Content uploaded by Y Joel Wong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Y Joel Wong on Jul 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Firm Father Figures: A Moderated Mediation Model of Perceived
Authoritarianism and the Intergenerational Transmission of Gender
Messages From Fathers to Sons
Elyssa M. Klann, Y. Joel Wong, and Robert J. Rydell
Indiana University Bloomington
How do men develop sexist attitudes, gender role conflict, and subjective masculinity stress? These
questions have been given little attention in the literature. Given the strong relationships between these
variables and men’s poorer mental health, it is essential to understand their antecedents. This study seeks
to elucidate the manner in which perceptions of fathers may influence sons’ gender attitudes and
experiences. Using a sample of 170 undergraduate men, the authors proposed a model in which perceived
paternal modeling of masculine norms and perceived paternal sexist communication mediate the
relationship between perceived paternal authoritarianism and our three outcome variables: sons’ sexism,
gender role conflict, and subjective masculinity stress. They also hypothesized that the father–son
relationship quality would moderate these mediating relations. Results were consistent with a model in
which both perceived paternal modeling of masculine norms and perceived paternal sexist communica-
tion mediated the relationship between perceived paternal authoritarianism and sons’ sexism. However,
only the indirect effects from perceived paternal authoritarianism to gender role conflict and subjective
masculinity stress through perceived paternal sexist communication were significant. Two significant
moderated mediation findings underscore the complexities of the father–son relationship—the quality of
this relationship was a risk factor for sons’ sexism but a protective factor for sons’ subjective masculinity
stress. These results suggest an intricate portrait of the perceived influence of fathers on their sons’
gender development and stress. Practical implications for counseling psychologists as they relate to both
counseling and prevention are discussed.
Public Significance Statement
This study suggests that fathers may play an integral role in their son’s gender development, through
paternal authoritarian beliefs, modeling of masculine norms, communication about gender, and
through the father–son relationship. Men’s sexist beliefs, as well as the gender role conflict or
masculinity stress they experience, are shown to be partially related to their father’s attitudes and
behaviors, such that fathers may serve both a protective and injurious role.
Keywords: sexism, authoritarianism, gender role, father–son relationship
The negative effects of sexist attitudes and masculinity-related
stress in society are compelling and well-documented in the liter-
ature. On a macrolevel, sexism and restrictive masculine norms
contribute to many contemporary public health crises, such as the
pervasive nature of sexual assault and sexual harassment, (such
that approximately 20% of women have experienced sexual vio-
lence; Black et al., 2011) as well as physical (domestic) violence
against women (with one in three female homicide victims killed
by an intimate partner; Bridges, Tatum, & Kunselman, 2008) and
gun violence in general (Herrero, Rodríguez, & Torres, 2017;
Koepke, Eyssel, & Bohner, 2014;Stroud, 2012). Sexist attitudes
have been shown to be related to a host of political and systemic
injustices against women, such as inequitable compensation for
work, which results in women on average earning only 80% of
what White men earn (American Association of University
Women, 2017), and restriction of reproductive access, such that
TRAP laws are becoming more and more common (Hodson &
MacInnis, 2017;Mercier, Buchbinder, & Bryant, 2016;Stamarski
& Son Hing, 2015;Williams, Paluck, & Spencer-Rodgers, 2010).
Sexism is also related to other forms of oppressive belief systems,
such as racism, heterosexism, and classism (Aosved & Long,
Elyssa M. Klann and Y. Joel Wong, Department of Counseling and
Educational Psychology, Indiana University Bloomington; Robert J.
Rydell, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana Univer-
sity Bloomington.
Data reported in this paper were presented in a poster presentation at the
August 2017 meeting of the American Psychological Association. A digital
version of the poster was publicized on the Division 51 APA Twitter
account as a part of publicity for a student poster competition.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elyssa M.
Klann, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana
University Bloomington, 201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN
47401. E-mail: eklann@indiana.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Counseling Psychology
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 65, No. 4, 500–511
0022-0167/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000296
500
2006;Davies, Gilston, & Rogers, 2012). But sexism is not just
harmful for women; it is also for men. Men’s sexist beliefs and
conformity to masculine norms that reflect sexism have been
shown to be unfavorably associated with mental health-related
outcomes (Wong, Ho, Wang, & Miller, 2017;Wong, Klann,
Bijeli´
c, & Aguayo, 2017).
Beyond sexism, men’s experience of gender role conflict and
subjective masculinity stress are also two important gender con-
structs that negatively affect their well-being (O’Neil, 2008;Wong
et al., 2013). Gender role conflict, defined as “a psychological
state in which socialized gender roles have negative consequences
for oneself or others” (O’Neil, 2015, p. 10), has become a foun-
dational part of the masculinities canon for its widespread appli-
cability and its role in predicting negative outcomes (O’Neil, 2008;
O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986). Specifically,
gender role conflict has been found to be a correlate of depression
(Szymanski & Ikizler, 2013), body dissatisfaction (Murray &
Lewis, 2014), life dissatisfaction (Arellano-Morales, Liang, Ruiz,
& Rios-Oropeza, 2016), decreased help-seeking (Vogel, Wester,
Hammer, & Downing-Matibag, 2014), substance use (Amato &
MacDonald, 2011), and physical health complications (O’Neil,
2015). Therefore, it is essential to understand what might contrib-
ute to the development of gender role conflict, given its crucial role
in a host of negative outcomes for men.
In a similar vein, subjective masculinity stress captures men’s
perceptions of the stress linked to their phenomenological experi-
ences of being male (Wong et al., 2013). Subjective masculinity
stress is related to but different from gender role conflict in that it
does not include any predetermined dimensions of gender-related
stress but assumes that men’s evaluations of stress associated with
gender is highly idiographic (refer to the Method section for a
description of measurement considerations; Wong, Tsai, Liu, Zhu,
& Wei, 2014). Hence, two men might consider the same experi-
ence stressful (expressing tender emotions), but one of the men
might associate this stressful experience with being a man, while
the other might not. As evidence of its predictive power vis-a
`-vis
other masculinity constructs, Wong et al. (2013) found that men’s
subjective masculinity stress was the only masculinity variable to
be significantly and positively linked to psychological distress,
after controlling for gender role conflict, masculine gender role
stress, and conformity to masculine norms. Subjective masculinity
stress has been linked to men’s psychological distress for men
from a variety of racial backgrounds (Wong et al., 2013,2014),
dovetailing with other evidence suggesting that gender stress can
have a negative influence on individuals’ well-being (Shea et al.,
2014). An analysis of the predictors of subjective masculinity
stress will help us better recognize what can be done to prevent the
host of deleterious consequences that it causes.
Gender Norm Influences
Given the harmful effects of sexism, gender role conflict, and
subjective masculinity stress, research is needed to understand how
these gender attitudes and stressors develop. Numerous studies
have evaluated the connections between parents’ and their chil-
dren’s attitudes, finding compelling evidence for some intergen-
erational transmission of sexism (Cichy, Lefkowitz, & Fingerman,
2007;Crouter, Whiteman, McHale, & Osgood, 2007;Leaper,
2011). Much less is known about the antecedents of gender role
conflict and subjective masculinity stress because they have often
been conceptualized as predictors of negative outcomes (O’Neil,
2008;Wong et al., 2013), rather than studied as outcomes them-
selves. Although O’Neil (2015) underscored the value of a devel-
opmental perspective on masculinity, the antecedents of gender
role conflict and subjective masculinity stress are not understood.
Therefore, the intent of this study is to understand how intergen-
erational transmission of paternal masculine norms and paternal
sexist communication explain male college students’ sexism, gen-
der role conflict, and subjective masculinity stress. We also aim to
clarify how father–son relationships may affect this transmission
process (for better or worse), and to examine the role that per-
ceived paternal authoritarian beliefs may play in the intergenera-
tional transmission of gender messages. Various nonparental in-
fluences (e.g., relationships with peers or other adults, media
consumption, religious affiliation, and other sociopolitical factors)
are likely involved in the development of our outcome variables,
and many of these influences may affect the father–son relation-
ship over time; however, we chose to focus solely on paternal
factors in order to provide a more parsimonious snapshot of
fathers’ influence. Moreover, we hoped to add specifically to the
relative lack of literature on the influence of fathers in gender norm
development.
Perceived Paternal Modeling
The primary mechanisms of influence investigated by develop-
mental and other researchers have been those that align with
Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, as applied to parental
modeling. These studies posit that children learn prototypical ideas
of masculinity and femininity from their male and female parents,
respectively, and that parents who fulfill traditional gender roles
are more likely to have children with less egalitarian gender beliefs
and attitudes (Burt & Scott, 2002;Halpern & Perry-Jenkins, 2016;
Kulik, 2004). These studies have investigated multiple parent
modeling mechanisms, such as mothers’ educational achievement
and paid work experience and fathers’ engagement in the home
and in domestic chores. For example, studies have found that
children whose mothers are involved in paid work are less sexist
than children whose mothers do not work (Murray, 2004;Torres,
2014).
In contrast to studies on mothers’ influence, research on fathers’
involvement has been relatively limited to the domain of house-
hold chores; this research generally concludes that children whose
fathers are involved in domestic work are more likely to develop
egalitarian gender beliefs (Cunningham, 2001;Snyder, Velasquez,
Clark, & Means-Christensen, 1997;Wong et al., 2017). Overall, it
is clear that fathers model some gender behaviors to their children,
although research on fathers’ gender role adherence (beyond the
constructs of work and family) has been relatively limited. Spe-
cifically, most studies rely on parents’ self-reports of their behav-
iors, rather than their children’s perceptions, despite previous
research showing some discrepancies between parent and child
reports of parent behavior, such that parents may portray their
parenting as more positive (Korelitz & Garber, 2016). When it
comes to modeling gender-congruent behaviors, this same effect
may be at play, as men’s scores on the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory are correlated with social desirability (Mahalik et
al., 2003). Therefore, it is essential to measure sons’ perceptions of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
501
FATHER–SON TRANSMISSION OF GENDER MESSAGES
their fathers’ conformity to masculine norms, to understand the
gender-based norms actually being modeled to children by their
parents.
Perceived Paternal Communication of Sexism
In addition to paternal modeling of masculine norms, perceived
paternal sexist communication to sons is another mechanism of
intergenerational transmission of attitudes, and yet it has received
little attention in the literature. Very few studies investigate com-
munication between fathers and their children about gender, par-
ticularly from a quantitative lens. A few qualitative studies have
investigated the direct messages that people report receiving from
their fathers in focus groups and interviews (Averett, Benson, &
Vaillancourt, 2008;Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004). These studies find
that fathers communicate both sexist and egalitarian messages to
their children throughout childhood and adolescence. One study
found that college students’ gender attitudes were significantly
related to the messages they recall receiving throughout childhood
from their parents, such that hearing messages that enforce tradi-
tional gender roles was connected with more sexist attitudes and
beliefs among students (Epstein & Ward, 2011). A gap exists in
the literature, neglecting to account for communication between
fathers and their children about sexism, but it is likely that this
mechanism serves an important role in gender attitude develop-
ment.
Perceived Paternal Authoritarianism
One possible factor that may explain fathers’ modeling of mas-
culine norms and their communication of sexist messages to sons
is fathers’ authoritarianism; it may be that perceived paternal
authoritarianism influences sons’ worldviews, particularly as they
relate to power, hierarchy, and gender. For decades the concept of
authoritarianism has gained traction in the social psychology lit-
erature, where the presence of this ideology has been shown to
explain many of the in-group and out-group biases that exist in
modern society (Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009). Authoritarianism, or the
adherence to a system of beliefs that prizes traditionalism, conser-
vativism, and hierarchical models of power, has been found to be
correlated with numerous other concepts, including religious fun-
damentalism, social dominance orientation, and political intoler-
ance (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992;Dru, 2007). Many forms of
prejudice, including discrimination against racial and ethnic groups,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals, and
women, have been linked to authoritarianism (Cohrs & Asbrock,
2009;Crawford, Brandt, Inbar, & Mallinas, 2016;Goodnight, Cook,
Parrott, & Peterson, 2014).
Duncan, one authoritarianism researcher, explained that author-
itarianism is heavily connected to “preserving hegemonic struc-
tures,” which may cause individuals to reject nontraditional gender
roles specifically; she specifically argued that feminist psycholog-
ical scholars ought to investigate the role of authoritarianism in
sexist ideologies (Duncan, 2006;Duncan, Peterson, & Winter,
1997). More recently, other researchers have argued that authori-
tarianism itself may explain the value congruence between parents
and their children (Duriez, Soenens, & Vansteenkiste, 2008). Al-
though some studies have investigated links between authoritari-
anism and gender attitudes (Cokley et al., 2010;Peterson &
Zurbriggen, 2010), none have studied the role of authoritarianism
in the intergenerational transmission of gender norms. It makes
sense that sons’ perceptions of their fathers’ authoritarianism may
be the underlying variable in perceived paternal transmission of
masculine norms and sexist attitudes to their sons.
Thus far, our review of the literature suggests that perceived
paternal authoritarianism might be an antecedent of perceived
paternal modeling of masculine norms and communication of
sexist messages, which are, in turn, positively linked to sons’
deleterious gender attitudes and experiences. Fathers may act in
gender-typical ways and communicate messages about traditional
gender norms due to their underlying authoritarian beliefs.
Through observation of and interactions with their fathers, sons
may form their own attitudes and experiences with gender norms.
We therefore propose that these variables might be related to each
other in a set of relationships consistent with mediation. That is,
sons’ perceptions of their fathers’ modeling of masculine norms
and sexist communication might mediate the association between
perceived paternal authoritarianism and sons’ sexism, gender role
conflict, and subjective masculinity stress.
Father–Son Relationships
Much like other areas of psychological investigation, the psy-
chological literature on parent– child relationships focuses more on
mother–son relationships than on children’s relationships with
their fathers. Extant studies of father–son relationships often work
from a deficit perspective by looking at homophobia, incarcera-
tion, alcoholism, and absentee fathers (Bucher, 2014;Miller, Har-
greaves, Curtis, & Zinkiewicz, 2013;Pope & Englar-Carlson,
2001), whereas studies on normative development and strength-
based work in father–son relationships are relatively lacking. How-
ever, a few recent papers have argued that the father–son relation-
ship may provide protective effects for sons and emotionally
corrective effects for fathers (Floyd & Morman, 2003;Miller et al.,
2013). For example, Garfield and Isacco (2006) discussed the
many ways in which fathers promote their children’s well-being by
staying engaged in their health behaviors. These positive father–
son relationships could provide a protective effect for sons (McK-
elley & Rochlen, 2016) that moderates the mediating link among
perceived paternal authoritarianism, perceived paternal transmis-
sion of gender messages, and sons’ harmful gender attitudes and
experiences. That is, mediation effects would be weaker when the
quality of the father–son relationship is strong. Two studies in
particular have found that when father–son relationships were
stronger, the correlation between fathers’ and sons’ masculinities
was stronger (Carlson & Knoester, 2011;Huttunen, 1992). Thus, it
seems likely that a strong father–son relationship might be both a
risk and a protective factor, depending on the outcome.
The Current Study
The current study aims to integrate several disparate bodies of
literature, with a focus on fathers and sons, to better understand the
antecedent and outcomes of the intergenerational transmission of
gender messages. Understanding the mechanisms by which harm-
ful gender norms are transmitted intergenerationally from fathers
to sons will not only be helpful in future prevention work aimed at
early development of sexist attitudes, but also for counselors
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
502 KLANN, WONG, AND RYDELL
working with men whose internalization of rigid gender roles can
cause painful and debilitating psychological distress.
First, we hypothesized that perceived paternal authoritarianism
would be positively correlated with perceived paternal modeling of
masculine norms and sexist communication from fathers. Second,
as shown in Figures 1,2, and 3, we hypothesized that perceived
paternal modeling of masculine norms and sexist communication
from fathers would mediate the relationships between perceived
paternal authoritarianism and our three outcome variables: sons’
sexism, gender role conflict, and subjective masculinity stress.
Third, we posited a series of moderated mediation effects, such
that father–son relationship quality would weaken the links be-
tween our mediators and sons’ gender role conflict and subjective
masculinity stress, but strengthen the associations between our
mediators and sons’ sexism. We theorized that father–son relation-
ship would be most relevant to the association between our medi-
ators and our outcome variables (sons’ gender outcomes), rather
than the association between our predictor variable (perceived
paternal authoritarianism) and our mediators (perceived paternal
modeling of masculine norms and perceived paternal sexist com-
munication). For example, sons who had a close relationship with
their fathers might be more receptive to sexist communications
from their fathers, which then enhanced their levels of sexism. In
contrast, the father–son relationship might be less likely to have an
impact on the way authoritarianism plays out in fathers’ own
behavior.
Method
Participants
A total of 170 male participants from a large public Midwestern
university participated in the study. Inclusion criteria mandated
that participants were at least 18 years of age and had “significant
contact” with a male father figure throughout their first 18 years of
life (“significant” was up to the interpretation of the participant).
These participants were chosen because of the recency of their
adolescence (a time that has been linked to parental influence in
gender norm development; Cunningham, 2001), meaning that they
are likely to remember more vividly their experiences with their
fathers over their first 18 years of life. Participants’ ages ranged
from 18 to 35 (M⫽19.2, SD ⫽2.16). For sexual orientation,
92.9% reported being “exclusively” or “mostly” heterosexual,
2.4% bisexual, and 4.8% “exclusively” or “mostly” gay. In terms
of ethnic and racial identity, 123 (72.4%) participants identified as
White, 25 (14.7%) as Asian/Asian American, three (1.8%) as
Black, 11 (6.5%) as Latino, and five (2.9%) as multiracial. These
percentages closely mirror this university’s enrollment numbers.
When asked about generational status, 28 (16.5%) reported being
born outside the United States, 24 (14.1%) identified as first-
generation U.S. citizens, and 118 (69.4%) identified as second- or
higher-generation U.S. citizens. When asked about their religious
beliefs, 58.8% reported Christian (Catholic, Protestant, Non-
Denominational, or Orthodox), 19.5% Atheist or Agnostic, 14.1%
Jewish, 2.4% Hindu, and 2.4% Buddhist.
Participants were also asked to report family demographics.
Most participants (87.6%) lived with both their mother and father,
whereas 10% lived primarily with their mother, and 1.2% lived
primarily with their father. A majority of participants’ parents were
still married (75.3%), with 17.1% divorced, and 2.9% separated. A
majority of participants’ fathers were employed, with 89.4% em-
ployed full-time, 3% employed part-time or seeking employment,
and 5.9% not employed and not seeking employment. Fewer of
participants’ mothers were employed, with 57.1% employed full
time, 18.9% employed part-time or seeking employment, and
20.6% not employed and not seeking employment.
Measures
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. The Ambivalent Sexism In-
ventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996), a 22-item questionnaire, was
chosen to measure levels of sexism as an outcome variable. Par-
ticipants responded by indicating their level of agreement with
items such as “Women are too easily offended” and “A good
woman should be put on a pedestal by her man” on a 6-point Likert
scale ranging from 0 (disagree strongly)to5(agree strongly). Half
of the items (11) measure benevolent sexism, whereas the other
half measure hostile sexism; a high score indicates more sexist
attitudes and beliefs. Following Glick and Fiske (1996), the overall
ASI score was used in this study. Cronbach’s alpha for the overall
Figure 1. Moderated mediation model predicting son’s sexism (N⫽170). The paths from age (the covariate)
were omitted from this diagram.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
503
FATHER–SON TRANSMISSION OF GENDER MESSAGES
ASI averages around .87 when measured in college student and
nonstudent adult populations (Glick & Fiske, 1996). In terms of
convergent validity, the ASI has been found to be correlated with
other measures of sexist attitudes and a measure of rape myth
acceptance (Glick & Fiske, 1996). For the current study, scale
scores were computed by averaging item responses. Cronbach’s
alpha for the current sample was .82.
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. The Con-
formity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46 (CMNI-46; Parent &
Moradi, 2009) was used to measure participants’ perceptions of
their fathers’ adherence to masculine norms, which we conceptu-
alize as paternal modeling of norms. The CMNI-46 contains 46
items and participants rate their agreement with all items on a
4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree)to3
(strongly agree). Item responses are summed to create scale
scores, for which a high score indicates greater conformity to
norms. Example items include “I hate asking for help” and
“Women should be subservient to men.” Participants were in-
structed to respond to the items based on their perceptions of their
fathers over time rather than of themselves. Cronbach’s alpha of
.88 demonstrates adequate internal reliability for the CMNI-46,
when tested with an undergraduate male sample. The scale dem-
onstrated criterion validity evidence through its correlation with
poor psychological and social well-being outcomes (Wong, Ho,
Wang, & Miller, 2017). In the present sample, the CMNI-46 had
a Cronbach’s alpha of .85.
Network of Relationships Questionnaire-Short Form (Fur-
man & Buhrmester, 1985). The Network of Relationships
Questionnaire-Short Form (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) was used
to determine the level of closeness, or relationship quality, be-
tween participants and their fathers over time. Participants re-
sponded to 13 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (little
to none)to5(the most). All item responses are summed to
calculate a scale score, for which a higher number indicates a
closer relationship. Example items include “How often do you and
your parent argue?” and “How much does your parent treat you
like you’re respected and admired?” Evidence for convergent
validity has been provided through positive correlations with other
Figure 2. Moderated mediation model predicting son’s gender role conflict (N⫽170).
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
Figure 3. Moderated mediation model predicting son’s subjective masculinity stress (N⫽170).
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
504 KLANN, WONG, AND RYDELL
measures of connectedness (in an adult sample; Buhl, 2008), and
evidence for predictive validity has been demonstrated through a
positive association psychological well-being in a college student
sample (Buhl, 2007). Internal reliability was good (␣⫽.80) in
validation studies and Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample
was .85.
Subjective Masculinity Stress Scale (SMSS; Wong et al.,
2013). This measure was chosen to measure participants’ eval-
uations of the stress linked to their subjective experiences of being
male. Participants completed the sentence, “As a man . . .” 10
times, and then rated how frequently each of their experiences is
stressful for them, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(never/almost never)to5(always/almost always). The rating of the
10 statements are averaged to provide a scale score, for which high
scores indicate more frequent experiences of subjective masculin-
ity stress. Evidence for incremental validity was shown through a
positive and unique link to psychological distress, after controlling
for gender role conflict, masculine gender role stress, and confor-
mity to masculine norms, and the alpha for the sample used for
scale development (comprised of mostly college men) was .89
(Wong et al., 2013). Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample
was .91.
Gender Role Conflict Scale Short Form. The Gender Role
Conflict Scale Short Form (Wester, Vogel, O’Neil, & Danforth,
2012), a 16-item scale, measures men’s difficulties with restrictive
gender roles on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree)to6(strongly agree). Sample items include “I do not like
to show my emotions to other people” and “Affection with other
men makes me tense.” Item responses are averaged to generate a
scale score, for which a higher number indicates greater role
conflict. Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale was .87 when
tested with men in college and middle school (Wester et al., 2012).
Validity evidence has been provided through significant and pos-
itive correlations with criterion variables such as depression and
anxiety (Hammer, McDermott, Levant, & McKelvey, 2017). This
study found a reliability alpha of .80.
Right-Wing Authoritarianism-Short Form. The Right-Wing
Authoritarianism-Short Form (Zakrisson, 2005) was used to deter-
mine levels of participants’ perceptions of their fathers’ authoritarian
beliefs. Participants indicated their agreement on a 9-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree)to9(very strongly
agree). Item responses are averaged to create a scale score, for which
a higher number indicates more authoritarianism. Example items
include “The ‘old fashioned ways’ and ‘old-fashioned values’ still
show the best way to live” and “It would be best if newspapers were
censored so that people would not be able to get hold of destructive
and disgusting material.” Participants were told to respond to the
items based on their perceptions of their fathers over time rather than
of themselves. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .78 in a sample of
college and high school students, and it demonstrated adequate evi-
dence for convergent validity through a significant association with
other similar constructs such as Social Dominance Orientation
(Zakrisson, 2005). In the current study, internal reliability was accept-
able (␣⫽.79).
Socialization of Gender Norms Scale, Traditional and Egal-
itarian Subscales (Epstein & Ward, 2011). The Socialization
of Gender Norms Scale, Traditional and Egalitarian Subscales
(Epstein & Ward, 2011) were chosen to examine the perceived
paternal sexist communication throughout participants’ develop-
ment. The Traditional subscale includes six items (e.g., “A real
man gets what he wants”), whereas the Egalitarian subscale in-
cludes four items (e.g., “People are people; gender doesn’t mat-
ter”). Following Epstein and Ward (2011), we used the average of
items from both subscales, with the Egalitarian subscale reverse-
scored. Participants determine how much they received each mes-
sage from their fathers on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(none)to4(a lot). Responses are averaged to create a scale score,
for which a higher number indicates more prevalent sexist mes-
sages. In college samples, the subscales have good internal reli-
ability (␣s⫽.78, .85). The subscales also demonstrated conver-
gent validity through positive correlations with Galambos,
Petersen, Richards, and Gitelson’s (1985) Attitudes Toward
Women Scale and the Male Role Attitudes Scale (Pleck, Sonen-
stein, & Ku, 1994). This study found Cronbach’s alphas of .81 for
each subscale.
Procedure
Responses were collected using a Qualtrics online survey. No
identifying information was collected. Participants were recruited
from an undergraduate subject pool, and those who completed the
survey received credit toward a course requirement. This project
was approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review
Board.
Results
Preliminary Results
We began our preliminary analyses by checking for missing
data. Although each variable involved in the analyses had some
missing data, none had rates of missingness higher than 5.9%.
Little’s missing completely at random test suggested that the data
was missing completely at random,
2
(50) ⫽61.040, p⫽.136.
We then used the expectation maximization data imputation
method to estimate and impute missing data points (Schlomer,
Bauman, & Card, 2010).
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and intercorre-
lations of the variables. Perceived paternal authoritarianism was
positively related to perceived fathers’ modeling of masculine
norms, perceived paternal sexist communication, sons’ sexism,
and sons’ gender role conflict. Perceived fathers’ modeling of
masculine norms was positively correlated with perceived paternal
sexist communication, sons’ sexism, and sons’ gender role con-
flict, and negatively related to father–son relationship quality.
Perceived paternal sexist communication was positively related to
sons’ gender role conflict, sexism, and subjective masculinity
stress, and negatively related to father–son relationship quality.
Main Results
To test our hypotheses, we used the SPSS macro PROCESS
(Hayes, 2012), which integrates multiple regression and bias-
corrected bootstrapping to test moderation and mediation effects.
Age was added as a covariate in our model for sexism, because
studies of cross-cultural groups have demonstrated that age can
play a role in men’s sexist beliefs (Akotia & Anum, 2012;Mc-
Dermott & Schwartz, 2013), and age was significantly negatively
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
505
FATHER–SON TRANSMISSION OF GENDER MESSAGES
correlated with sexism (⫽⫺.17, B ⫽⫺.06, SE ⫽.02). Age was
not significantly correlated with gender role conflict and subjective
masculinity stress and was therefore omitted from these models.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, sons’ perceptions of their fathers’
authoritarianism was significantly positively related to perceived
paternal modeling of masculine norms and paternal sexist com-
munication, after controlling for age. (See Figures 1,2, and 3).
In regard to Hypotheses 2 and 3, moderation effects were
measured at 1 SD above and below the mean (Frazier, Tix, &
Barron, 2004) to test high and low levels of father–son relationship
quality; indirect effects were analyzed using the means of 5,000
bootstrapping samples through random sampling with replacement
to calculate the means of estimated indirect effects. We interpreted
95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine significance, such that
if the confidence interval did not include zero, the mediation effect
was significant. Importantly, significant mediation effects can ex-
ist even in the absence of significant relations between predictors
and mediators and between mediators and outcomes (Hayes,
2015). We used the index of moderated mediation (Hayes, 2015)
to identify significant effects consistent with moderated mediation.
We tested three moderated mediation models. Each model in-
cluded the two variables acting as mediators: perceived fathers’
modeling of masculine norms and perceived paternal sexist com-
munication and one of the three outcome variables: sons’ sexism,
gender role conflict, and subjective masculinity stress. Overall, the
models accounted for 34%, 15%, and 6% of the variance in
sexism, gender role conflict, and subjective masculinity stress,
respectively. The models also explained 9% of the variance in
perceived paternal conformity to masculine norms, and 8% of the
variance in the perceived communication of sexist messages vari-
able.
We also tested three alternative models with the variables in
reverse sequential order (e.g., we used sexism, gender role conflict,
and subjective masculinity stress as predictors and perceived pa-
ternal authoritarianism as the outcome variable). In these models,
we found no significant moderated mediation effects, but a few
significant direct effects. For example, sons’ sexism and gender
role conflict both appeared to significantly predict perceived pa-
ternal modeling of masculine norms, paternal sexist communica-
tion, and perceived paternal authoritarianism (ps⬍.05), whereas
subjective masculinity stress only appeared to predict paternal
sexist communication (p⬍.05). These alternative models cannot
be ruled out; however, they are less conceptually robust and far
less consistent with the literature (Crouter et al., 2007;Epstein &
Ward, 2011;Halpern & Perry-Jenkins, 2016). For instance, the
notion that sons’ sexism would influence paternal sexist commu-
nication seems less plausible that our original model theorizing
that paternal sexist communication would influence sons’ sexism.
Therefore, we discuss below the partial support found for our
original mediation and moderated mediation hypotheses.
Sexism. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the effect from per-
ceived paternal authoritarianism to perceived fathers’ modeling of
masculine norms to sons’ sexism was significant (mean indirect
effect ⫽.04, SE ⫽.02, 95% CI: [.01, .09] and consistent with
mediation (see Figure 1). This indirect effect was significant at low
levels of father–son relationship quality (mean indirect effect ⫽
.05, SE ⫽.02, 95% CI: [.02, .10]), but not at a high level (mean
indirect effect ⫽.03, SE ⫽.03, 95% CI: [⫺.01, .09]). However,
the moderated mediation effect was not significant (B⫽⫺0.02,
SE ⫽.02, 95% CI: [⫺.07, .03]). Hence, this part of Hypothesis 3
was not supported.
Analysis of the path through our other proposed mediator pro-
duced slightly different results. In support of Hypothesis 2, the
effect from perceived paternal authoritarianism to perceived pa-
ternal sexist communication to sons’ sexism was significant (mean
indirect effect ⫽.05, SE ⫽.02, 95% CI: [.02, .09]) and consistent
with mediation. This indirect effect was also significant at high
levels of relationship quality (mean indirect effect ⫽.07, SE ⫽
.03, 95% CI: [.03, .14]), but not at low levels (mean indirect
effect ⫽.03, SE ⫽.02, 95% CI: [⫺.004, .07]). This effect was
significant (B⫽0.04, SE ⫽.02, 95% CI: [.004, .09]) and consis-
tent with moderated mediation, such that the mediation effect
through perceived paternal sexist communication was significant
only when relationship quality was average or stronger. This
finding supports Hypothesis 3.
Gender role conflict and subjective masculinity stress.
Indirect paths from perceived fathers’ authoritarianism to per-
ceived fathers’ modeling of masculine norms to both subjective
masculinity stress (B⫽0.00, SE ⫽.02, 95% CI: [⫺.04, .05]) and
gender role conflict (B⫽0.01, SE ⫽.02, 95% CI: [⫺.03, .06])
were both not significant (see Figures 2 and 3). However, paths
through our other mediator (perceived paternal sexist communica-
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of the Main Measures (N ⫽170)
Measure M(SD)12345678
1. RWAS
a
4.78 (1.02)
2. SGNS 2.24 (.77) .28
ⴱⴱⴱ
3. CMNI-46
a
2.44 (.35) .31
ⴱⴱⴱ
.41
ⴱⴱⴱ
4. ASI 3.53 (.71) .45
ⴱⴱⴱ
.37
ⴱⴱⴱ
.37
ⴱⴱⴱ
5. SMSS 2.76 (.95) .00 .20
ⴱ
.06 ⫺.01
6. GRCS 3.43 (.73) .24
ⴱⴱ
.30
ⴱⴱⴱ
.21
ⴱⴱ
.40
ⴱⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
7. NRQ 3.70 (.62) ⫺.04 ⫺.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.24
ⴱⴱ
⫺.08 ⫺.11 ⫺.19
ⴱ
8. Age 19.2 (2.16) ⫺.17
ⴱ
⫺.06 .03 ⫺.23
ⴱⴱ
.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.00
Note. RWAS ⫽Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale; SGNS ⫽Socialization of Gender Norms Scale; CMNI ⫽Conformity to Masculine Norms Scale;
ASI ⫽Ambivalent Sexism Inventory; SMSS ⫽Subjective Masculinity Stress Scale; GRCS ⫽Gender Role Conflict Scale; NRQ ⫽Network of
Relationships Questionnaire.
a
These measures are completed by participants (sons) about their fathers, rather than by the fathers themselves.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
506 KLANN, WONG, AND RYDELL
tion) were significant for each of these outcomes and consistent
with mediation. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the indirect effect
from perceived fathers’ authoritarianism to perceived paternal
sexist communication to sons’ subjective masculinity stress was
significant (mean indirect effect ⫽.04, SE ⫽.03, 95% CI: [⫺.00,
.11]). This indirect effect was only significant at low levels of
relationship quality (mean indirect effect ⫽.08, SE ⫽.03, 95% CI:
[.03, .15]), not at a high level of relationship quality (mean indirect
effect ⫽.01, SE ⫽.04, 95% CI: [⫺.07, .08]). This effect was
significant (B⫽⫺0.06, SE ⫽.04, 95% CI: [⫺.15, ⫺.00]) and
consistent with moderated mediation, such that the indirect effect
involving perceived paternal sexist communication was significant
only when relationship quality was average or poorer. This result
provided support for Hypothesis 3.
Similarly, the effect from perceived fathers’ authoritarianism to
perceived paternal sexist communication to sons’ gender role
conflict was significant (mean indirect effect ⫽.04, SE ⫽.02,
95% CI: [.01, .08]) and consistent with mediation, providing
support for Hypothesis 2. This indirect effect was also significant
at low levels of relationship quality (mean indirect effect ⫽.05,
SE ⫽.03, 95% CI: [.02, .12]), but not at a high level of relationship
quality (mean indirect effect ⫽.02, SE ⫽.03, 95% CI: [⫺.03,
.08]). However, there was no significant moderated mediation
effect (B⫽⫺0.03, SE ⫽.03, 95% CI: [⫺.11, .02]). Hence, we did
not find support for Hypothesis 3 in this regard.
Discussion
These findings enhance our understanding of perceived paternal
influences on sons’ harmful gender attitudes and experiences.
Although research over many decades has aimed to discover the
links between parent and child gender attitudes, this study contrib-
utes nuance and context to this search by illuminating the mech-
anisms by which perceptions of fathers affect their sons’ beliefs
about and experiences of gender. Using a framework consistent
with moderated mediation, this study tested three models linking
perceived paternal authoritarianism to sons’ sexist attitudes, gen-
der role conflict, and subjective masculinity stress, through two
mediators: perceived sexist communication from fathers, and gen-
der modeling through perceived paternal conformity to masculine
norms. The role of father–son relationship quality was also tested
as a moderator of the above-mentioned relationships.
In support of our hypothesis, we found that perceptions of
fathers’ authoritarianism were positively and significantly associ-
ated with perceived paternal modeling of masculine norms and
paternal sexist communication. This dovetails with existing liter-
ature that demonstrates relationships between authoritarianism and
hierarchical social structures, such as sexism (Cohrs & Asbrock,
2009;Duncan, 2006). In addition, our findings are partially con-
sistent with our mediation hypotheses, as perceived paternal au-
thoritarianism was indirectly related to sons’ sexism through per-
ceived paternal modeling of masculine norms and perceived sexist
communication from fathers. However, perceived paternal model-
ing of masculine norms did not mediate the relationship between
perceived paternal authoritarianism and gender role conflict or
subjective masculinity stress. Instead, perceived paternal authori-
tarianism was indirectly related to these two outcome variables
through perceived paternal sexist communication only. This paints
an interesting picture of how different mechanisms may affect
gender attitudes (sexism) versus gender experiences (gender role
conflict and subjective masculinity stress). Although ideals about
sexism in abstract may be influenced by paternal authoritarianism
through both social learning and communication, the problematic
internalization of gender norms that creates rigid roles for men was
only significantly influenced by perceived paternal authoritarian-
ism through perceived paternal sexist communication. Therefore,
it may be that relatively more covert sexist socialization methods
like paternal modeling of masculine norms explain sexist attitudes
but do not explain the distressing effects of gender conflict and
subjective masculinity stress. Perhaps only perceived explicit com-
munication of sexist norms by fathers induce internalization of
harmful gender norms for sons. These effects are significant be-
cause they illuminate the multiple pathways by which perceived
paternal influences affect the development of sons’ gender atti-
tudes and experiences. When perceptions of paternal sexist com-
munication and paternal modeling of masculine norms are both
considered, the influence of harmful gender socialization becomes
much clearer.
The complexity of our findings is also underscored by the
moderating effects of father–son relationship. Although father–son
relationship quality did not have a significant impact on the links
between paternal modeling of masculine norms and any outcome
variables, two paths were significant and consistent with moder-
ated mediation. Father–son relationship quality significantly mod-
erated the indirect path involving perceived paternal sexist com-
munication and son’s sexism, such that this indirect effect was
significant only at high and average levels (but not low levels) of
relationship quality. This evidence supports the few other studies
that have found stronger correlations between parent and child
gender attitudes when their relationship is stronger (Huttunen,
1992). Father–son relationship quality also moderated the relation-
ship between perceived paternal sexist communication and sons’
subjective masculinity stress, although in a different pattern. In this
case, the relationship through perceived paternal sexist communi-
cation to sons’ subjective masculinity stress was significant only at
low, but not high levels, of relationship quality, suggesting that a
close father–son relationship may offer a protective effect against
the experience of subjective masculinity stress. It seems that the
close bond between some fathers and sons can provide an emo-
tionally supportive buffer against sons’ experience of gender-
related stress (McKelley & Rochlen, 2016). These findings are
striking because they demonstrate the multifaceted effects of
father–son relationship, such that they can be protective against
certain psychological harms (subjective masculinity stress), yet
help to perpetuate the intergenerational transmission of destructive
sexist norms. Our findings contribute to the literature by focusing
on the powerful impact of father–son relationships that have pre-
viously been portrayed in unidimensional and often deficit-
oriented ways.
Beyond the father–son relationship, this study fills other gaps in
the literature as well. It contributes to growing dialogue about the
role of fathers, and sons’ perceptions of fathers in child develop-
ment, particularly where gender development is concerned. Until
recent years, this topic has been given relatively less attention as
compared to the role of mothers. This study documents the im-
portant roles that sons’ perceptions of their fathers play in sons’
lives. As it relates to gender development, this perceived paternal
influence affects not only sons’ attitudes, but also their personal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
507
FATHER–SON TRANSMISSION OF GENDER MESSAGES
experiences of gender conflict and stress, which relate directly to
mental health and psychological distress.
Furthermore, although the body of literature on men and mas-
culinities is growing widely and adding important nuances to our
understanding of gender, masculinity constructs such as gender
role conflict, conformity to masculine norms, and subjective mas-
culinity stress have frequently been used as predictors, rather than
as outcomes in research. For example, many studies have observed
the ways in which restrictive gender roles are disruptive to men’s
mental and physical health and relationships, or may precede
men’s participation in violence (O’Neil, 2008;Wong, Ho, Wang,
& Miller, 2017). This study helps to elucidate the origins of these
negative experiences of prohibitive gender roles. Through studies
that adopt this approach, counseling psychology preventionists can
address the determinants of sexism and harmful gender experi-
ences in order to create programs to dismantle them.
In addition, the inclusion of perceived paternal authoritarianism
in the gender development literature is a critical step toward
uncovering the underlying constructs that contribute to rigid gen-
der roles. Perceptions of paternal authoritarianism were correlated
with each of our three outcome variables and may represent a
latent ideology with pervasive effects on the development of
gender attitudes. Intergenerational transmission of authoritarian
values appears to explain some of what was previously unex-
plained in men’s gender harmful attitudes and experiences. Past
attempts to understand how religious and political ideologies in-
fluenced gender attitudes throughout generations are somewhat
inconclusive (Cunningham, 2001;Fitzpatrick Bettencourt, Vacha-
Hasse, & Byrne, 2011). However, understanding authoritarianism
as a fundamental values system intrinsic in multiple conservative
religious and political movements allows us to better conceptualize
the forces that create and perpetuate sexism intergenerationally.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations of our study ought to be addressed and
improved in future research. First, this study used a predominantly
White undergraduate student subject pool at one university in the
Midwest, which may limit its generalizability to the general pop-
ulation. Future research should use a broader subject pool, includ-
ing participants who do not attend college, more men of color, and
people from more diverse geographic areas. Findings should be
interpreted conservatively and with reference to our sample. Per-
haps future studies with larger and more diverse sample sizes
would be better enabled to use structural equation modeling and
nonrecursive models, which would allow the construction of more
complex latent variables that could better explain the constructs of
interest in the sample group. Second, this sample was limited to
men who had significant contact with a father figure throughout
their life, but we recognize that family constellations may look a
variety of different ways, and many boys may not have a father
(e.g., if they are raised in a household with two female parents, or
raised by a single mother). Therefore, these findings may not
generalize to boys who do not have a paternal guardian, or who
identify family friends or mentors as their primary paternal influ-
ence. Future research should investigate how similar pathways
might be in effect in other male relationships (e.g., mentorship,
friendships), or what mechanisms of gender role development
might be more salient for boys who grow up without a paternal
guardian.
This study was cross-sectional in design, and therefore relied on
participants’ recollections about what messages they received from
their fathers and captured only one moment in their lives. Percep-
tions of participants’ fathers, memory and impressions of partici-
pants’ communication and relationships with their fathers, and
participants’ own attitudes and experiences were captured simul-
taneously for the purposes of this study, while, in reality, these
variables are susceptible to change over time. Therefore, a longi-
tudinal study may provide a more contextual and accurate por-
trayal of men’s development over time. Because we know gender
ideals change over time, longitudinal data would improve our
understanding of parents’ influences across the life span. This
study also used sons’ perceptions of their fathers’ authoritarianism,
communication of sexist messages, and conformity to masculine
norms, rather than fathers’ actual reports. Hence, to some extent,
this represents the influence of sons’ biases. However, it may also
be the case that sons’ perceptions of their fathers’ authoritarianism
and transmission of gender messages may be more accurate than
fathers’ self-report data because fathers may not be fully aware of
or willing to report their negative gender-related attitudes and
behaviors (Korelitz & Garber, 2016). Future studies ought to
incorporate both fathers’ and sons’ perspectives to get a more
detailed picture of similarities and differences in sons’ perceptions
and fathers’ self-report of their gender attitudes.
In addition, although the CMNI-46 has nine subscales, we
focused only on the overall construct of perceived paternal mod-
eling of masculine norms as reflected in the composite score of the
CMNI-46. Given the complexity of our moderated mediation
models, it was not practical to include all nine CMNI-46 subscales
in our mediation model. Nonetheless, we encourage future re-
search on whether perceived paternal modeling of diverse mascu-
line norms differentially predict men’s gender attitudes and expe-
riences. Furthermore, this study tested only two mediators between
perceived paternal authoritarianism and our outcome variables. It
is likely that authoritarianism may influence many other variables
that, in turn, affect their sons’ gender attitudes. In fact, in the
instances of our models where the path between mediator and
outcome was not significant, the indirect effects should be treated
and interpreted cautiously. Future models could test sons’ author-
itarianism as a potential mediator. It would be ideal if future
research bridges the many areas of gender development research,
including the effects of parents and other family members, peers,
and media influences (Leaper & Bigler, 2011;Leaper, 2011)in
one cohesive model, rather than focusing on each of these areas
separately. Given that our model only accounted for 15% and 7%
of the variance in gender role conflict and subjective masculinity
stress, it is clear that there are many essential variables that were
not evaluated in this study, such as religion, political orientation,
geographic location, or socioeconomic status; adding these addi-
tional variables in future research will be necessary to better
understand both gender role conflict and subjective masculinity
stress as outcomes.
Lastly, we used PROCESS, a regression-based tool to test our
hypotheses, because our sample size of 170 participants was too small
for the use of structural equation modeling (SEM). The use of SEM
with latent variables confers the advantage of addressing measure-
ment error, although Hayes, Montoya, and Rockwood (2017) have
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
508 KLANN, WONG, AND RYDELL
also argued that the strengths of SEM vis-a
`-vis PROCESS might have
been overstated. For example, “latent variable mediation analysis may
be, at least in some circumstances, be more accurate in the estimation
of effects than observed variable analysis, but less powerful in detect-
ing them” (Hayes et al., 2017, p. 5). Nonetheless, using SEM with a
larger sample size to replicate the findings of this study could be
helpful.
Practical Implications
Our findings are relevant to counseling psychologists, particu-
larly in prevention and psychotherapy. Preventive interventions
that target public health concerns and sexism-based social injus-
tice, such as men’s perpetration of sexual assault and domestic
violence, ought to address intergenerational patterns of beliefs and
behaviors. This may include helping young men identify and
critically evaluate the gender-based messages they received from
their fathers as well as father–son dyad interventions that directly
address intergenerational patterns and empower fathers with skills
to better model gender egalitarian behaviors and attitudes (Oren &
Oren, 2014). Similar prevention efforts may include interventions
specifically for expecting fathers or fathers of young children to
discuss egalitarian parenting skills that may contribute to more
positive father–son relationships and prevent perpetration of mul-
tiple forms of violence later in life. Other prevention programs
may want to expose boys and young men to egalitarian role models
who can model positive masculinity (Kiselica, Benton-Wright, &
Englar-Carlson, 2016). Of course, implementation of such pro-
grams ought to attend to multicultural factors and maintain cultural
sensitivity, especially given the lack of diversity in our sample.
Counselors working with boys and men can use these findings
to better understand their clients, particularly those who have
traditional and authoritarian fathers. Specifically, counselors can
encourage clients to reflect on the gender expectations that their
fathers communicated to them and the impact of these expectations
on their lives (Levant, Gerdes, Alto, Jadaszewski, & McDermott,
2017). These clients may benefit from therapeutic approaches that
allow client and counselor to explore and discuss the influence of
father–son relationships and authoritarian values in their develop-
mental history. Approaches such as developmental relational coun-
seling (Duffey & Haberstroh, 2014) or other forms of cognitive-
developmental therapies may encourage men to reflect on the
context of their development, the meaning of social roles, habits
they have learned from interpersonal relationships, and the stories
they have created to shape their identities and beliefs (Pieretti,
1996). We hope that this new understanding of the influence of
perceived paternal authoritarianism and paternal messages, as well
as father–son relationship quality, on men’s gender attitudes and
experiences will enable counseling psychologists to work individ-
ually and systematically to ascertain, prevent, and treat the roots of
sexism.
References
Akotia, C. S., & Anum, A. (2012). The moderating effects of age and
education on gender differences on gender role perceptions. Gender &
Behaviour, 10, 5022–5043.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fun-
damentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psy-
chology of Religion, 2, 113–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s153275
82ijpr0202_5
Amato, F., & MacDonald, J. (2011). Examining risk factors for homeless
men: Gender role conflict, help-seeking behaviors, substance abuse and
violence. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 19, 227–235. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3149/jms.1903.227
American Association of University Women. (2017). The simple truth
about the gender pay gap: Fall 2017 report. Washington, DC: Author.
Aosved, A. C., & Long, P. J. (2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth accep-
tance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious
intolerance. Sex Roles, 55, 481– 492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-
006-9101-4
Arellano-Morales, L., Liang, C. T. H., Ruiz, L., & Rios-Oropeza, E.
(2016). Perceived racism, gender role conflict, and life satisfaction
among Latino day laborers. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4, 32– 42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lat0000049
Averett, P., Benson, M., & Vaillancourt, K. (2008). Young women’s
struggle for sexual agency: The role of parental messages. Journal of
Gender Studies, 17, 331–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0958923080
2420003
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice Hall.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L.,
Merrick, M. T.,...Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate
Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.
Bridges, F. S., Tatum, K. M., & Kunselman, J. C. (2008). Domestic
violence statutes and rates of intimate partner and family homicide: A
research note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 117–130.
Bucher, J. (2014). “But he can’t be gay:” The relationship between mas-
culinity and homophobia in father–son relationships. The Journal of
Men’s Studies, 22, 222–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.2203.222
Buhl, H. M. (2007). Well-being and the child-parent relationship at the
transition from university to work life. Journal of Adolescent Research,
22, 550 –571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558407305415
Buhl, H. M. (2008). Significance of individuation in adult child–parent
relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 262–281. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0192513X07304272
Burt, K. B., & Scott, J. (2002). Parent and adolescent gender role attitudes
in 1990s Great Britain. Sex Roles, 46, 239 –245. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1023/A:1019919331967
Carlson, D. L., & Knoester, C. (2011). Family structure and the intergen-
erational transmission of gender ideology. Journal of Family Issues, 32,
709 –734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10396662
Cichy, K. E., Lefkowitz, E. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2007). Generational
differences in gender attitudes between parents and grown offspring. Sex
Roles, 57, 825– 836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9314-1
Cohrs, J. C., & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social
dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive
ethnic groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 270 –289.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.545
Cokley, K. O., Tran, K., Hall-Clark, B., Chapman, C., Bessa, L., Finley, A.,
& Martinez, M. (2010). Predicting student attitudes about racial diversity
and gender equity. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 187–
199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020467
Crawford, J. T., Brandt, M. J., Inbar, Y., & Mallinas, S. R. (2016).
Right-wing authoritarianism predicts prejudice equally toward “gay men
and lesbians” and “homosexuals.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 111, e31– e45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000070
Crouter, A. C., Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Osgood, D. W. (2007).
Development of gender attitude traditionality across middle childhood
and adolescence. Child Development, 78, 911–926. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01040.x
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
509
FATHER–SON TRANSMISSION OF GENDER MESSAGES
Cunningham, M. (2001). The influence of parental attitudes and behaviors
on children’s attitudes toward gender and household labor in early
adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 111–122. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00111.x
Davies, M., Gilston, J., & Rogers, P. (2012). Examining the relationship
between male rape myth acceptance, female rape myth acceptance,
victim blame, homophobia, gender roles, and ambivalent sexism. Jour-
nal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2807–2823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0886260512438281
Dru, V. (2007). Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prej-
udice: Effects of various self-categorization conditions. Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 43, 877– 883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.jesp.2006.10.008
Duffey, T., & Haberstroh, S. (2014). Developmental relational counseling:
Applications for counseling men. Journal of Counseling & Develop-
ment, 92, 104 –113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00136.x
Duncan, L. (2006). What feminist and political psychologists can learn
from each other: The case of authoritarianism. Feminism & Psychology,
16, 58 – 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959-353506060821
Duncan, L. E., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1997). Authoritarianism
and gender roles: Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonic rela-
tionships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 41– 49. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167297231005
Duriez, B., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2008). The intergenerational
transmission of authoritarianism: The mediating role of parental goal
promotion. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 622– 642. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.08.007
Epstein, M., & Ward, L. M. (2011). Exploring parent–adolescent commu-
nication about gender: Results from adolescent and emerging adult
samples. Sex Roles, 65, 108 –118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-
9975-7
Fitzpatrick Bettencourt, K., Vacha-Haase, T., & Byrne, Z. (2011). Older
and younger adults’ attitudes toward feminism: The influence of religi-
osity, political orientation, gender, education, and family. Sex Roles, 64,
863– 874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9946-z
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2003). Human affection exchange: II.
Affectionate communication in father–son relationships. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 143, 599 – 612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224
540309598466
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and
mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 51, 115–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167
.51.1.115
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the
personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 21, 1016 –1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016
Galambos, N. L., Petersen, A. C., Richards, M., & Gitelson, I. B. (1985).
The Attitudes Toward Women Scale for Adolescents (AWSA): A study
of reliability and validity. Sex Roles, 13, 343–356. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/BF00288090
Garfield, C. F., & Isacco, A. (2006). Fathers and the well-child visit.
Pediatrics, 117, e637– e645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-1612
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
Goodnight, B., Cook, S., Parrott, D., & Peterson, J. (2014). Effects of
masculinity, authoritarianism, and prejudice on antigay aggression: A
path analysis of gender-role enforcement. Psychology of Men & Mas-
culinity, 15, 437– 444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034565
Halpern, H. P., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2016). Parents’ gender ideology and
gendered behavior as predictors of children’s gender-role attitudes: A
longitudinal exploration. Sex Roles, 74, 527–542. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s11199-015-0539-0
Hammer, J. H., McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., & McKelvey, D. K.
(2017). Dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the Gender-Role
Conflict Scale–Short form (GRCS-SF). Psychology of Men & Mascu-
linity. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
men0000131
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for ob-
served variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process model-
ing (White paper). Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/
process2012.pdf
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00273171.2014.962683
Hayes, A. F., Montoya, A. K., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). The analysis of
mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equa-
tion modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25, 76 – 81. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001
Herrero, J., Rodríguez, F. J., & Torres, A. (2017). Acceptability of partner
violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward vio-
lence in social relationships. Violence Against Women, 23, 351–367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870
Hodson, G., & MacInnis, C. C. (2017). Can left-right differences in
abortion support be explained by sexism? Personality and Individual
Differences, 104, 118 –121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.044
Huttunen, J. (1992). Father’s impact on son’s gender role identity. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 251–260. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/0031383920360401
Kiselica, M. S., Benton-Wright, S., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2016). Accen-
tuating positive masculinity: A new foundation for the psychology of
boys, men, and masculinity. In Y. J. Wong, S. R. Wester, Y. J. Wong,
& S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp.
123–143). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14594-006
Koepke, S., Eyssel, F., & Bohner, G. (2014). “She deserved it”: Effects of
sexism norms, type of violence, and victim’s pre-assault behavior on
blame attributions toward female victims and approval of the aggressor’s
behavior. Violence Against Women, 20, 446 – 464. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/1077801214528581
Korelitz, K. E., & Garber, J. (2016). Congruence of parents’ and children’s
perceptions of parenting: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Ado-
lescence, 45, 1973–1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0524-0
Kulik, L. (2004). Transmission of attitudes regarding family life from
parents to adolescents in Israel. Families in Society, 85, 345–353.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.1495
Leaper, C. (2011). Research in developmental psychology on gender and
relationships: Reflections on the past and looking into the future. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 347–356. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02035.x
Leaper, C., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). Gender. In M. Underwood & L. H.
Rosen (Eds.), Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood,
and adolescence (pp. 289 –315). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Levant, R., Gerdes, Z., Alto, K., Jadaszewski, S., & McDermott, R. (2017).
Development and evaluation of the Fathers’ Expectations About Sons’
Masculinity Scale (Short Form). Psychology of Men & Masculinity.
Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000108
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. J.,
Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to
Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3–25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
McDermott, R. C., & Schwartz, J. P. (2013). Toward a better understand-
ing of emerging adult men’s gender role journeys: Differences in age,
education, race, relationship status, and sexual orientation. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 14, 202–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028538
McKelley, R. A., & Rochlen, A. B. (2016). Furthering fathering: What we
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
510 KLANN, WONG, AND RYDELL
know and what we need to know. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.),
APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 525–549). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
14594-024
Mercier, R. J., Buchbinder, M., & Bryant, A. (2016). TRAP laws and the
invisible labor of U.S. abortion providers. Critical Public Health, 26,
77– 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2015.1077205
Miller, P., Hargreaves, J., Curtis, A., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2013). The asso-
ciation between an abusive father–son relationship, quantity of alcohol
consumption, and male-to-male alcohol-related aggression. Alcoholism,
Clinical and Experimental Research, 37, 1571–1576. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acer.12114
Murray, T. L. (2004). Constructions of gender: Comparing the perceptions
of children from traditional vs. egalitarian families. Garden City, NY:
The Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University.
Murray, T., & Lewis, V. (2014). Gender-role conflict and men’s body
satisfaction: The moderating role of age. Psychology of Men & Mascu-
linity, 15, 40 – 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030959
O’Neil, J. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role
conflict using the gender role conflict scale: New research paradigms
and clinical implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 358 – 445.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057
O’Neil, J. M. (2015). Men’s gender role conflict: Psychological costs,
consequences, and an agenda for change. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14501-000
O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S.
(1986). Gender-role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex
Roles, 14, 335–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287583
Oren, C., & Oren, D. (2014). Teen fathers: Can we really bridge the gap?
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 278 –280. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0037312
Parent, M., & Moradi, B. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory and development of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 10, 175–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015481
Peterson, B. E., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2010). Gender, sexuality, and the
authoritarian personality. Journal of Personality, 78, 1801–1826. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00670.x
Pieretti, T. A. (1996). A cognitive-developmental approach to counseling
men. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18, 216 –227.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male
roles among adolescent males: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex
Roles, 30, 481–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01420798
Pope, M., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2001). Fathers and sons: The relationship
between violence and masculinity. The Family Journal, 9, 367–374.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480701094003
Raffaelli, M., & Ontai, L. (2004). Gender socialization in Latino/a families:
Results from two retrospective studies. Sex Roles, 50, 287–299. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000018886.58945.06
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 57, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018082
Shea, M., Wong, Y. J., Wang, S., Wang, S., Jimenez, V., Hickman, S. J.,
& LaFollette, J. R. (2014). Toward a constructionist perspective of
examining femininity experience: The development and psychometric
properties of the subjective femininity stress scale. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 38, 275–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/036168
4313509591
Snyder, D. K., Velasquez, J. M., Clark, B. L., & Means-Christensen, A. J.
(1997). Parental influence on gender and marital role attitudes: Impli-
cations for intervention. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23,
191–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1997.tb00243.x
Stamarski, C. S., & Son Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the
workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices,
and decision makers’ sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1400.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400
Stroud, A. (2012). Good guys with guns: Hegemonic masculinity and
concealed handguns. Gender & Society, 26, 216 –238. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0891243211434612
Szymanski, D. M., & Ikizler, A. S. (2013). Internalized heterosexism as a
mediator in the relationship between gender role conflict, heterosexist
discrimination, and depression among sexual minority men. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 14, 211–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027787
Torres, N. (2014). Women’s gender role orientation and attitudes toward
family and occupational roles: Influences of their perceptions of mater-
nal gender role orientation and protection. Retrieved from https://
digitalcommons.pace.edu/dissertations/AAI3537500
Vogel, D. L., Wester, S. R., Hammer, J. H., & Downing-Matibag, T.
(2014). Referring men to seek help: The influence of gender role conflict
and stigma. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 60 – 67. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0031761
Wester, S., Vogel, D., O’Neil, J., & Danforth, L. (2012). Development and
evaluation of the Gender Role Conflict Scale Short Form (GRCS-SF).
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 199 –210. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0025550
Williams, M. J., Paluck, E. L., & Spencer-Rodgers, J. (2010). The mas-
culinity of money: Automatic stereotypes predict gender differences in
estimated salaries. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 7–20. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01537.x
Wong, Y. J., Ho, M. R., Wang, S. Y., & Miller, I. S. (2017). Meta-analyses
of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental
health-related outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 80 –93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000176
Wong, Y., Klann, E., Bijeli´
c, N., & Aguayo, F. (2017). The link between
men’s zero-sum gender beliefs and mental health: Findings from Chile
and Croatia. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18, 12–19. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/men0000035
Wong, Y., Shea, M., Hickman, S., LaFollette, J., Cruz, N., & Boghokian,
T. (2013). The Subjective Masculinity Stress Scale: Scale development
and psychometric properties. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14,
148 –155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027521
Wong, Y. J., Tsai, P. C., Liu, T., Zhu, Q., & Wei, M. (2014). Male Asian
international students’ perceived racial discrimination, masculine iden-
tity, and subjective masculinity stress: A moderated mediation model.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 560 –569. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/cou0000038
Zakrisson, I. (2005). Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing
Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences,
39, 863– 872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.026
Received August 9, 2017
Revision received March 11, 2018
Accepted March 13, 2018 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
511
FATHER–SON TRANSMISSION OF GENDER MESSAGES
