Levant, R. F. (1997). The masculinity crisis.

Journal of and construct validity of the Male Role Norms Inventory—
Men’s Studies, 5, 221–231. Revised (MRNI–R). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11,
25–37. doi:10.1037/a0017637
Levant, R. F. (1998). Desperately seeking language: Under-
standing, assessing, and treating normative male alexithy- Levant, R. F., & Richmond., K. (2007). A review of re-
mia. In W. S. Pollack & R. F. Levant (Eds.), New psycho- search on masculinity ideologies using the Male Role
therapy for men (pp. 35–56). New York, NY: Wiley. Norms Inventory. Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 130 –146.
doi:10.3149/jms.1502.130
Levant, R. F. (2006). Effective psychotherapy with men [DVD
and viewer’s guide]. San Francisco, CA: Psychotherapy.net. Levant, R. F., Richmond, K., Sellers, A., Majors, R. G.,
Inclan, J. E., Rossello, J. M., Heesacker, M., & Rowan,
Levant, R. F., Cuthbert, A. C., Richmond, K., Sellers, A., G. T. (2003). A multicultural investigation of masculinity
Matveev, A., Matina, O., & Soklovsky, M. (2003). Mascu- ideology and alexithymia. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
linity ideology among Russian and U.S. young men and ity, 4, 91–99. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.2.91
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

women and its relationship to unhealthy lifestyle habits
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

among young Russian men. Psychology of Men & Mascu- Levant, R. F., & Wimer, D. J. (2010). The new fathering
linity, 4, 26 –36. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.26 movement. In C. Z. Oren & D. C. Oren (Eds.), Counseling
fathers (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Routledge.
Levant, R. F., Good, G. E., Cook, S. W., O’Neil, J. M.,
Smalley, K. B., Owen, K., & Richmond, K. (2006). The
Levant, R. F., Wimer, D. J., & Williams, C. M. (2011). An
Normative Male Alexithymia Scale: Measurement of a
evaluation of the Health Behavior Inventory-20 (HBI-20)
gender-linked syndrome. Psychology of Men & Masculin-
and its relationships to masculinity and attitudes towards
ity, 7, 212–224. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.7.4.212
seeking psychological help among college men. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 12, 26 – 41. doi:10.1037/a0021014
Levant, R. F., Graef, S. T., Smalley, K. B., Williams, C.,
& McMillan, N. (2008). Evaluation of the psychometric Levant, R. F., Wu, R., & Fischer, J. (1996). Masculinity ideol-
properties of the Male Role Norms Inventory—Adolescent ogy: A comparison between U.S. and Chinese young men and
(MRNI–A). Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, 2, 46 – women. Journal of Gender, Culture, and Health, 1, 217–220.
59. doi:10.3149/thy.0201.46

Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., Williams, C., & Hasan, N. T.
(2009). Gender differences in alexithymia: A meta-analysis. Research in the Psychology of Men and
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 190 –203. doi:
10.1037/a0015652
Masculinity Using the Gender Role Strain
Paradigm as a Framework
Levant, R. F., Halter, M. J., Hayden, E., & Williams, C. Ronald F. Levant
(2009). The efficacy of alexithymia reduction treatment: A The University of Akron
pilot study, Journal of Men’s Studies, 17, 75– 84. doi:
10.3149/jms.1701.75

Levant, R. F., & Kopecky, G. (1995). Masculinity, recon-
structed. New York, NY: Dutton. This article introduces the specialty area of the psychology
of men and masculinity to the broader community of
Levant, R. F., Majors, R. G., & Kelley, M. L. (1998). Mas- American psychologists, focusing on research conducted
culinity ideology among young African American and Eu- using the gender role strain paradigm. The review covers
ropean American women and men in different regions of the rationale for and aims of the psychology of men and
the United States. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4, masculinity and the gender role strain paradigm. It
227–236. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.4.3.227 provides an extensive discussion of masculinity
ideologies—the core construct in the strain paradigm—
Levant, R. F., & Pollack, W. S. (Eds.). (1995). A new psy- including the definition of masculinity ideology and
chology of men. New York, NY: Basic Books. considerations of masculinity ideology versus masculinity
ideologies, traditional masculinity ideology, the
Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Williams, C., Hasan, N. T., & measurement of masculinity ideologies, the Male Role
Smalley, K. B. (2010). Evaluation of the factor structure Norms Inventory—Revised, women’s and adolescent’s

November 2011 ● American Psychologist 765

normative male abusers. (discrepancy. In so doing. 1995). and the fact that 1960s. Unger. and to view cer. substance strain paradigm. children. to examine masculinity not as the equally in housework. gender role tranged from their children. male or female and gender denoting the psychological and the cover of a recent issue of Newsweek (September 27. masculine norms to such an extent that a masculinity crisis veloped a new framework for a psychological approach to began in the mid-1990s and continues today in which men and masculinity. point. A new Before I begin with a discussion of selected research in the psychology of men might contribute to the understanding psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role and solution of some of these problems. Pleck. demanding. women. share began. detachment from relationships. As a result. we have long been experiencing a boys and men have historically been the focal point of crisis of connection between heterosexual men and women most psychological research. and universal standard for human behavior but rather as a com. Indeed. in Washington. sociated with being a man in traditional terms is lower ferring to the biological attributes that result from being than at any time in the recent past (Levant. aggression. it is important to impacted women. In the same spirit. victims of homicide. dysfunction. and society in negative address the question sometimes asked by those not familiar ways. sociocultural attributes that are associated with a biological 2010) called men out on this. 1979). Finally. world. the pressures on heterosexual men to in the past 50 years have created a new psychology of behave in ways that conflict with various aspects of tradi- women. but these were studies that (Levant. This allowed these Traditional Male Is an Endangered Species. perpetrators of violence. 766 November 2011 ● American Psychologist . but most violence is committed by men ing positive new visions for how to be a man in today’s (Kilmartin. and fatal automobile accidents. 1995). Articles based on award sexual minorities. due to interminable delays in dealing with This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.and Rationale for a Psychology of Men and Masculinity stress-related illnesses (Brooks & Silverstein. high divorce rates. APA’s annual convention. and anthropology (Gilmore. “MAN UP! The sex. This new framework distinguished many men feel bewildered and confused and the pride as- sex from gender (Sherif. essential. and universal expres- to get angry. integrate sexuality with love. with sex re. the homeless. These psychology ( O’Neil. 2011. held August tion of women. which have long strain paradigm (GRSP) as a framework. disdain of 4 –7. 1981a. who that regarded the norms of masculinity as the standards for are saddled with the brunt of child care and housework the behavior of both males and females. men’s studies scholars from tional masculine norms have never been greater. and 2010). This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. and gravitate to antifemi- sion of biological maleness (which is still the dominant view in public discourse today) and to view masculinity as a social role shaped by stereotypes and norms and even as a social performance that could be enacted by inhabitants Editor’s Note of male or female bodies. A version of this award address tain problems prevalent among men (such as the devalua. Professional Contributions to Applied Research. and trauma) and the normative This new psychology of men is long overdue and ur- male alexithymia hypothesis. 1981b. it considers future gently needed. 30 years ago. such as masculinity and femininity. Beginning in the (Hochschild. making the case for a gender-specific approach. Award such as the emphasis on dominance. war. curb aggression and violence— have shaken the traditional plex and even problematic construct. extreme winners are invited to deliver an award address at the self-reliance. nurture children. was delivered at the 119th annual meeting. masculinity ideologies. 1989). but they differ from unsolicited as unfortunate but predictable results of male gender role articles in that they are expressions of the winners’ reflec- socialization processes informed by traditional masculinity tions on their work and their views of the field. visions that could support the optimal development It then takes up the 3 types of masculine gender role strain of men. sociol. DC. sex addicts and alexithymia sex offenders. and restrictive emotionality. the response of some men is masculinity as an inherent. Men have long been disproportionately rep- research directions. 1981). with this field: Why do we need a psychology of men? Moreover.” Sadly. and violence1) addresses are reviewed. communi- ogy (Connell. women initiate two thirds of divorces (Levant & Wimer. It’s Time to scholars to break with the then-dominant academic view of Rethink Masculinity. and fatal victims of lifestyle. masculinity ideologies. 2010). This in turn allowed these early Ronald F. demonize women. They have also provided a framework for creat. resented among many problem populations—parents es- Keywords: psychology of men and masculinity. 1990) cate one’s innermost feelings. Levant received the Award for Distinguished pioneers to interrogate the traditional norms of masculinity. 1979. 1 Not all men are violent. 1997). and children. suicide. ideologies. Isn’t all psychology the psychology of men? It is true that many of these problems. neglect of health needs. feminist scholars challenged this male-centric view. and conformity to masculine norms. prisoners. characterized by the continuation of the viewed males as representative of humanity as a whole and second shift that burdens employed married women. 1996a). men. they de. pressures—pressures to commit to relationships.

1994b). them. violation of gender roles leads people to overconform to These concepts are socially constructed from biological. 1993) in explaining of his family by rolling back the gains of the women’s certain sex differences in human behavior. that actual or imagined ences of sex that make for masculinity and femininity. sophical roots as the essentialist view of sex roles—the der role strain and the normative male alexithymia (NMA) notion that (in the case of men) there is a clear masculine hypothesis (which posits that men reared to conform to essence that is historically invariant (Bohan. that the pro- vantages and. der roles are contradictory and inconsistent. Pleck traditional masculine norms will have difficulty putting provided a convincing demonstration that not only did the their emotions into words). 1996b. Finally. The GRSP views gender roles not as biolog. of social con. portion of persons who violate gender roles is high. adjustment” (Pleck. it is arbitrarily reinterpreted to indicate poor (Pleck. 1981. 1997). and that historical change a wide range of performance and personality variables. can change. wom. 1999) had greater power than evo- man to what they consider his rightful place as the leader lutionary psychology (Buss & Schmitt. has received support from Eagly and Specifically. and peers socialize children and thus how Furthermore. through social interactions resulting in rein- November 2011 ● American Psychologist 767 . she proposed the gen. causes gender role strain (Pleck. & Ku. tive psychological consequences. most importantly. which emphasizes the role children think. ing gender norms. the gender role identity was thought to result in homosexuality. originally formulated by Joseph Pleck (1981) study by Mussen (1961). and failure for men to achieve a masculine ideology. ically determined but rather as psychologically and socially In contrast. functional. and/or defensive hyper- en’s and adolescent’s masculinity ideologies. development hinged on its formation. the development of This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 86). narily indicating good adjustment occurs in non-mascu- structionism emerged as a new perspective on masculinity line males. that certain prescribed This perspective. This paradigm sprang from the same philo- mity to masculine norms. and behave in regard to gender-salient of social structural variables in establishing and maintain. psychological need to form a gender role identity that The purpose of this article is to introduce this specialty matches their biological sex and that optimal personality area to the broader community of American psychologists. From such a perspective. movement. traditional masculinity prone process. A new psychology of men might help men find Pleck (1981) offered the GRSP as an alternative to the solutions to the masculinity crisis and the crisis of connec. which found that social structural www. The GRIP assumed that people have a powerful ity (Levant & Kopecky. For example. how completely a person adopted his or her traditional This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. masculinity ideology and considerations of masculinity ide. 1980).org/en/) and the Promise Keepers (http:// ences in human behavior.promisekeepers. one of the most important in The Myth of Masculinity as the sex role strain paradigm. I then discuss the types of gen. the measurement of masculinity ideologies. 1995).org/). with regard to the The GRSP. I discuss some future GRIP poorly account for the observed data in many land- research directions. matters (Levant. which propose to return the theory (Eagly & Wood. roles thought to be appropriate for either males or females tween-gender variability. and social experience. I next this allegedly inherent need was met was determined by introduce the GRSP and then discuss in depth its core con. nist organizations. 1995). The dominant gender ideologies influence how ences hypothesis. parents. Hence. (which are operationally defined by gender role stereotypes der similarities hypothesis to replace the gender differ. quences for males than for females. Sonenstein. the GRSP proposed that contemporary gen- constructed entities that bring certain advantages and disad. appropriate gender role identity was viewed as a failure- ology versus masculinity ideologies. 1981. Pleck noted that “if a measure ordi- structionism. ing and adjustment. that each sex experiences gender role strain in Hyde reviewed 46 meta-analyses on gender differences on its paid work and family roles. finding that 48% were small and 30% were trivial and that In the GRSP. struct—masculinity ideologies—including the definition of gender role. teachers. that tive acknowledges the biological differences between men violation of gender roles leads to condemnation and nega- and women but argues that it is not the biological differ. and confor. such as the National Coalition for Men Wood’s (1999) investigation of the origin of sex differ- (http://ncfm. negative attitudes toward women. older gender role identity paradigm (GRIP). feel. in the psychology of men. 1995). masculinity. views the genders as more similar than different. p. this perspective. which had tion that enhance rather than inflame gender relations and dominated research on masculinity for 50 years (1930 – provide them with tools for the reconstruction of masculin. mark studies on personality development but also that such landmark studies often arbitrarily reinterpreted the The Gender Role Strain Paradigm meaning of the data. The extent to which focusing on research conducted using the GRSP. gender ideologies are beliefs about the within-gender variability is typically greater than be. This perspec. Male Role Norms Inventory—Revised (MRNI–R). that violating gender roles has more severe conse- psychological. also informed by the work of Hyde gender role traits (such as male aggression) are often dys- (2005). having been formulated before social con. Pleck. studies in the GRIP on the relationship between sex typ- is the forerunner. and norms).

. suggest that cultural variables may out- thought to be the result of social cognition and social influ. 131). Gilmore (1990) suggested that 1996. culinity nor is there an unvarying masculinity ideology. and the scales of the PAQ have been procreation (father). manhood may differ for men of different social classes. 130). & Newman. et al. p. although we do so. . in their update of the hege- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. since masculinity is a social construction. As noted 201). Wu. der norms for men. 2003. and disability status (Le- that gender role identity and gender ideology are indepen. 2007. Therefore. White. 1981). On the basis of his classic ethnographic study of mascu. 2–3) Hence. 2003. noted that hegemonic mascu- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. World that privilege men. Spence & Helmreich. ethnic groups. vant. Following Brod (1987). as Smiler Bem. 1990. sexual orientations. (pp. and subject to change. weigh nature in the masculinity puzzle” (Gilmore. & Kelley. masculinity ideology take a normative approach. sumes that masculinity is rooted in actual differences be. 2 Although the BSRI and the PAQ were initially intended to assess the sociated with the male role throughout most (but not all) of personality traits differentially associated with men and women. Thompson and nicity. mascu. a common set of standards and expectations is as. male-dominated power structures many societies but—and this is important—by no means in have been reduced to varying degrees in different subcul- all [emphasis added]. overall endorsement and in the weighting of the norms tive approach “is one who endorses the ideology that men have been found according to differences in such dimen- should have sex-specific characteristics (and women should sions of diversity as age. p. Mascu. race. Thompson & Pleck. studies of ment and in the weighting of the norms of masculinity. et al. and constrain boys to perform the behaviors embedded in those roles. 1990. and observational learning. & Sellers.. there is something almost generic. p. Fuqua. 1978). 1998. Richmond. Masculinity ideology is a radically different construct from Masculinity Ideologies the older notion of masculine gender role identity. Le- dent constructs and have different correlates. 2008). something repetitive. linity not only undergirds men’s collective dominance over Thompson and Pleck (1995) proposed the term masculinity women but also marginalizes men of color and lower-class ideology to characterize the core construct in the body of men and subjugates sexual minority men. This approach has attempted to assess the personality races. Christian men. The GRSP asserts that there is no single standard for mas- line gender role identity arises out of the GRIP and “pre. group. subse- the world. differences in sonality traits. p. boys to develop the set of characteristics that are necessary linity ideologies inform. nationality. and . 1997. These similarities derive from the fact that men quent research raised serious questions about the appropriateness of using perform the same social roles across almost all cultures— the BSRI as a measure of self-perceived gender-linked personality traits (Choi. despite the near universality of identity/trait approach is one who possesses particular per. ence processes. research assessing attitudes toward men and male roles. Some variations may reflect mere the criteria of man-playing. symbolizations. that underlying the surface varia. 1986. using historical eras. 768 November 2011 ● American Psychologist . cepts. sex. The ex- (and men) to conform to the prevailing male role norms by ceptions that Gilmore found were the Tahitians and the adopting certain socially sanctioned masculine behaviors Semai. Levant & Richmond. vant. eth- not)” (Thompson & Pleck. linity ideology. this paradigm springs from the same philosophical This dominant masculinity ideology. Rather. Connell Masculinity Ideologies and Messerschmidt (2005). which defines the roots as social constructionism—the perspective that no. . virtually all societies must socialize (Helmreich. 1996b). Masculinity Ideology monic masculinity concept. 1995. 1995. gender roles and gendered behavior are thus velopment. Spence. is postulated to up- tions of masculinity and femininity are relational. sexual orientation. able-bodied. the traditional male in the ideology/norma. & Wilhelm. punishment. encourage.2 In contrast. of masculinity ideologies. Levant & Majors. about Levant. generation within a family. 1974) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (2004) noted. life stages. social class. social norms for the male gender role.. and protection recast as Masculinity/Instrumentality and Femininity/Expressiveness (soldier). forcement. Pleck et al. ideals of tween men and women” (Thompson & Pleck. heterosexual. and exhortations of masculinity in In the United States. tions in emphasis or form are certain convergences in con. Whereas the masculine male in the In support of this view. we therefore speak such instruments as the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI. tions about the universal need for masculinity in male de- In the GRSP. Cuthbert. geographic region of Pleck summarized the evidence supporting the proposition residence. differences in “emphasis or form” (Gilmore. Levant. provision (worker). and traits more often associated with men than women. above. whereas others may reflect substantive matters. the dominant form of masculinity ideology. Wu. 2001). by looking for differences in overall endorse- (PAQ. Levant. in which rather than a completely different set of norms for each masculinity is viewed as a socially constructed set of gen. 1994b. 3). “virtually androgynous cultures [that] raise ques- and avoiding certain proscribed behaviors (Levant. most particularly upper-class. instructed by gender ideologies. & Fischer. socially hold existing gender-based power structures in the Western constructed. Majors.

the two most commonly tions when lost. ality. Williams. hence. and that men should seek adven. 2006). Second. we decided to drop this linity ideology (Status. the original MRNI was created in the late ture and risk. in par- ticular the Self-Reliance and Achievement/Status norms. and Restrictive Emotionality. subscale entirely and focus the MRNI–R exclusively on whereas many men’s studies scholars and scale developers traditional masculinity ideology. The MRNI is a 57-item scale with eight theoreti- cisions in the home and having employment outside of the cally derived subscales: Avoidance of Femininity. for the Achievement/Status subscale. all of which measure Walker.. we reconceptualized the new Self-Reliance to measure masculinity ideologies (see Thompson & Pleck. expectations that individually and jointly have various 2007). suggested norms that might have been in. Seven subscales assess individuals’ endorsement of culinity Scale. (1992) found redundancy and conceptual higher levels of endorsement of traditional masculinity ide- overlap between particular subscales of the Brannon Mas. 1984). Fear and home in the African American community may be the by. male role norms are not adequately conceptualized. p. Multicultural and other investigations using the masculinity (Majors & Billson. such as the “cool traditional norms. ported by factor analysis and for which there was evidence Traditional masculinity ideology is thought to be a mul. view traditional masculinity as having more than three The MRNI–R is a 53-item measure with items rated on norms (Thompson & Pleck. kinds of negative concomitants. We also distilled what seemed to be the used measures of masculinity ideologies are the Male Role traditionally masculine aspects of achieving high status— Norms Scale (MRNS. that The MRNI was revised as the MRNI–R to address these men should strive to be respected for successful achieve. 2010). Pleck (1995. & Smalley. in the refusal of some men to ask for direc- study (Whorley & Addis. ment (“the big wheel”). Given these limitations of both the MRNS and the ditional masculinity ideology since it was the dominant MRNI. as reflected. First. of reliability and validity. lan- ’em hell”). Nonrelational Attitudes Toward Sexu- economic necessity (Lazur & Majors. tures by the influence of feminism. including fear and hatred of homosexuals and variations appear to be based upon historical adaptations. These dimensions are assessed by the Brannon guage revisions eliminated outdated terminology and ques- Masculinity Scale. 1986) and the namely. 1992) and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. may be Masculinity. there was a need for a better instrument to assess view prior to the deconstruction of gender that took place masculinity ideologies in which multiple norms were sup- beginning in the late 1960s. been supported by factor analysis (Levant et al. MRNI. Hence. Watkins. the first instrument developed for the tions. concerns ( Levant. temporary United States. and Antifeminity). 2007). different dimensions of traditional masculinity ideology. resulting in new vari. even accepting violence if necessary (“give 1980s. my colleagues and I have found over many assessment of traditional masculinity ideology (Brannon & years of usage that the original definitions of some of the Juni. because the The MRNS is a 26-item scale developed through factor Non-Traditional Attitudes subscale often had low internal analysis of the Short Form of the Brannon Masculinity reliability and because it was composed of negatively Scale (Brannon & Juni. forced separation of families) and Achievement/Status. that men should never show weak. tidimensional construct. This revision entailed several ness (“the sturdy oak”). tasks.. According to a recent for example. and some of the language was dated. Aggression. ology. Levant et al. November 2011 ● American Psychologist 769 . Rankin. 20) pointed out the reliability of some of the MRNI subscales has been less that “there is a particular constellation of standards and than adequate in various studies (Levant & Richmond. Measuring Masculinity Ideologies which tapped socially desirable behavior for both men and Psychologists subsequently developed a number of scales women. cluded to more fully measure traditional masculinity ideol- ants of masculinity ideology. some cultural ogy. 1984). which measures violations of traditional male a form of resistance to their marginalization by hegemonic norms. 1986). MRNI over a 15-year period (1992–2007) were summa- rized by Levant and Richmond (2007).” This is referred to as tra. nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality. norm as a more extreme form of self-reliance. with higher scores indicating Levant et al. 2006). David and Brannon (1976) identi- fied four components of traditional masculinity ideology: The Male Role Norms Inventory—Revised that men should not be feminine (“no sissy stuff”). & Griffith. Toughness. 7-point Likert-type scales. Hasan. Hatred of Homosexuals. dominance—and substituted a Dominance subscale Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI. and Non-Traditional Attitudes Toward pose” of young inner-city African American men. for a review of 11 scales). Third. Levant et al. 1995. Self-Reliance. Thompson & Pleck. The chief limitation of the worded items that recent research suggests tap method ef- MRNS is that it assesses only three dimensions of mascu. fects (DiStefano & Motl. 1995. 2010. Still others. 1992). product of slavery (e. In addition.. Despite the diversity in masculinity ideology in the con. 1992). The chief limita- Traditional Masculinity Ideology tions of the MRNI are that the subscale structure has not This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. and developed the For example.g. the acceptability of women making more de..

Rankin. women tend to reject tradi. The reading and comprehension levels of and Russia). as MRNI–A has five subscales: Restrictive Emotionality. its low reliability (the coefficient alpha the pattern of scores. in studies of U. Smalley. this has been done by comparing men’s ing such scales might create an insurmountable obstacle to and women’s scores on the MRNI. port for the hypothesized dimensionality of the scale and. [sex and gender]. only a few attempts have been made to measure inant validity for boys. which covers only a subset of by failing to distinguish .. Achievement/Status. for example. Inter- Women’s Masculinity Ideologies estingly. including Avoidance of Femininity. et al. Graef. item placement.” Accordingly. 2007). As Whorley and Ad. These differences cent-specific contexts. lescent boys ages 15–19 in population-based epidemiologi- Nonrelational Sexuality. small number of items that cover only a small set of the scales and significant sex and racial/ethnic differences in male role norms.S. for internal consistency of the MRNI–R total score and the a scale that assesses attitudes and beliefs about appropriate seven factor scores. and Restrictive Emotionality. . items were tional masculinity ideology to a much greater extent than adapted and new items were created to represent adoles- do men (Levant & Richmond. “It is ok for a boy to may reflect the influence of feminism on U. a 41-item inven- 770 November 2011 ● American Psychologist . the MRNI–A was revised in the the masculinity ideologies of adolescents. In some societies (e. First. hopes of improving its reliability and validity. Evidence was also found cent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale (AMIRS). and Tolman (2005) developed the Adoles- to a lesser extent. but were changed in two major ways. China Brown. 2007). the scale developers decided to not include the Fear and Given these gender differences. the fact it has not been developed to be administered to The second study (Levant. men in terms of differences in overall endorsement and in and Self-Reliance. Adolescents’ Masculinity Ideologies Given the limitations in subscale reliability and discrim- To date. Chu. in the lives of both men and women. and Ku (1994a) adapted the MRNS to create the was the MRNI–A—Revised (MRNI–A–r). contention between the genders (Levant. men and women have been found to be quite the MRNI were adapted to create an instrument develop- similar in their views of masculine norms (Levant & Rich. and in studies using the original MRNI (Levant et al. 1996a. Although. Limitations of this instrument include the initial study found evidence for the reliability of the sub. Evidence for convergent using a mixed-methods approach. noted above. and the weighting of the norms of masculinity. masculinity. divergent validity. future research McMillan (2008) found that the MRNI–A showed good on women’s masculinity ideologies might consider investi. thoroughly male role norms. Limitations of this instrument include in men we can easily fall prey to an implicit essentialism its focus on relationships.S.’” Sec- gest that traditional masculinity ideology may be a point of ond. Sonen. overall internal consistency for the scale as a whole in both gating their dimensionality separately from that of men and samples but that the reliability of the subscales ranged perhaps even developing a unique instrument for women from just barely adequate to poor. and women may have different views regarding appropriate the Male Role Norms Inventory—Adolescent (MRNI–A. which suggests the problematic consequences that hold specific masculinity ideologies. women (and ask for help fixing a flat tire on his bike. Pleck. 1997). men An adolescent version of the MRNI has been developed. Dominance. the AMIRS was negatively associated with self- It is important to consider that both men and women may esteem. may be associated with boys’ endorsement of traditional dis (2003. younger teens or teenage girls.” and “Boys the lack thereof on Chinese and Russian women) and sug. “when we study masculinity only masculinity ideology. De- evidence for convergent validity. Aggression. mentally appropriate for use with younger populations. Porche. which was originally collecting data from young adolescents. and the fact that it has not been designed studying masculinity means understanding how it operates to be administered to teenage girls. The cal surveys.. mond. 1994a). However. norms for male behavior. 656) noted. particularly in their peer relationships. 2002). girls. should not be afraid to go inside a ‘haunted house.g. we have thought of multiple masculinities for Avoidance of Femininity. Hence. the 43-item developed based on a mixed-gender sample. Levant. it is important to study Hatred of Homosexuals and Nonrelational Attitudes To- masculinity ideology in both men and women (and boys ward Sexuality subscales because they believed that includ- and girls). To date. p. Negativity Toward 8-item Male Role Attitude Scale to be used with older ado- Sexual Minorities. and signed specifically for use with adolescent boys (ages 12– concurrent validity. confirmatory factor analysis.. participants of Items for the adolescent version were based on the MRNI various races and ethnicities. starting with focus validity for the MRNI–A was found for both boys and groups and individual interviews to generate items. Data are currently being collected for a 18). 2010) found sup. tives about their perceptions and experiences of This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 2007). . and evidence for discriminant validity was found for girls but not for boys. Aggression.. Analyses of the males’ scores provided behavior for males within interpersonal relationships. The result stein. Williams.56 as reported by Pleck et al. the AMIRS was derived from adolescent boys’ narra- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. while certainly relevant to the adolescent population. Self-Reliance. similar to those that have been found for the scale is .

GRSP (O’Neil. the development of which was stimulated by the and men’s roles. tionate behavior between men. power. believing that they should conform retical relevance to GRC because this subtype implies neg- to certain socially sanctioned masculine behaviors and to ative outcomes from endorsing restrictive gender role avoid certain proscribed behaviors. et al. including those close to them. in an update of the GRSP. 358) concluded that “GRC is significantly related to men’s psychological and Discrepancy Strain interpersonal problems. and Antifeminity). attitudes toward racial diversity and women’s equality.” Discrepancy strain results when one fails to live up to Trauma Strain one’s internalized manhood ideal. Although the endorsement of traditional ual aggression. 366). professional athletes (Mess- recently. masculinity ideology as measured by the MRNI has been found to be associated with a range of problematic individ- Conformity to Masculine Norms ual and relational variables. and trauma strain. 1986). veterans (Brooks. tory with the same five subscales as the MRNI–A. one Femininity—which resembles that of the MRNS (Status. For the sample as a whole. dominant masculinity norms. and (c) conflict between search on three varieties of male gender role strain. (c) restrictive affec- his original formulation of the paradigm stimulated re. but not be able to con. fear of intimacy. lower forgiveness of racial discrimination. which may closely ap- proximate traditional norms. . as noted in an extensive review of the literature ranging from . experience trauma strain. Liu. . tudes conducive to sexual harassment. masculinity ideology (measured with the MRNI–R) and the alexithymia. using the Masculine Gender Role Stress role strain by virtue of growing up in a heterosexist society Scale. self-reports of sex- culinity ideology. 2003) is a widely used instrument that is ship satisfaction. pointed out that petition. After an extensive review of discrepancy strain. 1992) ments of the masculine norms because many of the specifically proposed that mild to moderate alexithymia November 2011 ● American Psychologist 771 . Thus. mixed results were found on the relationship be- are related constructs. involving traditional masculinity ideology and the other Toughness. Rochlen. more negative beliefs about the father’s designed to measure conformity (or nonconformity) to the role. atti- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. . and (c) Avoidance of the GRSP comes from two lines of investigation. I (Levant. would experience particular situations that are discrepant Beyond the recognition that certain classes of men may with male role norms as stressful. Helms. a man could related to all three types of gender role strain but com- endorse the norm of restrictive emotionality as the expecta. 1995). characteristics viewed as desirable in men can have neg- Rogers. and reluctance to seek psychological help. Finally.71 to . Some support was found for con.. The centerpiece of the GRC research pro- form to these expectations himself. ative side effects on the men themselves and on others. tween endorsement and social support among gay men. lower relation- Mahalik et al. 1992). Levant. 2008). including reluctance to discuss The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI. Support for this tenet of tached Dominance. and com- Pleck (1995). 2010). scribed as a measure of the endorsement of traditional mas. (Levant & Richmond. Liu. 1995. (b) restrictive emotionality. culinity ideology as inherently traumatic. finding a three-factor structure—(a) Emotionally De. 1990). termed work and family relations. 1995). lower paternal participation in child care. condom use with partners. (2011) conducted an exploratory factor anal. There have been several at. the endorsement of traditional vergent and discriminant validity. This includes men of concept test and was not very useful (Pleck. The concept of trauma strain has been applied to certain tempts to examine discrepancy strain. there are some important differences. The CMNI is sometimes de. norms” (p. dysfunction strain. O’Neil (2008. and survivors of child form of discrepancy strain using the gender role conflict abuse (Lisak. p. & Wrightsman. the MRNI–A–r and its factors had internal reliabilities First. & Vilain. negative This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. This approach inquires to what degree participants (Harrison. which assesses four Types of Masculine Gender Role Strain domains of GRC in men: (a) success. More color (Lazur & Majors.89. Davis. Gable. there is the work of Eisler and sexual men are normatively traumatized by male gender Skidmore (1987). a perspective on the male role socialization process emerged in the 1990s (Levant & Pol- Dysfunction Strain lack. mented that “Pleck’s dysfunction strain has the most theo- tion for boys and men. the GRC construct. are thought to be particularly harsh. (b) Toughness. O’Neil (2008) indicated that GRC al’s personal conformity to those norms. The first method groups of men whose experiences with gender role strain used a comparison between ratings of the self-/ideal-self. gram is the Gender Role Conflict Scale I (O’Neil. 1995) that viewed socialization under traditional mas- Dysfunction strain results when one fulfills the require. 2007). 1995). and Mohr (2005) investigated a ner. conformity to masculine norms (measured with the CMNI) However. The MRNI–R measures an individual’s internalization of The second line of investigation involved the GRC con- cultural belief systems and attitudes toward masculinity struct. Westefeld. It is also recognized that gay and bi- (GRC) construct. whereas the CMNI measures the individu. Sánchez. ysis. the literature.

mia. many of their emotions. presumed biologically based gender differences in the ex- ing and describing their feelings. may result from the normative emotion socialization of masculinity ideology accounts for unique variance in alex- boys. as well as the extent of the distinction be- estrangement from their children. & search literature on the emotion socialization of boys con- Hasan. I (Levant. ithymia in men. gies. conventional perspective that In addition to the appearance of alexithymia in clinical men. relations with after controlling for demographic differences. Yet this narrative review still left significant difficulties in their personal lives and presented open the issue of the magnitude of the gender difference in with a variety of problems. they did not develop a vocabulary for. sive than girls at about the age of 2 years and less facially served in many men. Levant et al. expressive by 6 years. 1998). wired to be less emotional and more logical than are girls Sifneos (1967) originally used the term to describe the ex. My (Levant. I (Levant. substance abuse. Hall. particularly in alexithymic than males. I theorized To assess the extent of gender differences in alexithy- that those men had been discouraged as boys from express. 2009). Working both with research partici. traditional other instruments. One normative masculine role requirement is the ited higher levels of alexithymia. the words to describe their emotional states. Pressly. This pattern was particu. with greater emotional reactivity and expressiveness than tions. This developmental change suggests pants in the Boston University Fatherhood Project and with that socialization shapes gender-appropriate emotional be- clients in my clinical practice. perience and expression of emotion (see Wester. tic violence. evidence suggests boys start life This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Levant. although there were relatively forms of alexithymia would occur more frequently among few clinical samples and non-Toronto Alexithymia Scale men whose socialization as boys was informed to greater measures. Levant et al. including marital difficulties. & Heesacker. (2006) reviewed 45 published studies ing and talking about their emotions by parents. to which I now turn. between women and men (Hedges’s d ⫽ . The alexithymia literature was next meta-analyzed to 1995).22). a process informed by traditional masculinity ideolo. Indeed. This more conventional view derives from treme difficulty certain psychiatric patients had in identify. 1992) proposed the NMA hypothesis to girls and maintain this advantage until 1 year of age (Le- account for a socialized pattern of restrictive emotionality vant. 1992. and its incremental validity in predicting 772 November 2011 ● American Psychologist . if any. variability along a continuum of alexithymia existing evidence. There were no significant restriction of emotional expression. ment of traditional masculinity ideology and alexithymia in (2006) developed the Normative Male Alexithymia Scale. moderator effects for clinical versus nonclinical population 1998) drew on the GRSP to theorize that mild to moderate or alexithymia measure used. clinical assessment and intervention tools. one found females more tionality may be adaptive in some ways. 2009). symptoms has also been observed in nonclinical popula. and sexual addiction (Levant & Kopecky. The view that socialization plays a role in the develop- ment of restricted emotionality confronts the conventional The Normative Male Alexithymia Hypothesis view in our society that boys and men are essentially hard- Literally. (2003) indicated that even Results of analyses of gender differences. are less emotional is not supported by the This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. differences in mean alexithymia reared as boys to adhere to the norms of traditional mascu. Richmond. cluded that the essentialistic. degrees by traditional masculinity ideology. or coaches and that some had been punished for ing a psychiatric or medical sample were examined sepa- doing so. these men showed the greatest deficits in using clinical samples found gender differences. they become less verbally expres- influenced by traditional masculinity ideology that I ob. determine whether there was empirical support for gender My clinical observations are consistent with a central differences (Levant. and chronic pain disorders (Levant. populations. Men exhib- linity. et al. Hall. empiri. al- men according to the degree to which they have been though expectedly small. I observed that only with havior and may account for gender differences in emo- great difficulty and practice could many of the men find tional awareness and expressivity (Levant. men.. for a review). alexithymia means without words for emotions. Indeed. college students). 1998) review of relevant developmental psychology re- ders. This is the NMA hypothesis. alexithymia. substance use disor. and women. The 13 studies us- teachers. Hence. The investigators noted that few studies In particular. different picture: Seventeen of these studies found males ment (such as fondness or caring). more alexithymic than females. Williams. my clients often reported tween males and females. 1995. by nature. 1998). posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). identifying and expressing emotions reflecting a sense of the 32 studies using nonclinical samples presented a very vulnerability (such as sadness or fear) or expressing attach. However. This line of investigation has led to the development of cal research has found a relationship between the endorse. However. Vogel. tween clinical and nonclinical samples. 2002. While restricted emo. et al. or rately from those that used a nonclinical sample (primarily an awareness of. domes. that examined such gender differences. and 14 found no differences be- highly competitive environments. peers. larly evident in patients with psychosomatic illnesses. An effect-size esti- tenet of the GRSP that societal forces differentially shape mate based on 41 existing samples found consistent.

Allen. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. men and masculinity and the GRSP. R. whereas others are associated with risk Buss. Sex-Role Inventory: Continuing theoretical problems. Sexual strategies factors (Levant.1037/0033- and moderate the negative relationships between each of 295X. (1990). (1997). 2009). 2006) developed a psy- choeducational program for treating NMA. 93–115. R. NY: Basic Books. I have also discussed This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 18 –25. (1974).. doi:10. men’s studies. (2005). S. Bohan. It is now time to turn to future re. S. Whorley & Addis. Collaborative Program in Counseling Psychology. 1998. Levant. Wimer. G. W. masculinity ideologies. S. MA: Unwin Hyman. 155–162.. NY: Routledge. (2002). N. 100. dressed to Ronald F. Psy- has tested a theoretical model of the variables that mediate chological Review. doi:10. (1984). Smiler. which was re. Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. hypothesizing that alexithymic men (as compared to nonalexithymic men) will show negative Chu. The University of Akron. 2011). Fuqua. The measurement of psychological an- cently manualized as alexithymia reduction treatment drogyny.. Boston. 14(1). M.21. (1995).. J. Statistical analysis of a measure of adoles- tionship between men’s health behavior and masculinity cent gender ideology. The priming on a lexical decision-making task when emotion Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale: words are used as primes (Levant. L.1177/ 1097184X03257453 Author’s Note Connell. 881–900. Rankin. A new psychology 2006). Post-Vietnam gender role strain: A need to investigate healthy aspects of men’s gender roles.edu ciety. D. Future Directions Brannon. Brown. J. The Bem seeking mental health services (Levant. (1995). doi:10. 204 –232. Levant & W. 829 – 859.1037/0735-7028. J. & Tolman. Gender & So- E-mail: Levant@uakron..1177/0013164408315267 semantic priming. (2008). & Newman. doi:10. and feminist psychology. F. (ART) and assessed in a pilot study (Levant. & Schmitt. The second theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Masculinities.. and to do experimental re. 8. M. masculine gender role strain.1177/0891243205278639 November 2011 ● American Psychologist 773 . FL. & Silverstein. Nova Southeastern University. L. References lidity of the scale.18 independent and dependent variables by including investi- gation of mediators and moderators (including contextual Brooks. Men and Masculinities.). S. D. (1993). L. A scale for measuring atti- I have introduced the psychology of men and masculinity. Understanding factors) of those relationships. Pollack (Eds. J. & Williams. tudes about masculinity. G. has found in a recent study that the rela. H. In R. Shook. Halter. Davis (Eds. I (Levant. Three new lines of investigation in my research pro. Porche. R. V. M. New York. needed concept? Professional Psychology: Research and to go beyond the study of the simple relationships between Practice. W. J. (1987). N. 280 –333). Buchtel College of Arts and Sci- Connell. search (O’Neil. Lien. 19. W. Regarding gender: Essentialism. the NMA construct in an experimental investigation using doi:10. The first. D. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 2004. The third has investigated the external validity of cational and Psychological Measurement. 31– 48). Y. Davie. In M. L. D. & Messerschmidt. 2010).1037/h0036215 Hayden. health behavior and the specific masculinity variable and. the Male Role Norms Inventory—Ado- variables varies according to the specific dimension of lescent: A pilot study (Unpublished doctoral directed study). focused on health. and Brod. S. & Williams. Hege- ences. the dark side of masculinity: An interactive systems model. monic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. con- ing NMA and improving the uptake of therapy for male structionism. New York.204 two masculinity variables (endorsement of traditional mas- culinity ideology and GRC) and men’s attitudes toward Choi. Psychological Documents. Berkeley: University Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- of California Press. masculinity ideology provided evidence supporting the va.100. R. Gergen & veterans suffering from PTSD.2. I am currently planning a ran- domized clinical trial of the efficacy of ART in remediat. 68. covering the rationale for and aims of the psychology of 6 –7. search directions. Akron. of men (pp. The making of the masculinities: The new the NMA hypothesis. doi:10. gram are responsive to these recommendations. Bem.1. & Development and validation of a new measure for boys. S.. Edu- 2011). Rogers.). & Halter. R. P. 42. Recent reviews of the literature have highlighted the Brooks. 21. further.. & Juni. that some facets of masculinity are associated with protective factors. OH 44325-4301. 2008. R. (2005).

New York. A new psy.1037/0003-066X. sented at the annual convention of the American Psycho- logical Association. R. 7. NY: Wiley.. C. Shook. Levant. R. Levant. (2008). M. In &.. assessing. Corn. R. NY: Basic Books. Levant & W. J. (1981). Structural Equation Modeling. K. standing. 10.). C. New York. New psycho- the appraisal of stressful situations. J.259 Eagly.). Levant & W.. S. J. American Psychologist. The second shift. (Eds. 229 –251).3-4. T. F. doi:10. (2006). (1976). Levant.1037/0735-7028. N.). The masculinity crisis. Lien. 379 – 402. F. NY: among young Russian men. A. R. K. Rogers.. Smalley. & Majors. F. Levant. N. Further investigating men and women. F.. Levant. Men of color: Ethnocul.0201. & Richmond. K. S. P.1037/a0015652 Levant. Masculine gender This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. (1999). R. nal of Boyhood Studies. 35–56). & Motl. C. K. NY: Basic percent majority: The male sex role. The crisis of connection between DiStefano. (Eds. MA: Addi. 5.net. S.). & Hasan. M. J. C.1177/01454455870112001 Levant. R. 7.. & Wood. Helmreich.. (1989). & McMillan. E. A psychometric analysis of the Personal Attributes Ques.. F. The gender similarities hypothesis.5. A. J... F. NY: Basic Books.212 wall on Hudson. 60. August). doi:10.. Levant. The forty-nine chology of men (pp. J. O. C. Toward the reconstruction of mascu. A. Pollack & R.1007/ Matveev. Owen. method effects associated with negatively worded items on self–report surveys. 13. 2. linity. R. Validation of 066X.581 the Normative Male Alexithymia Scale: Measurement of a gender-linked syndrome. 26 –36. 27.. doi:10. ity. Behavior Modification. W. Manhood in the making: Cultural con- [DVD and viewer’s guide].1037/1524-9220.7. B.6. Graef. F. linity.. M. F. 581–592.. C.408 Levant. K. & Skidmore. 4. M.). (1990)... doi: 10. (1996a).. Levant Norms Inventory—Adolescent (MRNI–A). Thymos: Jour- & W. Journal of Men’s Studies. T.. heterosexuality. F.46 337–358). 10. R. O’Neil. & Williams. F. Good.26 Hyde. Press. T. CA: Psycho- cepts of masculinity. young men and women and its relationship to unhealthy lifestyle habits Hochschild. A.54. (1995). New York.4. A new psychology of men (pp. (1992).S. Pollack (Eds. W. R. R. Roles. and bisexuality. tion: Homosexuality. Allen. Lazur. (1995). (2009).60.1037/0003. S. The new psychology of men. R. A new psychology of ithymia: An experimental investigation. Hall. S. and sexual orienta. Semantic priming and alex- R. doi:10. 123–136. Journal of Family Psychology. (2005). Smalley. In R. R. R. F. Psychology of Men & Mascu- Avon Books. Poster session pre- men (pp. M. & Soklovsky. Levant. identities. Reading. therapy for men (pp. G.3. & Wilhelm. (1996b). doi:10. R.. Cuthbert. R. F. David. San Diego. (2010. J. Levant (Eds. A. F. R. Sex Roles. (1997). Levant. Psychology of Men & Masculin- Kilmartin.1207/s15328007sem1303_6 fessional Psychology: Research and Practice. R. R. The masculine self (4th ed. Williams. (2006).3149/thy. & Brannon. San Francisco. 190 –203. (1987)... Matina. F. Gender differences in alexithymia: A meta-analysis. doi: Psychology of Men & Masculinity.. Sellers. Levant. B. Harrison. K. J.).-C. F. New York. doi:10. 46 –59. doi:10. The origins of sex dif- ferences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus Levant. S. (2006).. (2010). CA.27.. tionnaire.4. Effective psychotherapy with men Gilmore. 1–12.. R. E. 259 –265. R. L. Desperately seeking language: Under- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Toward the reconstruction of mascu.. son-Wesley. The evaluation of the Male Role tural variations of male gender role strain. F.379 10. 54. Mascu- BF00287587 linity ideology among Russian and U. Halter. Hayden. The efficacy of alexithymia reduction treatment: A 774 November 2011 ● American Psychologist .1. American Psychologist. B. New Haven. New York. A. 5.1037/1524-9220. R. (1998). A. A. Journal of social roles. H... S. Pollack (Eds. F. (2009). 221–231. F. D. 1097–1108.6. doi:10. 359 –382)... (2003).1037/0893-3200. Eisler. 5. Books. 11. CT: Yale University therapy. Williams. linity.. NY: Sloane Publishing. 408 – 423. Richmond. and treating normative male alexithy- role stress: Scale development and component factors in mia. D.. Cook.. 212–224. In R. J. Spence. Pollack. Pro- 440 – 464. doi: Men’s Studies. (1995). In W.

mas of Black manhood in America. & Colbow. Some antecedents and consequents of doi:10. . 9. M. sexism. Rankin. E. August). A. 217–220. Sellars.. D. Journal of Men’s Studies. A review of re- search on masculinity ideologies using the Male Role Majors. M. Rochlen. 12. F. (2010).1177/001100008100900213 November 2011 ● American Psychologist 775 .. & Kelley. & Noronha... & Wimer. R. F. G. Paper pre- Levant. women and men. B. Majors. An investigation Behavior Inventory-20 (HBI-20) and its relationships to into variations in the construction of the male gender role masculinity and attitudes towards seeking psychological help among college men. R. . K. Psychological Monographs. & Halter. J. F. R. & Frietas. (2007). doi: (MRNI–A–r). Smalley. J. (1996). Rogers. 506). R. T. Psychology of Men & Masculinity.. (2011). Levant. J. 15. logical Association. E. O’Neil. 14. 26 – 41. Cruickshank.. Richmond.. Williams... Oren (Eds. doi:10. N. Hirsch. Mod. . R.3149/jms. Cozza.. F. D. doi: 10. Journal of Gender. Journal of Gender. C. Wu. Hill. Exploratory factor analysis and construct validity masculinity: Implications for men. B... J. . .227 Lisak. among young African American and European American This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.1037/a0021014 2. Levant. 33– 43. F. F. New York.. R. Inclan. New York. L. women and the counsel- of the Male Role Norms Inventory—Adolescent—Revised ing psychologist. Boston. A. Williams. 130 –146.3149/jms. J. D. Power at play: Sports and the Rossello. Revised (MRNI–R). NY: Dutton. K. & Pollack. G. Heesacker. Culture. pilot study. 83–100.4.1037/1524-9220.4. multicultural investigation of masculinity ideology and alexithymia. and construct validity of the Male Role Norms Inventory— M. New York. Liu. Levant. R... Schnedeker. H. J. 6. Aupont. Male sex role conflict.. Journal of Levant. New York.91 masculine sex typing in adolescent boys. A. F. M.1037/1524-9220. doi: Levant. D. Rankin. M. R. B. Manuscript submitted for publication. S. K. M. & Mohr. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. G. Integrating gender analysis in psychotherapy with male survivors of abuse. R. G. ideology: A comparison between U. NY: Basic Books. (2005).1502.. R.2.1037/1524-9220. & Billson. T. and Chinese young culinity ideology among young African American and Eu. and Health. 4. In C. Whole No. Men’s Studies. K.. New York. R.. M. (1992). F.1701..130 ington Books. Oren & D.4.3 Levant. the United States. R. (2003). ropean American women and men in different regions of 1. Kurtz. R. movement. T. A. J. Cool pose: The dilem- Norms Inventory.. Celentano.. C. F. 10. Journal of Levant. A. Gottfried.. J. R.. M.. F. (1992). L. F. 325–337. Messner.. 1–24. Mussen. NY. Levant.3149/jms. W. F. 3–21). Hasan. 4. L.. ity.3. B. K. M. MA: Beacon. (2011).. 17.. Majors. 91–99. & Smalley. Masculinity. & Majors. C. T.. Levant. M. R. A problem of masculinity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. doi:10. The new fathering Mental Health Counseling. K.. and Health.2.. 75– 84. J. M. (1995.. . B. Real and eling men’s reluctance to seek mental health care. M. J. The male role: An investigation of norms and stereotypes.. (1981a).137 Levant. 3–25. Psychology of Men & Masculinity.). J. & Williams. (1995).75 Richmond.1037/1099-9809.). 61– 80. Ludlow.. R. 4. R.1037/a0017637 ventory. Masculinity Levant. G.1. (1961).. Diemer. Journal of Men’s Studies. P. Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms In- 25–37. J. A. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health. (1995). men and women. A new psy. (1992).. Manu. F. Scott.. J. A. doi:10. M. Psychology of Men & Masculin- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. sented at the annual convention of the American Psycho- chology of men. 11. P.6. 10.. An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Health Levant. (2010). Wimer.. (2003). & Kopecky. Mas. Z. 15.. Culture... and (2011). doi:10. J. (1998). T. Locke. D. ideal gender role conflict: Exploring psychological distress script submitted for publication. & Richmond..1501. B.. doi:10. 137– 148. among men..S.. (1997).. M. (2007). B.83 MacEachern. S. NY: Routledge. NY: Lex- doi:10. Counseling Psychologist. Levant. R. Counseling fathers (pp. R. Initial validation of the Male Role Norms Inventory—Revised. Rankin. R.. 227–236. C. recon- structed. & Fischer.. F. Evaluation of the factor structure Mahalik. House. (Eds. R. W. 75(2.

F. L. Pleck. W.1007/BF01420798 Watkins. K. NJ: Erlbaum. ity. Helms. P. M. Journal of Black Psychology. & Vilain. Gable. (1981b). R. doi:10..1037/a0015805 chological research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant methodological trends. E. S.. Counseling Psy- chologist. F.11. H.. 531–543. 34.1007/BF00287583 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Levant & W.. & Ku. 93– Wu..1177/000276486029005003 10. Patterns of gender role conflict and Smiler. M. (1994b). Toward a redefinition of sex and gen- der.02279. Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Spence. (2001). tients suffering from a variety of psychosomatic diseases. O’Neil. J. L. (2010). ogy: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities.1177/ lem behaviors and masculinity ideology in adolescent 0095798409353756 males. 60. P. MA: MIT Press.1177/ femininity: Their psychological dimensions. Masculinity and Scale. E. In R. K. D. Sex Roles. doi:10. Clinical observations on some pa. R. (2002). Prob. (2010). 104 –111. Thirty years after the discovery of strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men’s lives. correlates. E. D. New York. J. 481–501. L. The myth of masculinity. F. L. Levant. (2006). S. & Helmreich. Per. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Walker.. 24. Sex differences in emotion. 30. H. J. (2004). Pollack (Eds. Bias in psychology. American Psychologist. J. D. 165– Wester. Pressly. 1085–1094.1037/ Pleck. (2008). Sex Roles. lege men’s fear of femininity. & Addis. 36. 0003-066X. Counseling Psychologist. 203–210.. Switzerland: Karger. 30. & Pleck. W. & Griffith. Basel. Professional Psychology: Research Whorley.. doi: doi:10.. In J. Sherif. 36. Liu. H. T. J. S. and 0011000008317057 antecedents. Adoles- cent problem behaviors: Issues and research (pp. F. (1979). E. David.1085 tudes toward male roles: A discriminant validity analysis. American Behavioral Scientist. The gender role strain paradigm: An new psychology of men (pp. doi:10. K. psychology of men (pp.. F. A Pleck. L. R. Hillsdale. A. H. M.. S. (1995).. Masculinity ideol- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. A. doi:10. Vogel. (1981). M. R. Sex Roles. Levant & W. Ketterlinus & M. Westefeld. 14. 50. J. Sonenstein.. In Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Psychosomatic Research. (1995). Austin: University of Texas Press. C. Lamb (Eds. 15–26. 29.4c O’Neil. J. (1986). E. T.. (1978). H. 303–330. (1979).). H.1177/00100002030004008 Sánchez. 55. O’Neil. New York.. F. 335–350.. J. (1967). Cambridge. 365–366. & Pleck. C. J. H. R. M. doi:10. & Thompson. NY: Basic Books. The structure of Wrightsman. gender: Psychological concepts and measures of masculin- sonnel and Guidance Journal. Sherman 649 – 658.. C. The influence 133). L. Thompson. In R.. Gender Role Conflict Scale: Col- male norms. J.). M. & Sellers.. Masculine gender role conflict and negative feel- ings about being gay. R. Sex Roles. H.0000011069. R. D. A.34. (1986). 630 – 652. The prism of sex: Essays in the soci- ology of knowledge: Proceedings of a symposium (pp..1023/B: SERS.). P. B. (1994a). 186). Sonenstein. 41. & Ku. 11–32). & Heesacker. R. L. 129 –163). 358 – 445. Pollack (Eds.).1007/s11199-006-9120-1 & E. L. doi:10. doi:10. J. E. A meta-study of Black male mental health and well-being. C. NY: update. J. Unger. L.. Atti. Ten years of psy- and Practice. J. Psychological Science.. A new Basic Books. M. doi:10. Pleck. 776 November 2011 ● American Psychologist . M. In R. of sex and social development on masculinity ideology of Chinese undergraduate students. Sifneos. Beck (Eds.