focuses primarily on non-changeable demographics and lacks guidance from a conceptual framework. Guided by theory and existing empirical work, the goal of this study was to test a conceptual framework of adolescent male’s MI that examines whether potentially modifiable socialization factors and attitudes are related to MI above and beyond demographics. Methods: Data were drawn from the representative & household-based National Survey of Adolescent Males, 1988. The response rate was 74%; final sample was 1,880 males ages 15-19. In addition to questions on reproductive health behaviors, participants were queried about their socialization (family composition & experiences, education, peer/parent influences, & receipt of sex education); attitudes (self esteem & values); and demographics (socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, birth place/community of residence, & age). MI was measured with a well-established Male Role Attitudes Score; 6-item score with a 4-point Likert scale (4 strongly agree). Example items include “It is essential for a guy to get respect from others;” “A guy will lose respect if he talks about his problems.” Results: Adolescent male’s MI was normally distributed with the average score close to neutral (mean 2.48, SD 0.50). Together, demographics, socialization and attitudes were significantly related to adolescent male’s MI score, explaining 15% of the variance (p .001). Controlling for demographics, the socialization factor that was significantly associated with a higher MI score included males whose school performance was somewhat or well below average. Attitudes significantly associated with a higher MI score included males with lower self-esteem scores and who have more negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Demographics significantly associated with higher MI scores included males whose mothers have lower educational levels, whose families are on welfare, who are Black vs. Hispanic or White, respectively, who live in the south (as compared to other US regions), and are younger in age. Demographics explain 6%, socialization factors explain an additional 2%, and attitudes explain a further increment of 6% of the variance in adolescent male MI beliefs, respectively (all ps .001). Conclusions: Our findings are three-fold: 1) We have evidence that our conceptual framework may be useful to the future study of MI; 2) Demographics are still meaningful in explaining MI and are consistent with previous findings; and 3) Socialization and potentially modifiable attitudes are related to adolescent male’s MI score above and beyond demographics. A better understanding of the sources of MI can offer points of intervention for adolescent males’ health and well being. Future studies should test how MI beliefs change over time and may benefit from using such a conceptual framework. Support: NIH 1 K23 HD47457-01 (AVM); CDC 1 U48 D40-01 (FLS); USDA CSREES ILLU-45-0366 (JHP). 5.