Drive for Muscularity and Sex Role in Genders

The focus of the study is to explore the associations between the drive for muscularity and awareness of many elements of masculine gender role socialization. The problem under investigation relates to the questions of the research. The first question relates whether there are differences in body image issues between males and females (fat and muscles). Second, there is the concern of whether masculinity is positively linked to TH drive for muscularity. The last question relates to whether there is a direct relationship between men and women. 

The data gathering procedure used in the study is entails getting data from a sample population consisting of males and females to help get more insight into the matter. In particular, participants were a s ample population for the research was assembled to help answer the research question. In the description, the study consisted of 315 participants . After that, convenience sampling was used for this to analyze the collected data through qualitative and quantitative methods . The expected result of the study should show that there are associations between the drive for muscularity and awareness of many elements of masculine gender role socialization. 

Introduction 

The media has emphasized body fat concerns in association with women. In regards to body image, women are portrayed to be more uncomfortable with their body and more likely than men to engage in activities to lose weight (McCreary, Saucier, & Courtenay, 2005). Prior research has shown men have a stronger desire than women to be more masculine, and there is no association between women and the desire to be more masculine (McCreary, Saucier, & Courtenay, 2005). In this research, the study was replicated to confirm or refute the results from previous research within different perspectives that help give more insight into the subject matter. 

In essence, previous research focused on body fat, the outcomes, and its results. More current research (McCreary, Saucier, & Courtenay, 2005) has challenged this. For example, four results from the prior study have shown; men score higher on Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS) regardless of gender-typed traits or behaviors. Secondly, the 3 Masculine Measures are related to Drive for Muscularity scales such as Unmitigated Agency, Male-Typed Behaviors, and Male Sex-Specific Behaviors. Thirdly, having Feminine traits is not correlated with lower Drive for Muscularity Scale and lastly, no differential salience which means that the relations between the Drive for Muscularity and gender-typed characteristics and behaviors were similar for men and women. 

However, McCreary et al. (2005) had some limitations to their study such as reliability coefficients and alphas for women and the population sample such as; age, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation. This study is done to address the limitations of McCreary et al. (2005), different population and measures. The current study differs from McCreary et al. (2005) for body image measure – BSQ – Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS) and BSQS. The present research is using measures geared toward body fat and muscularity together. For gender - personality measure BSRI (different ratio, exploring a different aspect of gender role socialization). 

There are two research questions can be looked at to find such as: Is there a difference between men and women in body image also is there a concern with muscle mass and concern with body fat/body shape? If so what is it? The hypothesis to this research question is; men are going to score higher on Drive for Muscularity Scale than women and women will score higher on the Body Shape Questionnaire Scale than men. McCrery et al. (2005). 

Another second question is: What are the relationships between masculinity/femininity and drive for muscularity/body shape concerns? Is masculinity correlated with a drive for muscularity? Hypothesis on this question was: there is a positive correlation between masculinity and DFM for DFM, and FEM McCreary theorized a relationship but did not find it, so the current study wants to replicate and confirm or disprove original findings. They are also investigating correlations for BSQS. 

Methods 

Participants : Sample population for the research was assembled to help answer the research question. In the description, the study consisted of 315 participants. 127 (40.3%) were men, and 188 (59.7%) were women between the ages of 18 and 74 with an average age of 23.52 years old. 260 (85.25%) participants identified as exclusively heterosexual and 15 (4.9%) participants identified as somewhat heterosexual; 80 percent of the population were below 24 years old, 44 (15.2%) participants identified as either black or African American, 107 (36.9%) participants identified as white, 42 participants (14.1%), defined as Latino/Hispanic/Spanish, 22 (7.6%) participants identified as Asian, 13(4.5%) participants identified as Egyptian American and 11 (3.8%) participants identified as Middle Eastern. 25 (7.9%) participants did not report their ethnicity and 52 (17.7%) participants identified in a variety of other ways. To control for heterosexual, we remove all non-heterosexual variables. For further representations of ethnicity see the attached supplemental table in appendix. 

It is worth noting that "A preliminary analysis revealed statistically significant differences between heterosexual and non-heterosexual participants on the BSQS. All non-exclusively heterosexual participants were removed from further analysis to control for sexual orientation as a confounding variable. The remaining population consisted of 114 (43.8%) male participants and 146 (56.2%) female participants.” 

Procedure: 

Convenience sampling was used for this study. Twenty-one students at the College of Staten Island handed out surveys about body shape and personality traits. Each student handed out 15 copies of the survey to willing participants. Participants were asked if they wanted to participate in a survey before they completed it. In admission, asking for consent was deemed imperative to avoid disregard to ethics of conducting research that requires that the researchers ask for permission from respondents. 

Measures: 

There were two measures on Body Shape Questionnaires which consists of Drive for Muscularity Scale and Bem Sex Role Inventory. Rate ‘your traits’ questions are the BSRI which consists of masculinity and femininity scales 

Scales 

The first scale that was used was Drive for Muscularity Scale (DMS). This scale was used to measure the extent to which people desire to have a more muscular body. There were 15 items on the DMS which were the odd numbers questions on the body shape questionnaire section of the survey. These items were scored on a 6 –point scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 6 (very much like me). In essence, lower scores for this part reflect a more exceptional drive for muscularity. Sample items to be used included "I wish I were more muscular '' as well as"I feel guilty if I miss a weight training session" from respondents “McCreary and Sasse (2000, 2002) have shown that the DMS has good construct validity (in the form of face validity), convergent validity, and discriminant validity.” McCreary et al. (2005). Results for the alphas indicates the overall alpha = .870 which shows that it is reliable. 

The second one was the Body Shape Questionnaire Scale (BSQS). This scale was a useful measure of weight and shape concern. There were 15 items focused on the BSQS which were the even number questions on the body shape questionnaire section of the survey. These items were scored on a 6 –point scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 6 (very much like me). Lower scores reflect a lesser weight and shape concern. Sample items include, “I have worried about my flesh not being firm enough” and “I have been afraid that I might become fat (or fatter).” Results for the alphas indicates overall alpha = .922 which means it is solidly reliable. 

The third one was the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). This scale is a measure for masculinity; femininity; androgyny. There were 60 items focused on this scale. 6 –point scale ranging from 1 (never or rarely true for me) to 6 (almost always true for me).; alpha for MAS = .855 and FEM = .823. This indicates how people view their traits. 

Results 

To examine the various possible links between the drive for the issue of muscularity and the cases of self-reported traits as well behaviors related to gender besides whether such connections varied as a meaning of the contributor's gender, a series of moderating variable hierarchical regression analyses were performed (McCreary, Saucier, & Courtenay, 2005). Indeed, the following are the results of the studies using an overview of the many scale graphic statistics. 

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the DMS and BSRI 

Scale		Men (n = 114)		Women (n = 146 )
		M	SD	M	SD
DMS		2.777	.875	2.033	.703
BSQS		2.219	.930	2.858	1.070
BSRI	Masculinity	4.144	.827	3.858	.686
	Femininity	3.752	.759	4.069	.661

There are low dimensions of Drive for Muscularity Scale and Body Shape Questionnaire Scale ; the table also depicts moderate aspects of the Bem Sex Role Inventory- Masculinity in men and BSRI-F. Men marginally score higher on DMS and BSRI-M, and ladies score somewhat higher on BSQS and Bem Sex Role Inventory- Femininity in women. Men scored slightly higher on DMS and BSRI-M while women scored marginally higher on BSQS and BSRI-F. The ANOVA which compares the means between men and women on the Drive of Muscularity Scale depicts a statistical significance. Men scored significantly higher (M=xxx) than women (M=xxx) on the DMS. 

Also, the ANOVA that compares the means between men and women on the Body Shape Questionnaire Scale depicted a statistical significance which showed that women scored significantly higher than men on the BSQS. Additionally, the ANOVA which compares the means in masculinity between men and women on the Bem Sex Role Inventory depicted a statistical significance in which men scored significantly higher than women on the BSRI. Also, the ANOVA which compares the means in femininity between men and women on the Bem Sex Role Inventory depicted a statistical significance in which women scored significantly higher than men on the BSRI. 

Correlations for Heterosexual Males and Females 

There was a correlation test conducted to decide if there was an interrelation between the Drive for Muscularity scale scores and masculinity. The variables were discovered to have a weak positive interrelation(r=.103); however, it was not significant. (p=.108) 

Another correlation was conducted to decide if there was an interrelation between the Drive for Muscularity Scale scores and femininity. The variables were discovered to have a weak negative interrelation (r= -.135) it was also significant. (p=.036). 

A third correlation was conducted to decide if there was an interrelation between the Body Shape Questionnaire Scale scores and femininity. The variables were discovered to have a very weak positive interrelation (r=.096); however, it was not significant. ( p = .142). The last correlation test was conducted to decide if there was an interrelation between the Body Shape Questionnaire Scale scores and masculinity. The variables were discovered to have a weak negative interrelation (r= -.171) it was also significant ( p = .008) 

Correlations of Individual Items 

To further investigate these relationships, correlations on body image measures and individual items from the BSRI-Masculinity and BSRI-Femininity scales were run. The Masculine Items Athletic (r = .259, p = .000), Dominant (r = .125, p = .047), Masculine (r = .342, p = .000), and Aggressive (r = .169, p = .007) all had a significant positive relationship with DMS scores. There were no Masculine items that had a significant negative relationship with DMS scores. The feminine item Childlike (r = .154, p = .014) had a significant positive relationship with DMS scores. The feminine items Feminine (r = -.386, p = .000), Understanding (r = -.128, p = .042), Eager to soothe hurt feelings (r = -.132, p=.036) and Does not use harsh language (r = -.161, p = .010) all had a significant negative relationship with DMS scores. 

As well, the feminine items Shy (r = .213, p = .001) and Feminine (r = .242, p = .000) had significant positive relationships with BSQS scores. There were no feminine items that had a significant negative relationship with BSQS scores. The masculine items Athletic (r = -.222, p = .000), Strong Personality (r = -.138, p = .030), Willing to take risks (r = -.128, p = .043), Makes Decisions Easily (r = -.145, p = .022), Dominant (r = -.133, p = .037), Masculine (r = -.237, p = .00), and Competitive (r = -.143, p = .024) all had a significant negative relationship with BSQS scores. There were no masculine items that had a significant positive relationship with BSQS scores. 

Discussion 

Both studies in this discourse provided illustrations for the associations between the drive for muscularity and awareness of many elements of masculine gender role socialization. These aspects include agentic characteristics of individuals, male-typed and sex-specific conducts, customary opinions about males, and conflict in gender-role within. The considerations of these elements take place within the perspectives of the areas of success, power as well as competition in addition to work/leisure conflict. Indeed, this gets support in the assertion that their masculinity definition of men exists in different areas of human societies that believe male supremacy (Harway & Steel, 2015). Fundamentally, DMS scores were positively related to the keys of machismo in all cases. There is a significance between how men and women score. 

The findings of this research show that men scored higher in mean for the drive of muscularity which supports the hypothesis and also supported previous research. Women reported high in body fat scale which supports the thesis. There was a weak statistically negative correlation. Nonetheless, there was no registered association between the drive for muscularity and masculinity. In research question 1, the current study found different results between men and women body image concern whereas women had higher concerns for body fat/shape. Men reported more interest and desire for muscles/muscular bodies. In research question 2; the current study found mixed results in which there was no relationship between muscle concern and masculinity; however, there was a higher significance in the relationship between masculinity and femininity. 

In admission, in the first research question, the hypothesis was supported since the previous research showed consistent masculinity relationship between men and drive for masculinity scale (DMS). In the same way, in the second research question, the suggestion was inconsistent which is supported in the previous research it was also erratic. In the drive for muscularity scale/femininity, the assumption was supported. The assumption in the body shape questionnaire scale/ femininity scale was incompatible, and body shape questionnaire scale/ masculinity was supported. In line with the suppositions, both the Masculine and feminine displayed results that researchers expected to find. As a replicated study it was replicate that men and women are different. 

Limitations 

In the course of data collection and analysis, are some limitations that might have affected the research negatively. In terms of participants, while the study was done relatively well in terms of age and ethnicity, the majority of the respondents were whites of college age. Furthermore, there were more female than male. Another significant weakness in the research was that it only had heterosexual participants. 

Within the context of measures, there was only one indicator of indication of masculinity/femininity, and it has issues that were used. Besides, there was an unclear definition of terms that included overlapping concerns in DMS and BSQS. As well, the use of high alpha for BSQS was a limitation for it presented cases of possible redundancy. Moreover, there is a limitation in the research in terms of causal relationships. Lastly, there is a limitation in terms of the use of qualitative research. The reason here is that though many individuals have an intuitive appreciation of the degree of their manliness, it is just instinctive idea that is hard to evaluate directly ( McCreary, Saucier, & Courtenay, 2005). Thus, the limitations of this research help guide future studies related to the subject matter. 

Future Direction 

By and large, based on the above limitation of the research , there are several suggestions that come out of these findings. One of them is that there is a need for more research to be done using more splits in the sample population for the same inquiry for a better conclusion. This will take into consideration more diversity in terms of age, culture, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. The importance of difference is that it helps get more conclusive research findings (Harway & Steel, 2015). Admittedly, this will help show evaluate significant gender role socialization. In addition, there should be more definitions of masculinity and femininity besides the use of relevant correlation as opposed to causation in answering the questions of the study. 

References  

Harway, M., & Steel, J. H. (2015). Studying masculinity and sexual assault across organizational culture groups: Understanding perpetrators. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 16 (4), 374-378. doi:10.1037/a0039694 

McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An Exploration of the Drive for Muscularity in Adolescent Boys and Girls. Journal of American College Health , 48 (6), 297-304. doi:10.1080/07448480009596271 

McCreary, D. R., Saucier, D. M., & Courtenay, W. H. (2005). The Drive for Muscularity and Masculinity: Testing the Associations Among Gender-Role Traits, Behaviors, Attitudes, and Conflict. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 6 (2), 83-94. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.6.2.83 

McCreary, D., & Sasse, D. (2002). Gender Differences in High School Students' Dieting Behavior and Their Correlates. International Journal of Men's Health , 1 (2), 195-213. doi:10.3149/jmh.0102.195