists, and other human-service providers. In K. Solomon & N. Levy (Eds.), Men in transition: Theory and therapy (pp. 5-44). New York: Plenum Press. ONeil, J. (1990). Assessing mens gender role conflict. In D. Moore & F. Leafgren (Eds.), Problem solving strategies and interventions for men in conflict (pp. 23-38). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development. ONeil, J., Good, G., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen years of theory and research on mens gender role conflict: New paradigms for empirical research. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 164-206). New York: Basic Books. ONeil, J., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. (1986). Gender-role conflict scale: College mens fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-350. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Parrott, D., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 70-78. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 88

Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1759). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Paulhus, D. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208. Paulhus, D. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. Braun, D. Jackson, & D. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Paulhus, D., & Reid, D. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307-317. Phillips, J. (2001). Cultural construction of manhood in prison. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 13-23. Pleck, J. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pleck, J. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11-32). New York: Basic Books. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. (1979). A Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159162. Raskin, R., & Novacek, J. (1989). An MMPI description of the narcissistic personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 66-80. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902. Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 672-685. Rivas-Vazquez, R., & Blais, M. (2002). Pharmacologic treatment of personality disorders. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 104-107. Robson, C. (1999). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitionerresearchers. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 89

Ronningstam, E. (1999). Narcissistic personality disorder. In T. Millon, P. Blaney, & R. Davis (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (pp. 674-694). New York: Oxford University Press. Roth, D., & Ingram, R. (1985). Factors in the self-deception questionnaire: Associations with depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 243-251. Sackeim, H., & Gur, R. (1978). Self-deception, self-confrontation and consciousness. In G. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research (Vol. 2; pp. 139-197). New York: Plenum. Salkind, N. (2000). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schuckit, M. (1998). Biological, psychological, and environmental predictors of alcohol dependence risk: A longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 485-494. Schwartz, J., Bublotz, W., Seemann, E., & Flye, A. (2004). Personality styles: Predictors of masculine gender role conflict in male prison inmates. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 59-64. Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. New York: W. H. Freeman. Share, D. (1984). Interpreting the output of multivariate analyses: A discussion of current approaches. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 349-362. Shepard, D. (2002). A negative state of mind: Patterns of depressive symptoms among men with high gender role conflict. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 3-8. Snell, W., Jr. (2001). Alcohol and drug use in stressful times: The influence of the masculine role and sex-related personality attributes. In W. Snell, Jr. (Ed.), New directions in the psychology of gender roles: Research and theory. Retrieved February 23, 2004, from http://csti-cia.semo.edu/snell/books/gender/gender.htm Snell, W., Belk, S., & Hawkins, R. (2001). Stereotypes about male sexuality: Components and counselor bias. In W. E. Snell, Jr. (Ed.), New directions in the psychology of gender roles: Research and theory. Retrieved February 23, 2004, from http://csti-cia.semo.edu/ snell/books/gender/gender.htm Soyer, R., Rovenpor, J., Kopelman, R., Mullins, L., & Watson, P. (2001). Further assessment of the construct validity of four measures of narcissism: Replication and extension. The Journal of Psychology, 135, 245-258.

90

Spitzer, R. (1991). An outsider-insiders views about revising the DSMS. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 294-296. Statistical Program for the Social Sciences. (2002). SPSS Student Version 10.0 [Computer software]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stark, L. (1991). Traditional gender role beliefs and individual outcomes: An exploratory analysis. Sex Roles, 24, 639-650. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stillson, R., ONeil, J., & Owen, S. (1991). Predictors of adult mens gender role conflict: Race, class, unemployment, age, instrumentality-expressiveness, and personal strain. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 458-464. Stober, J., Dette, D., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 370-389. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Thompson, E., & Pleck, J. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531-543. Thompson, E., & Pleck, J. (1995). Masculinity ideologies: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 129-163). New York: Basic Books. Tschanz, B., Morf, C., & Turner, C. (1998). Gender differences in the structure of narcissism: A multi-sample analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Sex Roles, 38, 863-870. Uhl, G., Blum, K., Noble, E., & Smith, S. (1993). Substance abuse vulnerability and D2 receptor genes. Trends in Neuroscience, 16, 83-88. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (1998). Profile of jail inmates 1996 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 164620). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs.crimoff.htm U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (2000). Drug use, testing, and treatment in jails (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 179999). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs.crimoff.htm

91

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (2002). Age patterns in violent victimization, 1976-2000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, NCJ 190104). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs .crimoff.htm U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (2003). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2002 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 198877). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs.crimoff.htm U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (2004). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2002 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 203947). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs.crimoff.htm U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (2005). Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 209588). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://www.ojp .usdoj.gov.bjs.crimoff.htm U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 213133). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs.crimoff.htm Valenzuela, C., & Harris, R. (1997). Alcohol: Neurobiology. In J. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R. Millman, & J. Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook (pp. 119142). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Wade, J,. & Brittan-Powell, C. (2001). Mens attitudes toward race and gender equity: The importance of masculinity ideology, gender-related traits, and reference group identity dependence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 42-50. Walker, D., Tokar, D., & Fischer, A. (2000). What are eight popular masculinity-related instruments measuring? Underlying dimensions and their relations to sociosexuality. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 98-108. Walker, E., & Diforio, D. (1997). Schizophrenia a neural diathesis-stress model. Psychological Review, 104, 667-685. Walters, G. (2002). The relationship between masculinity, femininity, and criminal thinking in male and female offenders. Sex Roles, 45, 677-689. Watson, P., & Biderman, M. (1993). Narcissistic Personality Inventory factors, splitting, and self-consciousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 41-57.

92

Watson, P., Grisham, S., Trotter, M., & Biderman, M. (1984). Narcissism and empathy: Validity evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 301-305. Weisbuch, M., Beal, D., & ONeil, E. (1999). How masculine ought I be? Mens masculinity and aggression. Sex Roles, 40, 583-592. Whitley, B. (2002). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691-721. Widiger, T., & Clark, L. (2000). Toward DSM-V and the classification of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 946-963. Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590-597. Wink, P., & Gough, H. (1990). New narcissism scales for the California Psychological Inventory and MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 446-462. Wong, Y., Pituch, K., & Rochlen, A. (2006). Mens restrictive emotionality: An investigation of associations with other emotion-related constructs, anxiety, and underlying dimensions. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 113-126. Wong, Y., & Rochlen, A. (2005). Demystifying mens emotional behavior: New directions and implications for counseling and research. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 62-72. World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioral disorders. Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Zamarripa, M., Wampold, B., & Gregory, E. (2003). Male gender role conflict, depression, and anxiety: Clarification and generalizability to women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 333-338. Zuckerman, M. (1999). Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocial model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

93

APPENDIX A. INITIAL ENTRY INTO THE SYSTEM For first-time offenders, jail represents the initial phase of depersonalization and isolation. For repeat offenders, jail is the return to a known process of power and control skirmishes between authority figures and inmates. Jail for most inmates fosters pensiveness, confusion, frustration and fear (Phillips, 2001). While these emotional conditions may be diminished for the repeat offender, the mainstream inmate must immediately acclimate himself to conduct codes and institutional regimens with which he is, initially, unaware. The lack of awareness and inexperience engenders fear and anxiety; uncertainties around what the future holds amplify further confusion and frustration. Since the average jail incarceration, prior to being transported to prison, is a matter of days, inmates must adjust quickly. Adjustment failures lead to inmate-inmate conflict and staffinmate conflict as well. These conflicts foster further isolation, fear, anxiety, and resentment, a problematic situation for the prison-bound inmate. While not the total institution, a label generally applied to prisons, jail represents for the prison-bound inmate the initial phase of assaults on dignity, and the commencement of a series of deprivations. Identifying numbers are issued; names are dispensed with. Uniforms are issued; personal clothing is removed. Strip searches and body cavity searches, handcuffs, waist chains and leg irons are all implemented to effectively deny individuality rest total control, convey free society excommunication, and integrate the inmate into a culture of sameness, unfaltering routine; jail order. Goffman refers to this process of forced dispossession and 94

deconstruction as mortification of the self (1961, p. 14). Resistance is met with suspicion, and frequently with swift and compelling violence. It behooves the prison-bound jail inmate to comply. Compliance will become an ever-important watchword if he is to first adjust to his jail incarceration, and ultimately to his more lengthy prison incarceration. Specifically, the individual will be influenced by the extraordinary power of an institutional environment in ways unbelievable to most (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973; Haney & Zimbardo, 1998). Whether the inmate complies with jail rules to gain favor with guards or to attempt to manipulate them, whether he complies with inmate codes or so-called old or new convict codes may be merely incidental to the greater need of complying with some form of behavior consistent within the sociological framework, the various social strata which is the jail world, the jail culture (Haney et al.; Haney & Zimbardo). Loners tend to fare poorly within a construct condemning any attempts to alter the perpetual order.

95

APPENDIX B. RECRUITMENT ANNOUNCEMENT FLYER Research Opportunity on Monday, November 1 at 10:00 a.m. Lynda Hemann from Concepts for Change needs your help with her doctoral dissertation. She will be conducting research at the Estrella Jail Tents facility with any interested inmate who can read English. This research will examine the unique stress and strain associated with masculinity and will assist in the development of programs and materials for all men. If you would like to participate in this anonymous research, or if you have questions or concerns, please be ready at 10:00 on Monday, November 1, in the dayroom. Participants will each receive a snack of their choice for their testing.

96

APPENDIX C. INITIAL TESTING PHASE OPENING PREPARED SCRIPT Hello, I am Lynda Hemann and I am the CEO and clinical director for Concepts For Change. Some of you might have heard about this agency, because we provide the anger management, cognitive restructuring, and NOW programs for all of you. I have done clinical work with offenders for over 32 years and after doing my loved ones 8 years of time with him am sensitive to the unique stresses and strains associated with incarceration. I am presently completing my doctoral studies and am recruiting volunteers to participate in my research. This study is interested in how the stress and strain associated with masculinity are related to substance use and aggression. I specifically chose an adult male incarcerated population because very little is actually known about this population and this lack of knowledge leads to many misconceptions. If you gentlemen choose to participate, you will be asked to complete seven questionnaires. One questionnaire asks you to offer some personal historical information about yourself and three ask about your personal feelings. The other three questionnaires ask you to respond to statements about your experience of being a man. There are no right or wrong answers and these questions are not intended to identify your sexual orientation. All information will be treated with the strictest confidentiality, and if not, my professional license is jeopardized. The time it will take for you to complete these questionnaires is approximately 3 hours. Upon successful completion of all the questionnaires, you will be provided with your choice of a snack. Upon tabulation of the data, some of you will be asked to participate in the 97

second phase of the research which involves the completion of one additional questionnaire on substance use. This phase of the research will take approximately 2 hours and upon completion a snack will also be provided. If you are asked to participate in this phase of the research, you will be individually notified within approximately 2-3 weeks from today. Once again, I stress that all information is confidential and your identity will remain protected. If you are not interested, you are free to leave at this time, and I thank you for your interest. If you would like to continue, please remain here. At this time, I will hand out and review the Research Subject Informed Consent Form as required by the university from which I will receive my doctorate degree. Please follow with me as I read the explanations for each individual section. Upon completion of this, I will handle any questions you may have and you will be asked to sign the form. A copy of your signed form will be provided to you. You are free to leave at this time if you do not want to continue your participation.

98

APPENDIX D. RESEARCH SUBJECT INFORMED CONSENT FORM AND PREPARED SCRIPT Project Information Project Title: A Multivariate Analysis of Masculine Gender Role Strain and its Relationship to Degrees of Substance Dependence and Degrees of Violence in an Adult Incarcerated Population Principal Investigator: Lynda K. Hemann 5008 W. Glendale Ave. Glendale, AZ 85301 623-930-9317

Dissertation Chair/Advisor: Nancy A. Piotrowski, Ph.D. 3450 Geary Blvd., Suite #107 San Francisco, CA 94118 415-386-0577 Capella University Institutional Review Board: 800-987-2283, ext. 215.

Purpose of This Research Study You are being asked to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to examine what it means to be a man in todays society. It will focus on stress, anger, and substance use, which are three separate but related areas. You have specifically been selected because little is known about incarcerated populations. This lack of knowledge encourages many misconceptions about men who are incarcerated.

99

Procedures Today you will be asked to complete seven pencil-and-paper questionnaires. Three will be about masculinity, three will be about your personal feelings, and one will be about your personal history. This will take about 3 hours of time. And for your time, we will provide you a snack of choice. In addition, on another day in the next 2 weeks, you may be asked to complete another questionnaire regarding your use of alcohol or other substances. If you are asked to participate in this phase of testing, it will take approximately 2 hours to complete and you will again be provided with a snack of choice. So all totaled, you may spend as many as 5 hours participating in this research. You should know that there will be no taping or filming involved. All testing materials, including golf pencils, will need to be returned to the researcher after testing has been completed.

Possible Risks or Discomfort Risks associated with participating in this study are limited to issues of confidentiality. There will be a small period of time where your answers to the questionnaires will be linked to your identity. This period of time will be kept as small as possible in order to reduce any risks to your confidentiality. This is described in more detail below. Please also note, though no physical discomfort is anticipated for in this research, there is the possibility that a participant could experience some mild anxiety. Discomfort could result from the minimal psychological distress related to self-disclosure. If you have any concerns about the risks or benefits of participating in this study, you can contact Lynda Hemann, Dr. Nancy Piotrowski, or the Capella University Institutional Review Board at the addresses or telephone numbers indicated above. 100

Possible Benefits Aside from receiving a choice of snacks following participation, this research may have no direct benefit to you. However, this research has the potential to benefit all men through increasing the quality of their health and psychological well-being, improving the quality of their interpersonal relationships, and decreasing the risk of contact with the criminal justice system. In addition, it has the potential to increase self-concept, and improve the quality of mens treatment programs by focusing on issues unique to men.

Financial Considerations There is no financial compensation for your participation in this research. Upon completion of the initial questionnaire session, however, you will receive a choice of a snack such as a candy bar, lifesavers, sweet-tarts, potato chips, etc. In addition, if you are chosen to participate in the second phase of the research and complete the session, you will receive an additional snack of your choice as described above.

Confidentiality Your identity in this study will be treated as confidential. The results of this study, including data, may be published for scientific purposes but will not give your name or include any identifiable references to you. Each questionnaire will have its own unique code and your name will not appear anywhere on the questionnaire. However, in a separate log, this unique code will be matched to your booking number. Upon identification of those individuals who will not participate in the second testing session, the link between the booking number and the unique code will be destroyed. And for those who will participate in the second questionnaire session, 101

the link between the unique code and the booking numbers will be destroyed following completion of that session. A list of booking numbers of individuals who have participated will be kept until the end of the study to insure that individuals do not participate more than one time. However, once data are entered into the computer for analysis, the list of booking numbers and the unique codes will be eliminated entirely. Please note: Any records or data obtained as a result of your participation in this study may be inspected by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department, by the Capella University Institutional Review Board, or by the person conducting this study, however, your booking number will not be included for inspection. All questionnaire data will be kept in a locked metal fine cabinet in the researchers office for a period of 7 years at which time it will be destroyed by shredding. The researchers office is located away from the grounds of the jail facility. These records will be kept private in so far as permitted by law. All research personnel are legally obligated to protect any identifiable information from public disclosure, except where disclosure is otherwise required by law or a court of competent jurisdiction. Loss of professional license is a possible consequence for any professional who violates the confidentiality statutes.

Termination of Participation in Research Study You are free to choose whether or not to participate in this study. There will be no penalty, loss of privileges, or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled if you choose not to participate. Your participation in this study may be terminated by the investigator without your consent under the following circumstances:

102

1. 2. 3. 4.

The threat of any physical violence to other inmates or research personnel Threat of harm to self Failure to obey institutional rules Any inappropriate behavior

Available Sources of Information Any questions you may have about your rights as a research subject while incarcerated will be answered by: Judy Lorch, Inmate Programs Administrator

Authorization and Voluntary Consent I have read this consent form and I fully understand the contents of this document. I voluntarily consent to participate in this research study. All of my questions concerning this research have been answered. If I have any questions in the future about this study, they will be answered by the investigator listed above or her staff. I understand that I will receive a copy of this form. I voluntarily choose to participate, but I understand that my consent does not take away any legal rights in the case of negligence or other legal fault of anyone who is involved in this study. I further understand that nothing in this consent form is intended to replace any applicable Federal, state, or local laws.

Other Considerations I understand that if significant new information relating to this study becomes available which may relate to my willingness to continue to participate, this information will be provided to me by the investigator. 103

Participant Name (Printed): Participant Signature: Person Obtaining Consent Signature: Principal Investigator Signature:

Date: Date: Date: Date:

Gentlemen, you are agreeing to participate in my doctoral research study and have signed the informed consent form. At this time, my assistants and I will check your inmate identification badge, give you a pencil, collect your signed consent form, record your inmate booking number, and give you your testing packet. This testing packet contains three questionnaires on your personal beliefs about masculinity, three on personal feelings, and one on personal historical information. The specific instructions for completion of each of these questionnaires are found at the top of the individual instrument. Please read the instructions for each questionnaire because each one is slightly different. All the questionnaires ask you to respond to a series of statements. I want to reemphasize the following: (a) there are no right or wrong answers, (b) these questionnaires are not designed to assess your sexual orientation, (c) your truthfulness is extremely important, and (d) confidentiality of your responses is guaranteed. Remember, I am interested in YOUR personal beliefs, not how you think someone would expect you to respond. If you have any questions, please raise your hand and someone will assist you. Answer each question as best you can, but please answer according to your own personal belief. Do not answer the questions according to what you think the socially acceptable answer is. When you are finished, please bring your testing packet to the front and give it to either me or one of my assistants. At that time, your questionnaire will be scanned for correct 104

completion, you will be asked to complete any omitted questions, verify your inmate booking number, and exchange the questionnaires and pencil for your inmate identification badge. You will then be able to choose your snack and return to your area. My sincere thanks for your assistance and willingness to participate in this research.

105

APPENDIX E. DEFINITIONS OF WORDS ANTICIPATED AS CHALLENGING Career. Job, trade, livelihood either legally or illegally (reference GRCS 1). Feminist. One who believes in equality between men and women (reference MGRS 28). Heterosexual. Not gay (reference CMNI 5). Perceive. Look upon, judge, view, believe, think (reference GRCS 26). Sexual relations. Sexual intercourse; sexual activities either before, during, or after sexual intercourse whether sexual intercourse is completed or not (reference GRCS 13). Subservient. Like a servant, obedient, less than, beneath (reference CMNI 61). Work. Same as career above (reference GRCS 31).

106

APPENDIX F. PREPARED SCRIPT FOR PHASE 2 TESTING INTRODUCTION AND CLOSING Introduction: Hello, I am (name) and I am assisting Lynda Hemann with her doctoral research study in which you recently participated. You have been selected to participate in the final phase of this research which will consist of completion of a questionnaire about your lifetime substance use history. The entire process will take approximately 2 hours and upon completion you will be offered your choice of a snack. Your identity and all your responses will be kept totally confidential. This is a structured process, so I am limited in my responses to your possible questions. If you would like to withdraw from the research at this time, you are free to do so without any repercussions. (If the inmate chooses to withdraw, please thank him for his interest.) If not, we will begin the interview. I will be asking you to respond to a series of questions. For many of these questions, I will be giving you categories for your responses. Please use these categories, when given, for your responses. (Interviewer now begins with the structured interview questions). Closing: This concludes the interview. Thank you for your participation. If you have any questions or complaints, you may contact Ms. Judy Lorch, Administrator for Inmate Programs through jail correspondence procedures or Ms. Hemann, Dr. Piotrowski, or the Capella University Institutional Review Board by mail. These numbers were provided to you with the Informed Consent Form you signed at the beginning of the research study. Thank you for your

107

willingness to participate. It is greatly appreciated. Please choose the snack you desire for your efforts. You may return to your area now.

108