Upload
robert-lanza
View
219
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
http://mcclellandinstitute.arizona.edu/sites/mcclellandinstitute.arizona.edu/files/Resistance%20to%20Stereotypes%20of%20Masculinity%20in%20Boys%20Friendships%20During%20Early%20Adolescence.pdf
Citation preview
C A R L O S E . S A N T O S , P H . D .
A R I Z O N A S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y
RESISTANCE TO STEREOTYPES OF MASCULINITY IN BOYS’ FRIENDSHIPS DURING EARLY ADOLESCENCE
BOYS’ VOICES
What do you miss about your best friend?
I miss that he is not here anymore… It’s hard to find someone that’s like him.
Why is this friendship important to you?
So that I don’t keep things bottled up to myself… I need [our friendship] in order to live.
- Juan, Dominican American, 11 years old
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
• Relational Theories (e.g., Sullivan, 1953; Gilligan, 1982)
• Friendships as a critical context of gender development
• Emphasizes resistance as well as accommodation to gender stereotypes and norms (see Anyon, 1984; Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Way, 2011).
• Gender Role Strain Theory (Pleck, 1981)
• Gender Intensification Hypothesis (Hill & Lynch, 1983)
RESISTANCE & ACCOMMODATION
• Theory and research have suggested that
people respond to stereotypes by either resisting or accommodating(Anyon, 1994; Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Ward, 1996; Way, 1998, 2004, in press).
• Accommodation: The notion that individuals
either consciously or unconsciously adhere to gender stereotypes.
• Resistance: The notion that individuals either
consciously or unconsciously question, reject, or resist gender stereotypes.
THE MIDDLE SCHOOL YEARS
Marks important biological (e.g., pubertal), cognitive
(e.g., abstract thinking), as well as social and
emotional changes:
Peer gender segregation even more pronounced than in
earlier years (e.g., Maccoby, 1998).
May lead to gender intensification (e.g., in attitudes towards
gender roles; Galambos, 2004).
However… a refined capacity for emotional intimacy in close friendships that
emerges in late childhood/early adolescence may, implicitly or
explicitly, foster resistance to gender intensification (e.g., Sullivan,
1953).
“The development of the need for
compeers, for playmates rather like
oneself…represents the beginning of…full-
blown, psychiatrically defined, love…
[When a parent observes a child] find a
chum, [a parent] discovers something very
different…namely, that a child begins to
develop a real sensitivity to what matters to
another person”
-- Sullivan, 1953, p. 245
STEREOTYPES OF MASCULINITY
• Stereotypes form a part of the macro context for social and emotional development (García-Coll et al., 1996; Spencer, 1991; Way, 2011).
• Stereotypes about what it means to be a man include at least three expectations:
• Emotional stoicism: Linked to the onset of alexythimia—a condition marked by an intense inability to express feelings with words (see Levant et al., 2003, for reviews).
• Autonomy: Linked to inability to seek help when needed (e.g.,
Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Mansfield et al, 2005). • Physical toughness: Linked to various types of exaggerated
and maladaptive forms of aggression (see Pleck, Sonenstein, Ku & Burbridge, 1996, for reviews).
• …there are certainly others, but these three are fairly well represented in the developmental literature.
RESISTANCE & ADJUSTMENT
Resistance to stereotypes of masculinity has been linked to:
◦ Adaptive coping styles (Blazina et al., 2005; Wester et al., 2006).
◦ Lower anxiety & depression, higher self esteem (Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995; Good et al., 1995).
◦ Reduced risk for violence, aggression and delinquency (Feder, Levant, & Dean, 2007; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Klein, 2006; Lopez & Emmer, 2002; Poynting & Donaldson, 2005).
◦ Positive attitudes about sexual minorities (Frosh, Phoenix, & Pattman, 2001; Nayak & Kehily, 1996).
◦ Increased help seeking (Marcell, Ford, Pleck, & Sonenstein, 2007).
◦ Reduced risky sexual behaviors (Pleck et al., 2004).
SCHOLARLY & POP. LITERATURE
• Scholarly…
• Activity-oriented, void of intimacy, disclosure and
vulnerability in the scholarly literature on friendships (Belle,
1989; Buhrmester & Furman, 1987).
• Popular…
• Ability to achieve intimacy and be emotionally attuned to self and others undermined by pressures to conform to
stereotypes of masculinity (Brannon, 1976; Levant, 1995;
Pollack, 1998).
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
• Resistance to emotional stoicism • Resisting expectations of being invulnerable and
emotionally stoic.
• Resistance to autonomy • Resisting the notion that boys are expected to make
decisions and do things on their own.
• Resistance to physical toughness • Resisting the notion that boys are expected to be or are
inherently tough or aggressive.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN RESISTANCE
• Racial/ethnic minorities • Influence of stereotypes that carry racialized as well as
gendered connotations (e.g., hypermasculinity in African American boys, see Cunningham & Mueiner, 2004).
• Social class • Influence of stereotypes of low income boys : “tough”
or gang-bangers (see MacLeod, 1995).
• Less social privilege (see Barker, 1998).
• Immigrant status • Difficulties in assuming bicultural identity among boys
(see Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard, 2006).
CORRELATES OF RESISTANCE
• Theory and research underscore important
connections across family relationships and friendships (Sullivan, 1953; Buhrmester, 1992; Updegraff, McHale & Crouter, 2002).
• Consistent with a social learning model (Bussey & Bandura, 1999), boys might learn and apply relational skills from emotionally supportive relationships with parents, siblings and peers to their friendships.
• Relationships that are characterized by emotional expression, intimacy and love may serve as a model from which boys can base other relationships in their lives (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1989).
STUDY GOALS
• Aim #1 - within-person changes in resistance
during middle school.
• Aim #2 - between-person changes in resistance
during middle school.
• Aim #3 - longitudinal association between
resistance, family and peer support during
middle school.
• Aim #4 - longitudinal association between
resistance and psychological well being during
middle school.
SAMPLE
• N = 426 boys (recruited from six public middle
schools in urban northeast city)
• 3 time points: Spring of 6th, 7th and 8th grade.
• Parental levels of education:
• 27% of parents had a high school education or less, 11%
had some college or vocational school education (but
never graduated), and 62% were college graduates.
% of sample Is participant U.S. born?
% Yes
African American (N=84) 19.7% 96.4%
Puerto Rican (N=40) 9.4% 90%
Dominican (N=71) 16.7% 82.9%
Chinese American (N=91) 21.4% 71.6%
European American (N=114)
26.8% 96.5%
Other race/eth. (N=26) 6.1% 80%
Overall sample (N=426) 100.0% 87.4%
ANALYTIC PLAN
• Designed to explore longitudinal data on individuals over time.
• Allows the inclusion of all participants in the estimation even in incomplete and unbalanced designs.
• Linear model was applied since a significant number of participants had two or three data points (Singer & Willett, 2003).
Individual growth
modeling
(Singer & Willett, 2003)
using I/C STATA v10.0.
MEASURES
• Family support: Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI; Furman and Buhrmester,1985). Three subscales were used: mother support, father support, and close sibling support.
• Peer support: Perceived Social Support Scale for Friends (PSS-FR; Procidano and Heller, 1983).
• Depression: Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992).
MASCULINITY
• Masculinity: Masculinity Beliefs in Friendships Inventory (MBF; Santos, 2010). Three subscales were used: emotional stoicism, autonomy and physical toughness.
• Validated using a multigroup SEM factor analysis (with race/ethnicity as the grouping factor). • Indicated that measure had 3 factors as expected.
• Concurrent validity: Each factor was associated with self esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) in the expected direction.
• Convergent validity: Each factor was associated with Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (Mahalik et al., 2003).
• More details in Santos (2010)
RESULTS 1: WITHIN-PERSON
Trajectories of resistance to norms of masculinity from
Time 1 to Time 3 (6th to 8th grade)
FIXED EFFECTS
Resistance to autonomy
Intercept 2.73** (S.E. = 0.04)
Slope -0.06* (S.E. = 0.03)
Resistance to physical toughness
Intercept 3.32** (S.E. = 0.03)
Slope -0.12** (S.E. = 0.04)
Resistance to emotional stoicism
Intercept 2.61** (S.E. = 0.03)
Slope -0.04 (S.E. = 0.02)
BETWEEN-PERSON CHANGE: ETHNIC AND RACIAL DIFFERENCES
• Autonomy • Puerto Rican boys (β = -0.40, S.E. = 0.15, p < 0.05)
reported lower levels of resistance to autonomy than European American boys at T1.
• Physical toughness • African American boys (β = -0.57, S.E. = 0.12, p
<0.001) & Dominican American boys (β = -0.26, S.E. = 0.12, p = 0.03), and Chinese American boys ((β = -0.43, S.E. = 0.17, p < 0.05), reported lower levels of resistance to physical toughness at T1.
• Emotional stoicism • No significant ethnic differences
RESULTS 3 & 4: LONGITUDINAL ASSOCIATIONS
• Results of a multivariate growth analysis revealed:
• a positive association between trajectories of boys’
perceptions of mother support and trajectories of boys’ resistance to physical toughness (β = 0.21, S.E. = 0.08, p <
0.05).
• a positive association between trajectories of boys’
perceptions of peer support and trajectories of boys’ resistance to autonomy (β = 0.03, S.E. = 0.01, p = 0.01).
• a positive association between boys’ perceptions of peer
support and their resistance to emotional stoicism (β = 0.04,
S.E. = 0.01, p < 0.001).
RESULTS: DEPRESSION
• negative association between trajectories of boys’ resistance to physical toughness in their friendships and trajectories of boys’ depression (β = -0.09, S.E. = 0.03, p < 0.05).
• negative association between trajectories of boys’ resistance to autonomy in their friendships and trajectories of boys’ depression (β = -0.10, S.E. = 0.03, p < 0.01).
• negative association between trajectories of boys’ resistance to emotional stoicism in their friendships and trajectories of boys’ depression (β = -0.13, S.E. = 0.04, p < 0.01).
SUMMARY
• Middle school boys are resisting
stereotypes of masculinity particularly during sixth grade
• Decline in reports of resistance to stereotypes of masculinity.
• Some ethnic variation in resistance; but few
• Mother & peer support significant predictors of resistance
• Important links to adjustment and well being
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thank you to our participants, their
families, school staff, and teachers. Thank you to all of the students and staff of the
Center for Research on Culture, Development and Education (CRCDE) at NYU.
This research is funded by the National Science Foundation, the W.T. Grant Foundation, and NYU.
Thank you!