The Effect of Early Memories of Warmth and Safeness on Trust Within Close

Interpersonal Relationships: Moderating Role of Masculine Gender Role Stress

Group 3: Khadija Akhtar, Omaima Faisal, Rimsha Zahid, Shireenay Khan, and Zarmeen

Khan

Department of Psychology, FUSST

Research Methods II and Applied Statistics

Dr. Hafsa Khalil Toor and Ms. Umm-e-Sadiqa

June 22, 2022

 Introduction
Defining Masculinity

Raewyn Connell’s Gender and Power sets out a social theory of gender and

embodiment that simultaneously takes away the biological determinism and the then-

dominant sociological theories of sex roles.

For Connell, the features of a categorical theory are, first, a “close identification

of opposed interests in sexual politics with specific categories of people,” like men versus

women. Second, theorizing focuses the argument on “the category as a unit, rather than

on the processes by which the category is constituted, or on its elements or constituents.”

Finally, such things conceive of the social order as constructed of only a few categories—

opposing categories that are related to each other hierarchically. This approach often

accommodates the ways in which intersecting identities, such as race and class, might

foster unity rather than conflict between groups imagined to be oppositional, such as men

and women, and neglects the importance of historical change, cultural context, and

experiential practice.

She proposes instead a theoretical approach that understands the current

sex/gender system as a social process that varies historically and across cultures, creating

space for shifting power dynamics and the possibility for the emergence of new identity
categories and forms of activism. Such a theory emphasizes change. Shifts in the

sex/gender system, in other words, could bring more freedom and opportunity to socially

marginalized groups, could result in unforeseen new barriers, constraints, and forms of

discrimination, or, perhaps more likely, could do both simultaneously.

Defining Interpersonal Relationships.

An interpersonal relationship is a social connection or affiliation between two or

more people. Interpersonal relationships can include your partner, loved ones, close

friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and many others who make up the social connections

in your life. It resonates a sense of self and sense of self disclosure both that are

dependent on the level of insight one entails about themselves.

In this research’s definitive quality, we lean more towards one’s relationship with

their partner and their performance in it. In order to form and maintain strong bonds with

others, there needs to be a mutual give-and-take when it comes to sharing information

with one another. People need to open up to you, but you also have to be willing to let

others in and share details about your experiences, emotions, and opinions. All this is in

regard to the respect one shares, empathy and listening skills to allow the relationship to

grow.

Some studies have allowed to be introspective of the systems that entail

interpersonal relationships, e.g., Attachment theory proposed by Mary Ainsworth,

furthermore G. Stanley Hall popularized the "Sturm und drang", or storm and stress,

model of adolescence. One of the most influential models of relationship development

was proposed by psychologist George Levinger. This model was formulated to describe
heterosexual, adult romantic relationships, but it has been applied to other kinds of

interpersonal relations as well.

Defining Early Memories of Warmth

The number one attribute of early childhood mental health is for a child to know

that a person really cares and is available. Early childhood mental health refers to the healthy

social, emotional, and behavioral well-being of young children. Early childhood mental health

can look differently depending on the individual child, their family and their community or

culture.

Young children are learning how to experience, express and regulate their own

emotions and understanding, so there is some trial and error. They need to be able to

experiment and learn while in a safe relationship with caring adults, who can give them

guidance. Toxic stress can damage brain architecture and increase the likelihood that

significant mental health problems will emerge either quickly or years later. Because of

its enduring effects on brain development and other organ systems, toxic stress can

impair school readiness, academic achievement, and both physical and mental health

throughout the lifespan. Circumstances associated with family stress, such as persistent

poverty, may elevate the risk of serious mental health problems. Young children who

experience recurrent abuse or chronic neglect, domestic violence, or parental mental

health or substance abuse problems are particularly vulnerable. Upon the presence of

early childhood memories being one that provide one with a sense of reassurance and

safety one can attribute healthy lifestyles and attachments or engagements to whatever

they later on experience in life.

Literature Review
Forms of Masculinity

(Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) argued that instead of simply recognizing

hegemonic masculinity at only the society- wide level, scholars should analyze

empirically existing hegemonic masculinities at three levels: first, the local (meaning

constructed in gender regimes involving the face- to- face interaction of families,

organizations, and immediate communities); second, the regional (meaning constructed

at the level of a society wide gender order); and, third, the global (meaning constructed in

the global gender order involving transnational world politics, business, and media).

to elucidate the significance and salience of hegemonic masculinities, gender scholars

must distinguish masculinities that legitimate gender inequality from those that do not,

and some researchers have now begun to accomplish this. For example, (Connell &

Messerschmidt, 2005) recently distinguished “hegemonic masculinities” from

“dominant,” “dominating,” and “positive” forms of masculinities. For Messerschmidt,

hegemonic masculinities are those masculinities constructed locally, regionally, and

globally that legitimate an unequal relationship between men and women, masculinity,

and femininity, and among masculinities. Dominant masculinities are not always

associated with and linked to gender hegemony but refer to (locally, regionally, and

globally) the most celebrated, common, or current form of masculinity in a particular

social setting. Localized hegemonic masculinities were fashioned through relational

material practices that had a discursive legitimating influence, whereas regional and

global hegemonic masculinities were constructed through discursive practices— such as

speeches and rap albums— that concurrently constituted unequal gender relations

linguistically, metaphorically, and thus symbolically. Finally,(Messerschmidt, 2017)

noted the significance of reflexivity in the construction of both hegemonic and

nonhegemonic masculinities. Reflexivity refers to exercising our conscious mental ability

to consider ourselves in relation to the particular social context and circumstances we

experience by engaging in internal conversations about particular social experiences and

then deciding how to respond appropriately.

However, masculinities may also be constructed non-reflexively through the

practicing of gender that is emergent, directional, temporal, rapid, immediate, and

indeterminate (Martin, 2006). (Messerschmidt, 2017) also distinguished between

“dominating” and “protective” forms of hegemonic masculinities and accordingly

between different constructions of gendered power relations.

Hegemonic masculinity is also constructed in relation to what Connell identifies

as four specific non-hegemonic masculinities: first, complicit masculinities do not

actually embody hegemonic masculinity yet through practice realize some of the benefits

of patriarchal relations; second, subordinate masculinities are constructed as lesser than

or aberrant from and deviant to hegemonic masculinity; third, marginalized masculinities

are trivialized or discriminated against, or both, because of unequal relations, such as

class, race, ethnicity, and age; and finally, protest masculinities are constructed as

compensatory hyper masculinities that are formed in reaction to social positions lacking

economic and political power.

Transnational masculinity/ contemporary masculinity. As (Connell & Messerschmidt,

2005) puts it, “The gender patterns resulting from these interactions are the first level of a

global gender order. They are [regional] patterns but carry the impress of the forces that

make a global society.” The second link creates new “spaces” beyond individual nation-
states: transnational and multinational corporations (that maintain strong gender divisions

of labor and strong masculinist management cultures); the international state (centered on

a masculinized approach to diplomacy and war); the international media (consisting of

multinational firms that circulate gendered meanings through film, video, music, and

news worldwide); and global markets (the increasing reach of capital, commodity,

service, and labor markets into individual nation- state economies).

In various recent publications, Jeff Hearn and colleagues (Hearn, 2015) have

likewise noted that most studies of men and masculinities have focused their research

efforts within the boundaries of individual national contexts, keeping men and

masculinities in globalization and transnational situations unexamined.

Following Connell’s (1998) suggestion that masculinities scholars move beyond

the “ethnographic moment,” Hearn suggests the development of international,

transnational, and global perspectives. Hearn argues that many forms of

“transnationalization” have created new and changing material and representational

gender hierarchies- what Hearn refers to as “transnational patriarchies”— that structure

men’s transnational gender domination. For Hearn, some contemporary arenas involving

transnational gender inequalities include transnational corporations and government

organizations with men in almost exclusive positions of power; international trade, global

finance, and the masculinization of capital; militarism and the arms trade; international

sports; migrations and refugees; information and communication technologies; and the

sex trade.

Hybrid or New Masculinities. Recent work on hybrid masculinities by Bridges (2014)

and by (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014) reveals such “New Man” constructions of masculinity
as collective (and culturally creative) intersectional responses to strains and tensions

experienced at structural sites of crisis tendencies. Hybrid masculinities involve the

incorporation of subordinated styles and displays (masculine or feminine, or both) into

privileged men’s identities, in the process simultaneously securing and obscuring their

access to power and privilege. For instance, (Kretschmer & Barber, 2016) shows how

class- privileged men’s embrace of previously feminine- typed consumption of personal

grooming styles actually serves to enhance their positions of privilege in relation to

women and to class- subordinated men. When widespread consent congeals around such

a hybrid masculinity formation— particularly when it is grounded in a multibillion-

dollar men’s grooming industry replete with a continual barrage of celebratory media and

advertising— a situationally hegemonic masculinity emerges, seeming on the surface to

signal the emergence of a “new,” less rigid masculinity while simultaneously concealing

and reproducing gender, race, and class inequalities. In thinking about “new”

masculinities, global perspectives are crucial in deploying emergent concepts like hybrid

masculinities.

Relationships in New Masculinities. Bridges and Pascoe’s work was focused on the

global North, yet hybrid hegemonic masculinities also seem to be taking place in some

parts of the global South. For example, (Groes-Green, 2009) notion of “philogynous

masculinities” in Mozambique illustrates this. Groes- Green discusses what he labels the

bom pico (meaning, a good lover) heterosexual form of masculinity, which prioritizes

women’s sexual pleasure and emphasizes caring and attentiveness toward women.

However, in prioritizing women’s sexual pleasure, bom pico men reproduce

hegemonic notions of virility, potency, and strength and subordinate men who are seen as
being “sexually weak.” Men who practice bom pico masculinity then are aligning

themselves with hegemonic masculinity even as their practices might seem to distance

themselves from it, and, therefore, they reproduce masculine power over women and

“Other” men in a novel way. Moreover, the work of (Ratele, 2013) demonstrates how

past traditions remain significant among men living in South Africa in their constructions

of masculinities under both colonization and post colonization.

Colonization in Sociological Approaches: (in Relation to Gender). Colonialism also

affected gender relations within the colonizing powers. It provided certain classes of men

from colonizing countries with job opportunities, while for women imperial adventures

offered a chance to move from being seen as an inferior group, to being part of a superior

one, to being able to flourish abroad as wives of colonists, travelers, or missionaries, in a

way they could not at home. Of signal importance is that colonialism enabled an

understanding of gender relations on the part of people of the metropole (i.e., from the

center of empire as opposed to the colonies) that has had lasting consequences.

By the end of colonialism, the gender orders of societies had been transformed.

Three additional legacies most relevant for understanding gender in the world today

remain. First, while most countries in the world are today neither colonizers nor

colonized, we have in its place a radically unequal world that approximates the colonial

world. Second, anticolonial struggles produced forms of nationalism in which gender

came to play a central, and resistant, role. Third, in the struggle over the demise of

colonial rule, women colonizers were on one side while colonized women

were on the other (of course there were exceptions), locked in a battle over land, over

ways of life, and over freedom.

 As a result of these three legacies, we have a world in which memories of

colonialism trouble questions of global sisterhood, where postcolonial nations are both

dependent on and resentful of the Global North, and where these resentments may take

the form of masculine aggression or the policing of the gender order. While the radical

restructuring of gendered power relations as a result of colonialism has been brought to

the fore by postcolonial historians and anthropologists, and indeed was first brought to

our attention in (Fanon, 1967) searing work, within sociology we have been slow to

incorporate colonialism into our analyses, and to thus fold colonialism into our

understanding of gender.

Early Development in Children

The phenomena of discrimination and generalization lead to the view that

behavior patterns are remarkably situation-specific on the one hand, while also evocable

by diverse and often seemingly heterogeneous stimuli on the basis of generalization

effects. The person's prior experiences with related conditions and the exact details of the

particular evoking situation determine the meaning of the stimuli, i.e., their effects on all

aspects of his life. Usually, generalization effects involve relatively idiosyncratic

contextual and semantic generalization dimensions and are based on more than gradients

of physical stimulus similarity . . . one must know the properties or meaning that the

stimulus has acquired for the subject. If the history is unknown, the response has to be

assessed directly. (Mischel et al., 2007) The meaning and impact of a stimulus can be

modified dramatically by cognitive transformations. Such transformations are highlighted

in research on the factors that impact how long preschool children will actually sit still

alone in a chair waiting for a preferred but delayed outcome before they signal with a bell
to terminate the waiting period and settle for a less preferred but immediately available

gratification (e.g., We have been finding that the same child who on one occasion may

terminate his waiting in less than half a minute may be capable of waiting by himself for

long times on another occasion a few weeks earlier or later, if cognitive and attentional

conditions are appropriate.

Traits are constructs which are inferred or abstracted from behavior. When the

relations between the observed behavior and the attributed trait are relatively direct, the

trait serves essentially as a summary term for the behaviors that have been integrated by

the observer. People emit behaviors and these are perceived, integrated, and categorized

by those who observe them, including those who emit them.

Behavior to Construction of Personality

As Heider (1958) has noted, in the psychology of common sense the subject goes

quickly from act to global internalized disposition. While behavior often may be highly

situation specific, it seems equally true that in daily life people tend to construe each

other as if they were highly consistent, constructing consistent personalities even on the

basis of relatively inconsistent behavioral fragments. This discrepancy may reflect in part

that people go rapidly beyond the observation of some consistency which does exist in

behavior to the attribution of greater perceived consistencies which they construct

(Schneider, 1973). After these construction systems have been generated, they may be

adhered to tenaciously even in the face of data which is non-conforming.

While the pervasive occurrence and important consequences of such

observational learning have been convincingly demonstrated (Bandura, 1971), (keeping

in mind it is not clear as to how to conceptualize just what gets learned). The phenomena
to be encompassed must include such diverse learnings as the nature of sexual gender

identity (Kohlberg, 1966), the structure (or construction) of the physical world ( Piaget,

1954), the social rules and conventions that guide conduct (Gewirtz & Stingle, 1968), the

personal constructs generated about self and others(Kelly, 1955), the rehearsal strategies

of the observer (Bandura, 1971). Some theorists have discussed these acquisitions in

terms of the products of information processing and of information integration

(Anderson, 1972), others in terms of schemata and cognitive templates

The present view, in contrast, construes the individual as generating diverse

behaviors in response to diverse conditions; the emitted behaviors are observed and

subsequently integrated cognitively by the performer, as well as by others who perceive

him, and are encoded on semantic dimensions in trait terms. Thus, while the traditional

personality paradigm views traits as the intrapsychic causes of behavioral consistency,

the present position sees them as the summary terms (labels, codes, organizing

constructs) applied to observed behavior. In the present view, the study of global traits

may ultimately reveal more about the cognitive activity of the trait theorist than about the

causes of behavior, but such findings would be of excellent value in their own right.

The proposed cognitive social learning approach to personality shifts the unit of

study from global traits inferred from behavioral signs to the individual's cognitive

activities and behavior patterns, studied in relation to the specific conditions that evoke,

maintain, and modify them and which they, in turn, change (Mischel, 1969). The focus

shifts from attempting to compare and generalize about what different individuals "are

like" to an assessment of what they do—behaviorally and cognitively—in relation to the

psychological conditions in which they do it. The focus shifts from describing situation-
free people with broad trait adjectives to analyzing the specific interactions between

conditions and the cognitions and behaviors of interest. Personality research on social

behavior and cognition in recent years has focused mainly on the processes through

which behaviors are acquired, evoked, maintained, and modified (Mischel, 1969). Much

less attention has been given to the psychological products within the individual of

cognitive development and social learning experiences.

Self-Regulation in Behaviorism (Individual Identity Development)

While behavior is controlled to a considerable extent by externally administered

consequences for actions, the individual also regulates his own behavior by self-imposed

goals (standards) and self-produced consequences. Even in the absence of external

constraints and social monitors, persons set performance goals for themselves and react

with self-criticism or self-satisfaction to their behavior depending on how well it matches

their expectations and criteria. The concept of self-imposed achievement standards is

seen in Rotter's (1954) "minimal goal" construct and in more recent formulations of self-

reinforcing functions (Kanfer & Karoly, 1972); (Kanfer & Marston, 1963).

Some of the components in self-regulation have been demonstrated in studies of

goal setting and self-reinforcement (Bandura & Whalen, 1966) ; (Bandura & Perloff,

1967); (Mischel & Liebert, 1966). Perhaps the most dramatic finding from these studies

is that even young children will not indulge themselves with freely available immediate

gratifications but, instead, follow rules that regulate conditions under which they may

reinforce themselves. Thus, children, like adults, far from being simply hedonistic, make

substantial demands of themselves and impose complex contingencies upon their own
behavior. The stringency or severity of self-imposed criteria is rooted in the observed

standards displayed by salient models as well as in the individual's direct socialization

history (Mischel, 1969), although after they have been adopted, the standards may be

retained with considerable persistence.

Self-reactions and self-regulation also are influenced by the person's affective

state. Following positive experiences, individuals become much more benign both toward

themselves and others than after negative experiences. For example, after success

experiences or positive mood inductions, there is greater selective attention to positive

information about the self (Mischel et al., 1972), greater non contingent self-gratification

(Moore et al., 1973), and greater generosity.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Maslow (1968) defined self-actualization as an episode, or a spurt in which the

powers of the person come together in a particularly efficient and intensely enjoyable

way, and in which he is more integrated and less split, more open for experience, more

idiosyncratic, more perfectly expressive or spontaneous, or fully functioning, more

creative, more humorous, more ego-transcending, more independent of his lower needs,

etc. He becomes in these episodes more truly himself, more perfectly actualizing his

potentialities, closer to the core of his being, more fully human. The lower-level needs in

the hierarchy need to be met before individuals develop the capacity for self-

actualization. The first and most basic needs involve the physiological (food, water, and

oxygen), followed by needs of safety, love, affection, and belongingness. Maslow (1968)

further claimed that “No psychological health is possible unless this essential core of a

person is fundamentally accepted, loved and respected by others and by himself”. Since
children are in pursuit of overcoming feelings of loneliness and isolation, an environment

that facilitates a sense of belongingness and acceptance is necessary for healthy

development (Simons et al., 1987). Once these basic needs are met, children can then

develop the self-esteem that is accompanied by, “a firmly based, high level of self-

respect, and respect from others” (Simons et al., 1987.

Therefore, “The single holistic principle that binds together the multiplicity of

human motives is the tendency for a new and higher need to emerge as the lower need

fulfills itself by being sufficiently gratified” (Maslow,1968). This process towards self-

actualization is a fundamental step in the maturation and development of children.

Cognitive development

Kohlberg’s first stage was created by observing behaviors in toddlers, based on

their actions he believed they constructed what the child believed was good or bad. Good

being what they wanted, liked, or helped them. Bad being what the child did not like,

want, or what would hurt him. The physical consequences of their actions created mental

representations of what was categorized as good or bad (Colby et al., 1987).

Similarly, to Kohlberg, Vygotsky believed a child learned from the influence of

their parent’s actions. While Vygotsky does not say, a child learns from obedience and

punishment, it still correlates with Kohlberg because obedience and punishment falls into

the same category as the culture within a family. Different cultures believe that

punishment shapes a child, they implement punishment from an early age to establish

obedience within a child.

Sense of belonging
 As researchers across various research areas have explored belonging, they have

framed the meanings of the concept in several ways based on their disciplinary interests.

Some scholars note that belonging is a vaguely defined and under-theorized concept and

there is a need to clarify the basis on which the concept is understood (Antonsich, 2010;

(Halse, 2018); Lähdesmäki et al., 2016; (Peers & Fleer, 2014); (Wastell & Degotardi,

2017). It seems that belonging is a multidimensional concept that has been used when

referring to a variety of issues at multiple levels (Lähdesmäki et al., 2016). Yuval-Davis

(2011) articulates this multiplicity in the following way: People can ‘belong’ in many

different ways and to many different objects of attachment. These can vary from a

particular person to the whole of humanity, in a concrete or abstract way, by self or other

identification, in a stable, contested or transient way. (Lähdesmäki et al., 2016) point out

that the diverse definitions and approaches to belonging “can be perceived as an

interrelated network or rhizome in which various theoretical points of view, concepts, and

discussions intertwine”. When attempting to make sense of the conceptual multiplicity in

the meaning of belonging, at least four distinctive features though intertwining framings

of belonging can be identifed in the previous research literature.

First, psychology-oriented researchers especially have approached belonging as a

fundamental human need that is universally present in human’s life from the early years

on (Liu & Baumeister, 2016). From this viewpoint, the need to belong is crucial for

understanding children’s development and social behavior in their early years. Second,

studies draw attention to belonging in terms of individuals’ sense of being connected with

other people and places. The social dimension of belonging—experiencing emotional

attachment to other people and in membership of groups, collectivities, and communities

—has been conceptualized as togetherness (Hännikäinen, 2007) and the sense of

belonging (Yuval-Davis, 2011). Although this social dimension is at the very core of the

studies of belonging, there is another branch of research that highlights individuals’

connectedness with places, referred to as ‘place-belonging.’ Researchers in human

geography and migration studies, especially, have framed the concept of belonging as an

intimate feeling of ‘being at home.’

In these conceptualizations, home is a metaphor referring to spaces of familiarity,

comfort, and security that generate an individual’s sense of belonging (Antonsich, 2010).

Third, belonging is approached as a process through which individuals are identifed as

belonging to particular social groups and differentiated from other social groups. These

processes of identification and differentiation are intricately connected with the concepts

of identity, categorization, and bordering.

Christensen (2009) argued that belonging is a strong marker of individual and

collective identities which shows how distinctions are drawn between people, that is, how

people are categorized, positioned, included, and excluded according to some feature,

such as ethnicity, gender, age, or (dis)ability. The processes of belonging have also been

described as bordering or boundary-maintenance, which is, drawing boundaries between

who is inside and outside the groups or communities (Nguyen & Noussair, 2014).

Finally, the processes of belonging take us to the fourth framing of this concept, namely,

belonging as a political matter, which is also the position of the studies presented in this

special issue. Many scholars remarked that belonging has a collective element. In order to

belong, one has to be accepted by others in the community and in the society (Johansson

& Puroila, 2021). (Yuval-Davis, 2011) maintained that the politics of belonging
“involves not only constructions of boundaries but also inclusion or exclusion of

particular people, categories and groupings within these boundaries by those who have

the power to do this”.

A sense of social relatedness is a basic human need (Pittman & Zeigler, 2007). It

acts as a strong intrinsic motivator (Deci & Ryan, 2000) that drives us to seek out and

maintain positive interpersonal relationships. The quality and frequency of our social

interactions have strong cognitive, emotional and behavioral consequences, and affect our

well-being therefore health (Baumeister et al., 1995). Even short, seemingly impersonal,

contact can have significant effects on how we perceive and behave in our surroundings

(Walton et al., 2012). Whether we perceive the people around us as friendly, sympathetic,

and caring is thus a central aspect of our social cognition, meaning the processes we

employ to understand and meaningfully interact with others (Abele et al., 2008). The

relevance of communion for navigating our social environment is highlighted by the fact

that it is often the first impression we seek to gain from interpersonal contact (Wojciszke

& Abele, 2008) but just as central in how we see ourselves, especially in familiar

contexts.

Emotions are also central to belonging and our fifth aspect considers the affective

dimension of belonging. A sense of safety and reliability is a basic human need and

emotional well-being (Pittman & Zeigler, 2007). Perceiving the environment as

controllable leads to a sense of self-efficacy (Ajzen, 1991) and agency (Bandura, 2001),

meaning that what we do is in our own hands. It can also mean that a place is “ours”

(Riley, 2019). Agency has an affective dimension: emotional appraisal of the situation in

which we find ourselves influences how self-efficacious we feel (Gentsch & Synofzik,
2014). In the longer term, feeling autonomous and competent, being able to affect the

world, is a prerequisite for well-being and life satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000) as well

as a positive self-concept. In this way, knowing one's surroundings and perceiving them

as predictable can lead to a feeling of comfort.

Development of Gender in Early Childhood

Several gender schema theories have been proposed to explain gender

development and differentiation. The social psychological approaches advanced by Bem

and Markus alongside her associates have centered mainly on individual differences in

gender schematic processing of information (Bem, 1982); (Markus et al., 1982). Martin

and Halverson’s (1981) approach emphasizes the developmental aspects of schema

development and functioning. This theory has many similarities to cognitive-

developmental theory but departs from it in several ways. Rather than requiring the

attainment of gender constancy for development of gender orientations, only the mastery

of gender identity, the ability of children to label themselves and others as males or

females, is considered necessary for gender schema development to begin (Martin &

Halverson, 1981).

Once formed, it is posited that the schema and hence its role performance

expands to include knowledge of activities and interests, personality and social attributes,

and scripts about gender-linked activities (Levy & Fivush, 1993). The schema is

presumably formed from interactions with the environment, but the process by which

gender features that constitute the knowledge structure of the schema are abstracted

remain unspecified. Once the schema is developed, children are expected to behave in

ways consistent with traditional gender roles. The motivating force guiding children's
gender-linked conduct, as in cognitive developmental theory, relies on gender-label

matching in which children want to be like others of their own sex. For example, dolls are

labeled "'for girls' and 'I am a girl' which means 'dolls are for me'" (Martin & Halverson

Jr, 1981). However, in addition to the lack of specification of the gender abstraction

process, empirical efforts to link gender schema to gender-linked conduct in young

children have not fared well. Results of empirical tests call into question the

determinative role of gender schema. The evidence linking gender labeling to activity and

peer preferences is mixed at best. A few studies have found a link (Fagot &

Leinbach,1989), others report conflicting results across different measures of gender-

linked conduct (Martin et al., 1990), and still others have failed to find any link at all

(Fagot, 1985, (Fagot et al., 1986). Even in the studies that report a relationship, it remains

to be determined whether gender labeling and gender-linked preferences are causally

linked or are merely coeffects of social influences and cognitive abilities. Parents who

react in an evaluative manner to gender-linked conduct have children who are early

gender labelers (Fagot et al., 1986). Hence, gender labeling and preference may both be

products of parental influence.

Knowledge of gender stereotypes, which are generalized preconceptions about the

attributes of males and females, is similarly unrelated to gender-linked conduct (Huston,

1985), (Signorella, 1987). Children's preferences for gendered activities emerge before

they know the gender linkage of such activities (Weinraub & Ansul, 1985). A gender

schema represents a more generic knowledge structure about maleness and femaleness.

Gender schema theory would predict that the more elaborated the gender knowledge

children possess, the more strongly they should show gender-linked preferences.
However, this hypothesized relationship receives no empirical support (Martin, 1991).

Adults, for example, may be fully aware of gender stereotypes but this does not produce

incremental prediction of gender-linked conduct as such knowledge increases. These

various results fail to confirm gender knowledge as the determinant of gender-linked

conduct.

Limitations

Both cognitive-developmental theory and gender schema theory have focused on gender

conceptions, but neither devotes much attention to the mechanisms by which gender-

linked conceptions are acquired and translated to gender-linked conduct. Nor do they

specify the motivational mechanism for acting in accordance with a conception. Knowing

a stereotype does not necessarily mean that one strives to behave in accordance with it

(Bandura, 1986). For example, self-conception as an elderly person does not enhance

valuation and eager adoption of the negative stereotypic behavior of old age.

Evidence that gender conception is insufficient to explain variations in gender-

linked conduct should not be misconstrued as negation of cognitive determinants. As will

be explained in subsequent sections, social cognitive theory posits a variety of

motivational and self-regulatory mechanisms rooted in cognitive activity that regulate

gender development and functioning. These include, among other things, cognitions

concerning personal efficacy, evaluative standards, aspirations, outcome expectations

rooted in a value system, and perception of sociostructural opportunities and constraints.

Gender stresses in Role Performance

Sociocognitive modes of influence gendered roles and conduct involve intricate

competencies, interests and value orientations that are needed to be evaluated preferably

by a comprehensive theory of gender differentiation which will explain the determinants

and mechanisms through which gender-linked roles and conduct are acquired. In social

cognitive theory, gender development is promoted by three major modes of influence and

the way in which the information they convey is cognitively processed. The first mode is

through modeling. A great deal of gender-linked information is exemplified by models in

one's immediate environment such as parents and peers, and significant persons in social,

educational, and occupational contexts. In addition, the mass media provides pervasive

modeling of gendered roles and conduct. The second mode is through enactive

experience. It relies on discerning the gender-linkage of conduct from the outcomes

resulting from one's actions. Gender-linked behavior is heavily socially sanctioned in

most societies. Therefore, evaluative social reactions are important sources of

information for constructing gender conceptions. People have views about what is

appropriate conduct for each of the two sexes. The third mode of influence is through

direct tuition. It serves as a convenient way of informing people about assorted styles of

conduct and their linkage to gender. Moreover, it is often used to generalize the

informativeness of specific modeled exemplars and particular behavioral outcome

experiences. The relative impact of the three modes of influence varies depending on the

developmental status of individuals and the social structuring of experiences. Therefore,

some modes of influence are more influential at certain periods of development than at

others.
 Modeling is omnipresent from birth. Infants are highly attentive to modeling

influences and can learn from them, especially in interactive contexts (Khajehpour et al.,

2011). As children gain mobility and competencies to act on the environment, they begin

enacting behavior that is socially linked to gender and experiencing social reactions.

They regulate their behavior accordingly. As they acquire linguistic skills, people begin

to explain to children what appropriate gendered conduct is for them. The rate of

acquisition varies depending on the mode of influence. Learning conceptions through

modeling is faster than from enactive experience (Bandura, 1999). In modeling, the

gendered attributes are already clustered in a structured form. In enactive learning,

response outcomes serve as an unarticulated way of informing performers

of what constitutes appropriate patterns of behavior. This is a much more laborious

attribute abstraction process. In the enactive mode, conceptions of gendered conduct must

be constructed gradually by observing the differential outcomes of one's actions. When

people fail to recognize the effects their actions produce, or inadequately process the 15-

outcome information provided by variations in actions over time and social contacts, they

do not learn much, although the consequences repeatedly impinge on them

Trust in Interpersonal Relationships

There is reason to expect emotion to have a significant impact on trust. Emotions

have been shown to affect a variety of decision-making processes, and complex

decisions, such as the decision whether to trust a stranger, a politician, or a potential

competitor, are particularly likely to be influenced by a person’s emotional state. Emotion

has been shown to effect related concepts like altruism, risk preferences, and the

perceived likelihood of future events ;(Lerner & Keltner, 2001);(DeSteno et al., 2000).
Finally, a variety of political processes that may be influenced by trust have been shown

to be influenced by emotion, including the effects of frames and prejudice (Druckman &

McDermott, 2008).

Prior work has conceptualized trust as a product of two factors: an individual’s

propensity to trust and an individual’s expectations about a trustee’s future behavior

(Mayer et al., 1995). An individual’s propensity to trust is one’s general willingness to

rely on others in situations in

which opportunism is possible? Individual characteristics, such as personality and

developmental history, influence an individual’s propensity to trust (Mayer et al., 1995)

The cognitive sub factor of trust.

The cognitive sub factor encompasses the beliefs and judgments about another’s

trustworthiness and is the most emphasized in prior research on trust. As Lewis and

Weigert stated, “We cognitively choose whom we will trust in which respects and under

which circumstances, and we base the choice on what we take to be ‘good reasons,

constituting evidence of trustworthiness’”. However, because trust only meaningfully

exists when there is risk (Mayer et al., 1995), trustors do not know with absolute certainty

how the trustee will respond a priori. Thus, the cognitive basis of trust allows for the

reduction of uncertainty by providing a foundation from which a “leap” can be made—

that is, “beyond the expectations that reason and experience alone would warrant” (Lewis

& Weigert, 1985).

Considerable research from the psychological–unidimensional perspective has

focused on identifying the characteristics that underlie beliefs about another’s

trustworthiness. A prominent perspective proposes that the most important characteristics

in work relationships are ability, benevolence, and integrity.

The emotional sub factor of trust

A complementary aspect of trust assessment historically overlooked by

researchers is the emotional, or affective, sub factor. Traditionally, if emotion was

mentioned at all, it was typically in terms of the anger one experienced at being betrayed

in an experimental game (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996). However, there is often an

emotional bond between the parties, especially in close interpersonal relationships (Lewis

& Weigert, 1985). Moreover, the emotions one experiences in a trusting relationship with

another (whether they are manifested as moral outrage at egregious trust violations or

intense affection toward an intimate relationship partner) are likely to affect “the

cognitive “platform” . . . from which trust is established and sustained” (Lewis &

Weigert, 1985).

The behavioral-intention sub factor of trust

Lewis and Weigert asserted that “the practical significance of trust lies in the

social action it underwrites.” That is, to trust behaviorally involves undertaking a course

of risky action based on the confident expectation (cognitive basis) and feelings

(emotional basis) that the other will honor trust. It is through such trusting behavior that

one’s “willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party” (Mayer et al., 1995) is

demonstrated. (Bachmann, 2001) has argued that engaging in trusting behaviors actually

helps contribute to the cognitive basis of trust. Extending trust engenders reciprocity, so

that when we trust others, they become more likely to behave in a trustworthy manner

and to trust us in return. Mayer et al. (1995) also argued that the outcome of trusting
behavior (i.e., whether trust was well placed or not) provides information that will

reinforce or change cognitions about the other party’s trustworthiness.

A few studies have examined whether trust can be empirically distinguished into

cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. In a scale development study,

(Cummings & Bromiley, 1996) assessed trust via scale items capturing cognition (e.g.,

“We think _____ keeps commitments”), affect (e.g., “We feel that we can depend on

_____ to move our joint projects forward”), and behavioral intentions (e.g., “We intend

to check whether _____ meets its obligations to our _____”). Their study indicated that in

general, cognitive, and affective response modes were virtually indistinguishable but

were distinct from responses to the behavioral-intention items. Clark and Payne (1997)

also developed a measure of trust based on cognitive, affective, and behavioral-intention

modes and similarly reported that although cognitive and affective modes were

indistinguishable, they were clearly distinct from behavioral intentions.

The Beginnings of Trust in Relationships

An approach to the initial trust baseline is proposed by Meyerson, Weick, and

Kramer (1996). These authors attempted to explain how teams of individuals can come

together quickly and successfully to work on extraordinarily complex, skilled interactions

in temporary groups and teams, such as surgical teams, disaster rescue teams, and airline

cockpit crews. They argued that in such situations, participants build “swift trust” and

that such trust is enabled by several factors:

1. Role-based interactions, in which people can be counted on to perform actions

consistent with training and development in their role.

2. Efforts by actors to minimize inconsistency and unpredictability in that role-based

behavior.

3. Role-based behaviors (e.g., drills, rituals, procedures) that are derived from broad

professional standards that are commonly known and broadly adhered to.

4. Recruitment of others from a narrowly defined labor pool such that the reputations of

pool members are known, lowering expectations for trust-destroying behavior; and

5. The parties are engaged in tasks that require moderate levels of interdependence. In

short, when parties are engaged in tasks that require moderate interdependence, maintain

some social distance from each other in interactions that are role driven, and commit to

being adaptable and resilient, trust adequate to complete their tasks can form swiftly and

sustain for the duration of their required interaction.

Development of Trust in Long Term

First, all trust relationships begin with CBT (Calculus-Based Trust). CBT is

defined in the context of an actor evaluating the benefits and costs to be derived by

staying in the relationship and the benefits and costs to be derived from cheating on or

breaking the relationship (Deutsch, 1973). The inference here is that trust begins at zero,

or even above zero, as initial impressions of the other may infer a mildly positive CBT

stance. Parties begin their encounters with the formation of CBT, through arm’s-length

encounters with the other where vulnerability, risk, predictability, and reliability are

critical issues. Repeated interactions, the degree of interdependence between the parties,

and reputation as hostage serve to strengthen CBT.

Some relationships never develop past the CBT stage. This may occur for four

reasons. First, the parties do not need a more complex relationship. If the transaction is
with the neighborhood dry cleaner, as long as good cleaning services are provided at a

fair price, no more is expected by either party. Second, the interdependence between the

parties is heavily bounded and regulated. One may trust one’s stockbroker, but part of

this trust is grounded in the fact that the broker’s actions are strongly bounded by

securities industry laws and regulations (i.e., institutional trust, Rousseau et al., 1998;

legalistic remedies, Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Third, the parties have already gained enough

information about each other to know that the relationship is unlikely to further develop.

Finally, one or more trust violations have occurred, thus making it unlikely that further

trust would develop.

What causes the level of trust to change over time? The movement from CBT to

KBT (Knowledge-Based Trust) occurs in extended relationships, in which the parties

come to know each other better. This movement occurs as parties gain more knowledge

about the other and engage in activities that generate this knowledge. Repeated and

varied interactions generate these data. As parties work together, talk with each other, and

watch the other respond in a number of different circumstances, they “get to know the

other” and learn to trust each other because the other becomes more understandable and

predictable. These interactions can occur casually and unintentionally (we say hello to the

attendant at the childcare center in the morning, eventually coming to learn a lot about

her and her family) or intensely (two people stuck in an elevator together learn a lot about

each other after a few hours). The authors argue that this knowledge is a fundamental

basis for trust itself, although it could also be a property of any relationship in

development. (McAllister et al., 2006) describe these transformation points as “frame

changes” (fundamental shifts in the dominant interpersonal perception paradigm) in the

relationship. The shift from CBT to KBT signals a change from an emphasis on

differences or contrasts between self and other (being sensitive to risk and possible trust

violations) to an emphasis on commonalities between self and others (assimilation). The

shift from KBT to IBT is one from simply learning about the other to a balance between

strengthening common identities while maintaining one’s own distinctive identity in the

relationship.

Early Life Determining the Nature of Interpersonal Relations with Gender Role as a

Moderator

As we come to find; the expression of one’s gender role performance is highly

dependent on the characteristics of one’s development which is elemental in the nature of

one’s interaction with their experiences of youth. The capacity to form trusting

relationships is regarded as essential to the development and maintenance of healthy

social relationships (Gurtman, 1992). Furthermore, trusting relationships and individuals’

sense of trust regarding those relationships have been found to serve important

psychosocial functions, such as promoting reciprocal cooperation in interpersonal

exchanges (Rapaport and Orwant, 1962). Erikson (1963) was a pioneer in recognizing the

importance of trust in early life. He argued that individuals’ ability to establish basic trust

with the significant others who care for them affects their psychological functioning

throughout their life-span. Erikson (1963) viewed basic trust as encompassing an

individual’s sense that he or she can trust others and his or her confidence that he or she

has the ability to form a relationship.

 A similar perspective on the role of trust in interpersonal trust to that held by

Erikson emerges from the attachment theory advanced by Bowlby (1969, 1973). Bowlby

proposed that attachment is the emotional bond between an infant and its significant other

(i.e., caregiver) and that the security of that bond substantively affects social functioning

during the course of development. These principles guided the seminal work by

Ainsworth and her colleagues (Ainsworth et al., 2015), as well as others. The primary

mechanism for the link between the attachment bond and social development is the

internal working model (IWM).

According to Bowlby (1973), the IWM has two components: (1) an internal

working model of others, which pertains to subjective evaluation of the responsiveness of

the attachment figure when help is sought; and (2) an internal working model of self,

which refers to the sense of self-worth that leads an individual to be sure that it is

acceptable to ask for help. As we have seen the pervasive occurrence and important

consequences of such observational learning have been convincingly demonstrated

(Bandura, 1969; Campbell, 1961), (keeping in mind it is not clear as to how to

conceptualize just what gets learned). The phenomena to be encompassed must include

such diverse learnings as the nature of sexual gender identity (Kohlberg, 1966), the

structure (or construction) of the physical world, the social rules and conventions that

guide conduct (Aronfreed, 1968), the personal constructs generated about self and others,

the rehearsal strategies of the observer (Bandura, 1999). Some theorists have discussed

these acquisitions in terms of the products of information processing and of information

integration (Anderson, 1972), others in terms of schemata and cognitive templates.

 The present view, in contrast, construes the individual as generating diverse

behaviors in response to diverse conditions; the emitted behaviors are observed and

subsequently integrated cognitively by the performer, as well as by others who perceive

him, and are encoded on semantic dimensions in trait terms. The present position sees

them as the summary terms (labels, codes, organizing constructs) applied to observed

behavior. In the present view, the study of global traits may ultimately reveal more about

the cognitive activity of the trait theorist than about the causes of behavior, would be of

excellent value in their own right. Furthermore we have seen that the quality and

frequency of our social interactions have strong cognitive, emotional and behavioral

consequences, and affect our health and social well-being (Baumeister et al., 1995).

We observe this in the factors of trust that influence relationships depending on

how relations morph themselves out for us in early life where person's prior experiences

with related conditions and the exact details of the particular evoking situation determine

the meaning of the stimuli, i.e., their effects on all aspects of his life. Usually,

generalization effects involve relatively idiosyncratic contextual and semantic

generalization dimensions and are based on more than gradients of physical stimulus

similarity. The idea of intimacy and therefore good interpersonal relationships is also

linked with the idea of self disclosure. If there is good self-disclosure (given a good sense

of self aforementioned during development) there will be good terms of relationships.

SPT (social penetration theory) (Altman & Taylor, 1973) includes four stages of

relationship development: orientation, exploratory effective, affective, and stable. These

include disclosure of selective information and receivers; the information goes beyond

general information such as political affiliation but extends to how the individual feels
about a topic such as who and why they voted for a certain political candidate in an

election. (This stage is known as the exploratory effective exchange) Partners let their

guards down somewhat in order to gain a richer understanding of each other.

Individual partners must weigh the cost/reward of the relationship and interaction to

determine whether to proceed into the next level. If the costs outweigh the rewards for the

relationship, partners fall into the de-penetration stage, which ultimately leads to

dissolving the relationship. Less self-disclosure results in less intimacy in romantic

relationships while partners are in the de-penetration stage.

Cultural expectations surrounding gender roles have contributed to differences

between men and women’s attitudes toward sexual intimacy. Research conducted in the

1970’s and 1980’s provide support for the notion that, in cross-sex romantic

relationships, men focused more on sexuality as recreational and pleasure-centered,

whereas women saw sexuality as more relational and person-centered (DeLamater, 1987)

Self-uncertainty refers to the doubts one has about the relationships and their own involvement

and partner-uncertainty refers to the doubts on has about their partner and their involvement

within the relationship (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002) furthermore the construct of masculinity in

males has seen to be attributed with self-uncertainty and lack of self disclosure: since emotional

expressions have been shown to be gendered and being a boy or a girl is often connected to

stereotypes concerning what to display when ‘doing gender’ (Randell et al., 2016). Many boys

are socialized to hide weakness and conceal expressions of emotional vulnerability (Scheff,

2003).

It has been shown that parents display different emotions when addressing their

daughters and sons (Goldshmidt & Weller, 2000). This differential treatment and behaviour, in

combination with how peers, teachers and others behave and respond to adolescents, has a strong
influence on how gender is produced emphasizing the interactional nature of gender (Pleck,

1995); (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Traditional masculinity usually refers to such attributes as

toughness, anti-femininity and little emotional expression (Burn & Ward, 2005). Adolescents

constantly evaluate behaviors and expressions in relation to normative conceptions of gender to

discredit/accept masculine or feminine practices. Perceptions about masculinity have been shown

to create gender role strain and gender role conflict (O'Neil et al., 1995), which impacts male

health (Courtenay, 2000). There has been an increase in attention given to how different

masculinities are expressed in young men’s health behaviour (De Visser et al., 2009); The health

discourse often positions men as emotionally repressed, highlighting that gender and health are

closely interrelated (Evans et al., 2011); (O'Neil et al., 1995). Boys are pressured to be tough and

silent, which may have important implications for their health and well-being (De Visser et al.,

2009).

A large body of research shows gender differences. Compared with girls, adolescent boys

are more likely to drop out of school and be involved in accidents. They are also far more likely

to be perpetrators and victims of violence and, although rare, have a higher rate of suicide

(Gudlaugsdottir et al., 2004). In addition, rates of help seeking are lower, especially in older

adolescent boys aged 16–20 years (Marcell et al., 2007). Therefore, gender norms are socially

constructed and what we perceive as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ is contextually specific, cultural

and changeable (Barker et al., 2010); (Tischler & McCaughtry, 2011).

Rationale

Early memories of warmth focus on experience, inner positive feelings, and emotions in

childhood and this plays a crucial role in social and emotional adjustment throughout a person’s

life. Moving on to masculine gender roles which mainly focuses on masculinity where men are

expected to be bold, strong, and aggressive whereas females are more towards the feminine side,
and this shows attitude or behavior which are considered appropriate or acceptable based on the

individual’s gender. Lastly, trust in interpersonal relationships is important for social conditions.

In order to get people who are close to us, to trust us, we have to remain trustworthy and remain

that trust to keep a healthy relationship.

What is missing in current research is how the early memories of warmth of an individual (which

forms social and emotional adjustment throughout a person’s life) affects interpersonal

relationships which is basically trust while keeping in mind the masculine gender roles. The

purpose for conducting this research was to find whether early memories of warmth affect the

way a person trusts people/interpersonal relationship or if early memories of warmth affect

male’s masculine gender roles and how they want to be perceived.

Conceptual Framework

MODERATOR

Masculine Gender
Stress Role

OUTCOME

Trust in
Interpersonal
Relationships

Objectives

This study focused on the following specific objectives:

1. To assess the impact of early memories of warmth on trust in interpersonal relationships

among men.

2. To study the moderating role of masculine gender stress on relationship between early

memories of warmth and trust in interpersonal relationships among men.

3. To find the relationship between early memories of warmth, masculine gender stress and

trust in interpersonal relationships among men.

Hypotheses

1. Masculine gender stress role moderates the association between early memories of

warmth and safeness and trust within interpersonal relationships among men.

2. There exists a positive relationship between early memories of warmth and safeness and

trust within interpersonal relationships among men.

3. There is an association of socioeconomic status on the relationship of variables.

4. Higher early memories of warmth and safeness leads to lower masculine gender role

stress

Sample

Sample for this study were men with an age range of 16 to 47 years and above.120 questionnaires

were administered to obtain the required sample. Two of them were not included in the study

because of missing data values. Therefore, two additional questionnaires were administered. All

respondents were either students, employees or retired. Majority of participants belonged to

lower-middle class.
Procedure

The research was carried out on a sample of 120 married and unmarried male individuals. These

Individuals were requested to participate in an online survey, through a Google form, and

contacted through various modes of digital communication. Each participant was requested to

complete the questionnaire on their own, and only if they are males that have experienced

interpersonal, romantic relationships. The data collection took about 2-3 days. At the beginning

of the study, each participant gave their informed consent that all of their personal information, as

well as any information linked to the questionnaire, would be kept private. No time limit was

provided; however, they were informed that it would take them on average 10-15 minutes to fill

the form out. The participants were informed that their information will be used in a research

study and that they might contact the researchers if they had any query. The form started off with

a consent section and the participants were thanked and told of their importance to the research

both before and after they filled out the form.

Instrument

The Early Memories of Warmth and Safeness Scale

Richter developed the early memories of warmth and safeness scale et al. (2009). It is a 5 Likert-

type scale where participants are required to rate how frequently each statement applied to them

in their childhood. It is a twenty-one items scale. The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.97.

Simply sum the scale items to get the score.

Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale

The masculine gender role stress scale was developed by Eisler and Skidmore’s (1987). It is a 6

Likert-type scale. The MGRS scale is a self-report questionnaire that was designed to measure the

stress that men experience in situations in which they breach traditional masculine standards of

behavior. It is a twenty items scale. The MGRS scale is comprised of five subscales that measure

men’s perceptions of physical inadequacy, comfort with emotional expression, subordination to

women, intellectual inferiority, and fear of performance failure.

Trust Scale (trust w/in close interpersonal relationships)

The trust scale within close interpersonal relationship was developed by Rempel and Holmes

(1986). Its 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A

17-item measure designed to gauge levels of trust in one’s relationship partner. The scale is

divided up into the following subscales: The items marked with a D are the Dependency items.

Items marked with an F are the Faith items, and Items marked with a P are the Predictability

items. One can score the questionnaire based on the three subscales separately or combine the

subscales to create an overall trust in close relationships score.

Results

Table: ANOVA
Upper Lower Upper  Low
Upper
  Middle Middle Lower er
(n=7)
(n=26) (n=84) (n=1) (n=2)
Variabl
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F p
es
Early 29.4 18. 50.9 17. 49.0 18. 27. 3.0 .02
26.0 -
Memo 2 46 6 49 1 73 0 -  5 0
Masculi 115. 14. 117. 32. 118. 31. 172 113. 3.5 .81
-  .52
ne 42 38 11 28 47 06 .0 50 3 0
10. 6.8 11.8 10. 4.50 14. 1.2
Trust 5.14 8.88 4.0 -  .28
99 7 4 89 00 84 7

The table shows that Upper Lower class has the highest mean Masculine gender stress
(t=119, =<p.05) it also demonstrated significance of Early Memories more than other
variables upon socioeconomic statuses t (119) = >p.05. early memories are highest in
upper middle class (t=50) =, p<.05 while masculine gender role is highest in upper class t
(115) = >p.05 and lastly, trust is highest in lower middle-class t (11) = >p.05.

Moderating role of Masculine Gender Role Stress

Outcome variable name

S. E Β ΔR2 ΔF
Constant 12.23 .53 .0002 .021

IV .2165 . 39
Moderator .1036 .11

IV*Mod .0018 -.14

Early Memories of Warmth was positive non-significant predictor for trust in

interpersonal relationships (β= .39, p = .69). Moreover, it explains that the early
memories are non-significant with masculine gender roles (β= -.14, p= .88). the table
further reveals that early memories of warmth is affecting the trust.
The moderating role of masculine gender role in trust and early memories.

The study shows that those people who had early memories show more trust. It shows
that in trust, early memories are playing a role of the moderator.

linear regression
95% CL
Variable SE β LL UL
(Constant) 7.95 2.92 12.97
EMW*TS .056 -.04 .15

R .10
R2 .01
F 1.28
Linear regression analysis was used to predict the impact of early memories of warmth on
interpersonal trust among people. Early memories is a non-significant predictor of trust in
positive direction with estimation of variance in predicting trust. Results are statistically
insignificant as per p value is more than .05.

Descriptive properties and reliability estimate of study variables

Variables k α M SD
1. Early Memories 21 .95 47.72 19.00
40 .91 118.3
2. Masculine 30.45
6
3. Trust 17 .74 10.62 10.25

Standard deviation, mean, k and Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the study variable is
shown in table 1. To check the overall distribution of the data across the study variables,
these descriptive statistics were calculated. The assumption of parametric testing is being
accomplished as the mean and standard deviation show that the data is normally
distributed. Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates of early memories, masculine and trust
range from .74 to .95.

Frequency
frequen
cy M SD
16-21 28 2.65 1.74
21-26 50
26-31 19
age 31-36 6
36-41 3
41-46 4
47 and
older 10
Heterosex
sex ual 104 1.21 0.62
 Bisexual 9
homosexu
al 4
gende
r Male 117 1.06 0.42
Transgend
er 1
other 2
married 31
single
marita (never
l married) 61 2 0.76
in a
relationshi
p 26
Divorced 1
Widowed 1

SES Upper 7 2.7 0.66

Upper
middle 26
Lower
middle 84
Upper
lower 1
lower 2
employed
(full time) 47 2.55 1.45
employed
Emp (part time) 16
unemploye
d 7
student 46
retired 2
other 2
incom
e below 50k 6 3.28 0.9
50k-1 lakh 19
1 lakh-2
lakhs 30
 above 2
lakhs 65
less than
high
school
diploma
(matric or
below) 3
Edu high 20 2.95 0.65
school
degree
(Fsc, FA)
Bachelor's
degree 77
Master's
degree 20

The frequency table shows continuous variables which is basically a numeric variable
that can have any values but within a given range. While looking at the table, we can tell
that age is a continuous variable as it is within a range as well as family income which
includes a range, and the values are given within the range.

Correlation matrix
Variable
s 1 2 3
EMWtot - -0.044 0.104
-
MGRtot 0.636 0.259
-
TRtot - 0.012
0.896
Note: *p< .05, **p< .01

The psychometric properties and correlation between early memories, masculine gender
role and trust have been shown in this table. Results show that early memories has
significantly negatively related to masculine (r=-.04, p<.01) and positively related to trust
(r=.10, p<.01). Masculine gender role has positively related to trust (r=.25, 0<.01)

Discussion

This research was an attempt to assess and explore the relationship between early

memories of warmth and safeness and trust within interpersonal relationships in men. This was

done through the lens of masculine gender stress role as the moderator. The primary focus was to

consider how toxic masculinity in a largely culturally patriarchal society relying heavily on strong

gender roles, can cause an attitude shift in the upbringing of males as compared to females, and

how high masculine gender role stress may be a result of lack of feelings of warmth and safeness

in their childhood, resulting in adjustment issues in their adulthood in various aspects, such as

trust within interpersonal relationships.

The findings are inconsistent with the first hypothesis as although men with early

memories of warmth and safeness were seen to show more trust, the moderating role was played

by early memories, and not the masculine gender stress role. The second hypothesis, stating that a

positive relationship exists between early memories of warmth and trust was found to be

unsupported through the running of linear aggression. The third hypothesis, as seen in the table of

anova, is supported. This opens a conversation on class and how it effects our childhood and

relationships so largely.
 A significant negative correlation was found between early memories of warmth and

masculine gender role stress, supporting the fourth hypothesis stating that more early memories

of warmth will lead to less masculine gender role stress.

There were several limitations to be addressed, such as convenient sampling, however,

the findings of the relationship of socioeconomic status with the variables brings forward a gap in

literature which addresses masculine gender role stress along with trust and early memories of

warmth and safeness through the looking glass of not only gender, but also class, which impacts

experiences just as much if not more as the social class disparity in Pakistan is vast.

Conclusion

Although the moderating hypothesis came back insignificant, other findings such as that

of the relationship of the variables with socioeconomic status are telling of the impact of

socioeconomic status on our behaviors and experiences. The moderating role of early

memories of warmth and safeness towards trust within interpersonal relationships

establishes the importance of feelings of warmth and safeness in children for developing

trust.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (2015). Patterns of

attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology Press.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal

relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Anderson, J. (1972). Attachment behaviour out of doors. Ethological studies of child behavior,

199-215.
Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for belonging–an analytical framework. Geography compass,

4(6), 644-659.

Aronfreed, J. (1968). Aversive control of socialization. Nebraska symposium on motivation,

Bachmann, R. (2001). Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations. Organization

studies, 22(2), 337-365.

Bandura, A. (1971). Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes. The nature of reinforcement,

228278.

Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-

inefficacy.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian journal of social

psychology, 2(1), 21-41.

Bandura, A., & Perloff, B. (1967). Relative efficacy of self-monitored and externally imposed

reinforcement systems. Journal of personality and social psychology, 7(2p1), 111.

Bandura, A., & Whalen, C. K. (1966). The influence of antecedent reinforcement and divergent

modeling cues on patterns of self-reward. Journal of personality and social psychology,

3(4), 373.

Barker, G., Ricardo, C., Nascimento, M., Olukoya, A., & Santos, C. (2010). Questioning gender

norms with men to improve health outcomes: evidence of impact. Global Public Health,

5(5), 539-553.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt:

Role in action control and interpersonal relationships. Basic and applied social

psychology, 17(1-2), 173-198.

Bem, S. L. (1982). Gender schema theory and self-schema theory compared: A comment on

Markus, Crane, Bernstein, and Siladi's' Self-schemas and gender.

Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of men

and masculinities. Sociology compass, 8(3), 246-258.

Burn, S. M., & Ward, A. Z. (2005). Men's Conformity to Traditional Masculinity and

Relationship Satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(4), 254.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Speicher, B., Hewer, A., Candee, D., Gibbs, J., & Power, C. (1987). The

measurement of moral judgement: Volume 2, Standard issue scoring manual (Vol. 2).

Cambridge university press.

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept.

Gender & society, 19(6), 829-859.

Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI). Trust in

organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 302(330), 39-52.

De Visser, R. O., Smith, J. A., & McDonnell, E. J. (2009). ‘That’s not masculine’ Masculine

Capital and Health-related Behaviour. Journal of health psychology, 14(7), 1047-1058.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the

self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

DeLamater, J. (1987). Gender Differences in Sexual. Females, males, and sexuality: Theories

and research, 127.

DeSteno, D., Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Rucker, D. D. (2000). Beyond valence in the

perception of likelihood: the role of emotion specificity. Journal of personality and

social psychology, 78(3), 397.

Deutsch, H. (1973). Confrontations with myself: An epilogue.

Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political

behavior, 30(3), 297-321.

Evans, J., Frank, B., Oliffe, J. L., & Gregory, D. (2011). Health, illness, men and masculinities

(HIMM): a theoretical framework for understanding men and their health. Journal of

Men's Health, 8(1), 7-15.

Fagot, B. I., Leinbach, M. D., & Hagan, R. (1986). Gender labeling and the adoption of sex-typed

behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 440.

Fanon, F. (1967). White Skin, Black Masks. Grove Press.

Gentsch, A., & Synofzik, M. (2014). Affective coding: the emotional dimension of agency.

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 608.

Gewirtz, J. L., & Stingle, K. G. (1968). Learning of generalized imitation as the basis for

identification. Psychological review, 75(5), 374.

Goldshmidt, O. T., & Weller, L. (2000). “Talking emotions”: Gender differences in a variety of

conversational contexts. Symbolic interaction, 23(2), 117-134.

Groes-Green, C. (2009). Hegemonic and subordinated masculinities: Class, violence and sexual

performance among young Mozambican men. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 18(4),

19-19.

Gudlaugsdottir, G. R., Vilhjalmsson, R., Kristjansdottir, G., Jacobsen, R., & Meyrowitsch, D.

(2004). Violent behaviour among adolescents in Iceland: a national survey. International

Journal of Epidemiology, 33(5), 1046-1051.

Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: a circumplex analysis.

Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(6), 989.

Halse, C. (2018). Theories and theorising of belonging. In Interrogating belonging for young

people in schools (pp. 1-28). Springer.

Hännikäinen, M. (2007). Creating togetherness and building a preschool community of learners:

The role of play and games. Several perspectives in children's play. Scientific reflections

for practitioners, 147-160.

Hearn, J. (2015). Transnational reflections on transnational research projects on men, boys and

gender relations. Norma, 10(2), 86-104.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley

Huston, A. C. (1985). The development of sex typing: Themes from recent research.

Developmental Review, 5(1), 1-17.

Johansson, E., & Puroila, A.-M. (2021). Research perspectives on the politics of belonging in

early years education. International Journal of Early Childhood, 53(1), 1-8.

Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P. (1972). Self-control: A behavioristic excursion into the lion's den.

Behavior therapy, 3(3), 398-416.

Kanfer, F. H., & Marston, A. R. (1963). Human reinforcement: Vicarious and direct. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 65(3), 292.

Kelly, G. (1955). Personal construct psychology. Nueva York: Norton.

Khajehpour, M., Ghazvini, S. D., Memari, E., & Rahmani, M. (2011). Retracted: Social cognitive

theory of gender development and differentiation. In: Elsevier.

Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Information seeking beyond initial interaction:

Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human Communication

Research, 28(2), 243-257.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). Moral education in the schools: A developmental view. The School Review,

74(1), 1-30.

Kretschmer, K., & Barber, K. (2016). Men at the march: Feminist movement boundaries and

men's participation in Take Back the Night and Slutwalk. Mobilization: An International

Quarterly, 21(3), 283-300.

Lähdesmäki, T., Saresma, T., Hiltunen, K., Jäntti, S., Sääskilahti, N., Vallius, A., & Ahvenjärvi,

K. (2016). Fluidity and flexibility of “belonging” Uses of the concept in contemporary

research. Acta Sociologica, 59(3), 233-247.

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 81(1), 146.

Levy, G. D., & Fivush, R. (1993). Scripts and gender: A new approach for examining gender-role

development. Developmental Review, 13(2), 126-146.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985.
Liu, D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Social networking online and personality of self-worth: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 64, 79-89.

Marcell, A. V., Ford, C. A., Pleck, J. H., & Sonenstein, F. L. (2007). Masculine beliefs, parental

communication, and male adolescents' health care use. Pediatrics, 119(4), e966-e975.

Markus, H., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., & Siladi, M. (1982). Self-schemas and gender. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 42(1).

Martin, C. L., & Halverson Jr, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and

stereotyping in children. Child development, 1119-1134.

Martin, C. L., Wood, C. H., & Little, J. K. (1990). The development of gender stereotype

components. Child development, 61(6), 1891-1904.

Martin, P. Y. (2006). Practising gender at work: Further thoughts on reflexivity. Gender, work &

organization, 13(3), 254-276.

Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. D Van Nostrand

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.

McAllister, D. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2006). Trust in developing relationships: from

theory to measurement. Academy of Management Proceedings,

Messerschmidt, J. W. (2017). Masculinities and femicide. Qualitative Sociology Review, 13(3),

70-79.

Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality. American psychologist, 24(11), 1012.

Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms

in delay of gratification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 21(2).

Mischel, W., & Liebert, R. M. (1966). Effects of discrepancies between observed and imposed

reward criteria on their acquisition and transmission. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 3(1), 45.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Cervone, D., & Downey, G. (2007). Toward a cognitive social learning

reconceptualization of personality. In Persons in context: Building a science of the

individual (pp. 278-326).

Moore, B. S., Underwood, B., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). Affect and altruism. Developmental

Psychology, 8(1), 99.

Nguyen, Y., & Noussair, C. N. (2014). Risk aversion and emotions. Pacific economic review,

19(3), 296-312.

O'Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen years of theory and research on men's

gender role conflict: New paradigms for empirical research. Parts of this chapter were

presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,

Los Angeles, CA, Aug 1994.,

Peers, C., & Fleer, M. (2014). The theory of ‘belonging’: Defining concepts used within

belonging, being and becoming—The Australian early years learning framework.

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(8), 914-928.

Pittman, T. S., & Zeigler, K. R. (2007). Basic human needs. In A. W. K. E. T. Higgins (Ed.),

Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 473-489). The Guilford Press.

Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update.

Randell, E., Jerdén, L., Öhman, A., Starrin, B., & Flacking, R. (2016). Tough, sensitive and

sincere: how adolescent boys manage masculinities and emotions. International Journal

of Adolescence and Youth, 21(4), 486-498.

Ratele, K. (2013). Masculinities without tradition. Politikon, 40(1), 133-156.

Scheff, T. J. (2003). Shame in self and society. Symbolic interaction, 26(2), 239-262.

Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological bulletin, 79(5), 294.

Signorella, M. L. (1987). Gender schemata: Individual differences and context effects. New

Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1987(38), 23-37.

Tischler, A., & McCaughtry, N. (2011). PE is not for me: when boys' masculinities are

threatened. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 82(1), 37-48.

Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere belonging: the power of

social connections. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(3), 513.

Wastell, S. J., & Degotardi, S. (2017). ‘I belong here; I been coming a big time’: An exploration

of belonging that includes the voice of children. Australasian Journal of Early

Childhood, 42(4), 38-46.

Weinraub, M., & Ansul, S. (1985). Children's Responses to Strangers: Effects of Family Status,

Stress, and Mother-Child Interaction.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & society, 1(2), 125-151.

Wojciszke, B., & Abele, A. E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals

in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1139-1147.

Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). The politics of belonging. The Politics of Belonging, 1-264.