responses to social constructions of gender (Willig, 2000). Quantitative Questionnaire A sample of English university students (503 women, 228 men) aged 18-25 was recruited in 2010 via invitations in lectures and via email for a study of The denominator - “lifestyles”. eligible students exposed to messages - was not known, so the response rate is unknown. The sample size provided 96% power to effects in between- and within-sex detect “moderate” analyses at p < .05 (Cohen, 1988). The sample reflected the local student population: mean with English as the main language age 19.8 years (s.d. = 1.8); 86.0% “white” ethnicity; 84.0% at home; 43% with both parents university educated. The questionnaire was hosted on a secure server. The homepage described the study and informed consent procedures. Data were stored in password-protected files accessible only by the researchers. Upon completion of the questionnaire, participants were able to enter a draw for one of four £25 prizes and indicated their willingness to complete a follow-up interview. The methods were approved by the appropriate university ethics committee. Participants completed a 10-item Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES: Beere et al., 1984; Cronbach  = .82), which measured their support for stereotypes of male and female social roles. This scale allowed examination of the associations between endorsement of gender-role stereotypes in general and beliefs about the masculine capital value of various health-related behaviors. Participants used 5-point and scales (anchors: “strongly disagree” “strongly agree”) to respond to statements such as is wrong for men to enter a traditionally female “It career.” Higher mean scores indicated more traditional gender role attitudes. Importance of Gender was assessed via novel items. Respondents used 5-point likert scales (anchors: at and to respond to two questions: important to you is “not all” “extremely”) “How it to be [masculine / to these questions were significantly negatively feminine]?” Responses correlated (r = -.40, p < .01). The analyses used ratings of the importance of men’s masculinity and ratings of the importance of femininity to determine how personal women’s
responses to social constructions of gender (Willig, 2000). Quantitative Questionnaire A sample of English university students (503 women, 228 men) aged 18-25 was recruited in 2010 via invitations in lectures and via email for a study of “lifestyles”. The denominator - eligible students exposed to messages - was not known, so the response rate is unknown. The sample size provided 96% power to detect “moderate” effects in between- and within-sex analyses at p < .05 (Cohen, 1988). The sample reflected the local student population: mean age 19.8 years (s.d. = 1.8); 86.0% “white” ethnicity; 84.0% with English as the main language at home; 43% with both parents university educated. The questionnaire was hosted on a secure server. The homepage described the study and informed consent procedures. Data were stored in password-protected files accessible only by the researchers. Upon completion of the questionnaire, participants were able to enter a draw for one of four £25 prizes and indicated their willingness to complete a follow-up interview. The methods were approved by the appropriate university ethics committee. Participants completed a 10-item Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES: Beere et al., 1984; Cronbach  = .82), which measured their support for stereotypes of male and female social roles. This scale allowed examination of the associations between endorsement of gender-role stereotypes in general and beliefs about the masculine capital value of various health-related behaviors. Participants used 5-point scales (anchors: “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree”) to respond to statements such as “It is wrong for men to enter a traditionally female career.” Higher mean scores indicated more traditional gender role attitudes. Importance of Gender was assessed via novel items. Respondents used 5-point likert scales (anchors: “not at all” and “extremely”) to respond to two questions: “How important to you is it to be [masculine / feminine]?” Responses to these questions were significantly negatively correlated (r = -.40, p < .01). The analyses used men’s ratings of the importance of masculinity and women’s ratings of the importance of femininity to determine how personal