South Suburban College Psychology of Men and Masculinities Literature Review Please write a 3-4 page (excluding cover sheet, abstract, and references page)

South Suburban College Psychology of Men and Masculinities Literature Review Please write a 3-4 page (excluding cover sheet, abstract, and references page) will be required in this course. research paper using a minimum of 3 sources. The sources must be within the last 5 years and should be psychology focused.Paper may be on any topic related to Understanding Men that is in our textbook.Paper must be written in APA format. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
MEN AND
MASCULINITIES
The Psychology of Men and Masculinities, edited by R. F. Levant and Y. J. Wong
Copyright © 2017 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
MEN AND
MASCULINITIES
EDITED BY
RONALD F. LEVANT AND Y. JOEL WONG
A M E R I C A N P SYC H O L O G I C A L A S S O C I AT I O N • Washington, DC
Copyright © 2017 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. Except
as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, including, but not limited to, the
process of scanning and digitization, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the
prior written permission of the publisher.
Published by
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
www.apa.org
To order
APA Order Department
P.O. Box 92984
Washington, DC 20090-2984
Tel: (800) 374-2721; Direct: (202) 336-5510
Fax: (202) 336-5502; TDD/TTY: (202) 336-6123
Online: www.apa.org/pubs/books
E-mail: order@apa.org
In the U.K., Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, copies may be ordered from
American Psychological Association
3 Henrietta Street
Covent Garden, London
WC2E 8LU England
Typeset in Goudy by Circle Graphics, Inc., Columbia, MD
Printer: Edwards Brothers, Inc., Lillington, NC
Cover Designer: Naylor Design, Washington, DC
The opinions and statements published are the responsibility of the authors, and such
opinions and statements do not necessarily represent the policies of the American
Psychological Association.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Levant, Ronald F., editor. | Wong, Y. Joel, editor.
Title: The psychology of men and masculinities / edited by Ronald F. Levant,
Y. Joel Wong.
Description: Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association, 2017. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016036545| ISBN 9781433826900 (hardback) | ISBN 1433826909
(paperback)
Subjects: LCSH: Men—Psychology. | Masculinity. | Sex role. | BISAC:
PSYCHOLOGY / Social Psychology. | PSYCHOLOGY / Human Sexuality. | HEALTH &
FITNESS / Men’s Health.
Classification: LCC HQ1090 .P79 2017 | DDC 155.3/32—dc23 LC record available at
https://lccn.loc.gov/2016036545
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record is available from the British Library.
Printed in the United States of America
First Edition
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000023-000
Contents
Contributors……………………………………………………………………………………. ix
Foreword: A Brief History of the Psychology of Men
and Masculinities…………………………………………………………………………….. xi
Joseph H. Pleck
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………… xxiii
Introduction: Maturation of the Psychology of Men
and Masculinities……………………………………………………………………………… 3
Ronald F. Levant and Y. Joel Wong
I. Gender Role Strain Paradigm and Related Theories……………………. 13
Chapter 1.
The Gender Role Strain Paradigm……………………………. 15
Ronald F. Levant and Wizdom A. Powell
Chapter 2.
Masculinity Ideologies…………………………………………….. 45
Edward H. Thompson, Jr. and Kate M. Bennett
v
Chapter 3. Masculinity as a Heuristic: Gender Role
Conflict Theory, Superorganisms,
and System-Level Thinking…………………………………….. 75
James M. O’Neil, Stephen R. Wester,
Martin Heesacker, and Steven J. Snowden
Chapter 4. A Critical Discursive Approach
to Studying Masculinities………………………………………. 105
Sarah Seymour-Smith
Chapter 5. A Review of Selected Theoretical Perspectives
and Research in the Psychology of Men
and Masculinities…………………………………………………. 139
Anthony J. Isacco and Jay C. Wade
II. Men’s Mental and Physical Health………………………………………….. 169
Chapter 6. Men’s Depression and Help-Seeking
Through the Lenses of Gender……………………………….. 171
Michael E. Addis and Ethan Hoffman
Chapter 7.
A Review of Research on Men’s Physical Health……… 197
Brendan Gough and Steve Robertson
Chapter 8. A Review of Research on Men’s Body Image
and Drive for Muscularity……………………………………… 229
Sarah K. Murnen and Bryan T. Karazsia
III. Ethnic, Racial, and Sexual Minority Men………………………………. 259
Chapter 9. The Intersection of Race, Ethnicity,
and Masculinities: Progress, Problems,
and Prospects……………………………………………………….. 261
Y. Joel Wong, Tao Liu, and Elyssa M. Klann
Chapter 10.
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Masculinities………….. 289
Mike C. Parent and Tyler C. Bradstreet
IV. Implications for Practice……………………………………………………….. 315
Chapter 11. Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Psychological
Interventions for Boys and Men……………………………… 317
Gary R. Brooks
vi       contents
Chapter 12. Dysfunction Strain and Intervention Programs
Aimed at Men’s Violence, Substance Use,
and Help-Seeking Behaviors………………………………….. 347
Christopher T. H. Liang, Carin Molenaar,
Christina Hermann, and Louis A. Rivera
V. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….. 379
Conclusion: Addressing Controversies and Unresolved
Questions in the Psychology of Men and Masculinities……………………… 381
Y. Joel Wong and Ronald F. Levant
Index…………………………………………………………………………………………… 395
About the Editors…………………………………………………………………………. 415
contents     
vii
Contributors
Michael E. Addis, PhD, Department of Psychology, Clark University,
Worcester, MA
Kate M. Bennett, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, University
of Liverpool, Liverpool, England
Tyler C. Bradstreet, MS, Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock
Gary R. Brooks, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor
University, Waco, TX
Brendan Gough, PhD, School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University,
Leeds, England
Martin Heesacker, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Florida,
Gainesville
Christina Hermann, BS, Department of Education and Human Services,
Counseling Psychology Program, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
Ethan Hoffman, MA, Department of Psychology, Clark University,
Worcester, MA
Anthony J. Isacco, PhD, Graduate Psychology Programs, Chatham University,
Pittsburgh, PA
ix
Bryan T. Karazsia, PhD, Department of Psychology, The College of Wooster,
Wooster, OH
Elyssa M. Klann, BA, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology,
Indiana University, Bloomington
Ronald F. Levant, EdD, ABPP, Department of Psychology, The University
of Akron, Akron, OH
Christopher T. H. Liang, PhD, Department of Education and Human Services, Counseling Psychology Program, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
Tao Liu, MS, MA, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology,
Indiana University, Bloomington
Carin Molenaar, MEd, Department of Education and Human Services,
Counseling Psychology Program, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
Sarah K. Murnen, PhD, Department of Psychology, Kenyon College,
Gambier, OH
James M. O’Neil, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School
of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs
Mike C. Parent, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock
Joseph H. Pleck, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family
Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Wizdom A. Powell, PhD, Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School
of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Louis A. Rivera, MEd, Department of Education and Human Services,
Counseling Psychology Program, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
Steve Robertson, PhD, Centre for Men’s Health, Leeds Beckett University,
Leeds, England
Sarah Seymour-Smith, PhD, Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent
University, Nottingham, England
Steven J. Snowden, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Florida,
Gainesville
Edward H. Thompson, Jr., PhD, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA
Jay C. Wade, PhD, private practice, Bali, Indonesia
Stephen R. Wester, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, University
of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Y. Joel Wong, PhD, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology,
Indiana University, Bloomington
x       contributors
Foreword: A Brief History
of the Psychology of Men
and Masculinities
Joseph h. pleck
I first began working in the psychology of men and masculinities in
the early 1970s, with Pleck (1973, 1974) and Pleck and Sawyer (1974) my
first publications. I was honored when the editors invited me to contribute
this Foreword and when they further encouraged me to make it a substantive one.
This book, The Psychology of Men and Masculinities, shows how far our
field has advanced since the 1970s and identifies numerous new directions
that our discipline is taking. To appreciate the long way our field has come,
it is important to understand what it grew out of. When I started my career
in the early 1970s, the new psychology of women was just emerging. At that
time, many people thought that there was no psychology of men. But actually, there was. In fact, at that time U.S. psychology’s understanding of gender
and gender development was almost entirely a psychology of men. What was
that psychology of men, and how did it come about?
xi
The Gender Role Identity Paradigm
Terman and Miles’s (1936) Sex and Personality introduced the construct
of trait masculinity–femininity (trait m-f) to academic psychology, conceptualized
as a unitary, bipolar dimension of personality. Research using trait m-f measures
took off in earnest in the late 1940s and focused almost entirely on males.
Studies investigated such questions as the following: What is the effect of father
absence on a son’s masculinity? (The earliest of these trait m-f studies examined
sons whose fathers were absent because of World War II military service.) How
does a mother’s employment affect a son’s masculinity? What is the influence of
birth order and sibling composition on sons’ masculinity? What consequences
does fathers’ degree of marital power have on sons’ masculinity? It was evident
that researchers were greatly concerned about sons’ masculinity!
These investigations continued for three more decades until the early
1970s, with countless new m-f measures proliferating and with the vast preponderance of research focusing on boys and men. Initially, psychologists viewed
trait m-f as operationalizing the developmental construct of sex-typing. Then
trait m-f was interpreted to reflect the more theoretically ambitious concept
of gender identity.1 Gender identity was not simply a descriptive construct; it
was a profoundly prescriptive one, something that individuals should attain.
Researchers viewed the development of male gender identity, however, as an
inherently risky process, prone to failure because of high rates of father absence,
domineering mothers, female elementary school teachers, the increasing acceptance of homosexuality, the broader cultural emasculation of men’s roles, and
so forth. Research on male gender identity, using trait m-f measures, grew to
link it to a wide range of phenomena: male psychological adjustment, male
homosexuality, male transsexuality, male delinquency and hypermasculinity,
male initiation rites in non-Western cultures, boys’ difficulties in the schools,
and racial/ethnic and social class differences among men.
This traditional psychology of men was, at its core, an interpretation of
the variations among males in trait masculinity–femininity. One direct legacy
of this older psychology of men is that our discipline today is now generally
termed the psychology of men and masculinity, whereas the corresponding study
of women is called simply the psychology of women. The psychology of women
has never been about variations in femininity in the way that the traditional
psychology of men focused on the meaning of variations in masculinity.
My book The Myth of Masculinity (1981) drew on Thomas Kuhn’s
(1962) concept of scientific paradigms and how they change. I argued that
It would be easy to assume that applying the “identity” frame to what trait m-f scales measured derived
from psychoanalytic theory, but this is actually not the case. The gender identity construct is difficult to
align with Anna Freud’s and Erik Erikson’s concept of “ego identity.”
1
xii       foreword
all the studies of trait m-f in men from the 1940s to the 1970s reflected an
underlying gender role identity paradigm (GRIP),2 comprising 11 major lines
of research. The GRIP was in fact U.S. psychology’s first psychology of men
and masculinity.
This paradigm dominated developmental, personality, and clinical
psychology through the 1970s. This psychology of masculinity also permeated clinical practice. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and
other omnibus clinical and personality inventories prominently featured m-f
scales. In my clinical psychology internship in 1970–1971, “weak passive
father” was noted so frequently on male patients’ intake histories as a source
of insecure gender identity that it might as well have been preprinted on the
intake form. In an article about my clinical training (Pleck, 1976), I described
the clinical staff’s contempt for gay men’s inadequate male gender identities.3
The GRIP took hold in popular culture as well. Growing up in the 1950s, I
remember articles in Sunday newspaper magazine supplements inviting male
readers to take an m-f questionnaire to determine how masculine they were.
My critical review of the 11 major lines of research within the GRIP
(Pleck, 1981; see also Pleck, 1983) concluded that the findings widely viewed
as conclusively supporting it (about trait m-f and psychological adjustment,
father absence, homosexuality, and so forth) were actually weak and contradictory. A key issue arose in this research regarding one of the GRIP’s most
important propositions, concerning the effects of father absence on trait m-f.
The GRIP predicts that father absence should be associated with low trait
masculinity. However, in many studies, father-absent males actually score
unusually high on masculinity. GRIP researchers argued that this finding confirms rather than disconfirms the GRIP because these father-absent males are
actually exhibiting “hypermasculinity” as a “defense” against their underlying
insecure gender identities. This interpretation is not inherently untenable.
But using this hypermasculinity defense clause to explain away the finding
made this GRIP proposition unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
The Gender Role Strain Paradigm
Research deriving from the GRIP died out by the early 1980s. The GRIP
was gradually replaced by an alternative view of male gender development,
in the same way that the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the solar system
Male sex role identity paradigm in Pleck (1981).
As described in Pleck (1976), in this psychoanalytically oriented hospital, women rape victims who
kept obsessively thinking about the experience (what we now interpret as posttraumatic stress disorder)
were told that they did this because “some part of them” was “gratified” by the experience.
2
3
foreword     
xiii
in astronomy was discarded in favor of the Copernican heliocentric view. The
concluding chapter of my book (Pleck, 1981) presented a formulation of this
emerging alternative understanding of men and masculinities, termed the gender role strain paradigm (GRSP),4 involving 10 major lines of research. The
essential difference between the GRIP and the GRSP is that the GRIP views
traditional norms for masculinity as valid, asserting that the only problem is
that too many men fail to live up to them. By contrast, the GRSP views the
problem as these traditional expectations themselves. I subsequently presented
an updated formulation, distinguishing three major types of male gender role
strain (discrepancy–strain, trauma–strain, and inherent–dysfunction-strain;
Pleck, 1995). In addition, I also analyzed masculinity ideology as a key cofactor
in male gender role strain (see also Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993).
Turning to the present volume, The Psychology of Men and Masculinities
reflects how the GRSP has been a dominant framework for our field for more
than three decades. The book’s three initial chapters ably review current
research on the GRSP as a whole, on its central concept of masculinity ideology, and on the related construct of male gender role conflict. Isacco and Wade’s
subsequent chapter discusses a group of additional constructs or perspectives
used in our research in recent years: male gender role stress, male reference
group identity dependence, conformity to masculinity norms, precarious manhood, and masculinity contingency.5 In my view, these are all processes that
can be integrated within the broader GRSP. To borrow a term from particle
physics, the GRSP has become our field’s “standard model.”6
Just as in particle physics, there are of course controversies, sometimes
heated, about various constructs and dynamics within this standard model
and the methodologies used to study them. Occasionally, adherents of some
viewpoints and methodologies seem to argue that theirs is the only valid way
to conceptualize and study men and masculinities. Nonetheless, I believe the
range of constructs and methodologies in the wide range of contemporary
GRSP research should be viewed as broadly compatible.
I offer two observations about how research on the psychology of men
and masculinities, using the GRSP perspective, has evolved since the early
1980s. First, it is fascinating to see how some central GRSP constructs represent complete reversals—indeed, complete transvaluations—of GRIP-based
ideas. The GRIP interpreted a male high in trait masculinity (only) as reflecting healthy male gender identity and therefore being highly desirable. But in
Sex role strain paradigm in Pleck (1981).
One further construct reviewed by Isacco and Wade, positive masculinity, represents a new direction
that is not part of the GRSP, and is particularly important for that reason.
6
In a content analysis of the 154 articles published in Psychology of Men and Masculinity during 2000–
2008, 71% used the overall GRSP or theoretical concepts related to it (Wong et al., 2010, Table 1).
4
5
xiv       foreword
the GRSP perspective, it is interpreted quite differently as “conformity to
masculine norms,” which is likely disadvantageous.
As another example, precarious manhood is a term that could easily refer
to the GRIP’s view of male development: Acquiring male gender identity is
inherently risky and highly prone to failure. But in GRSP research, precarious
manhood refers instead to the negative consequences for males of the social
construction of masculinity as something hard to achieve and easy to fail at.
Second, it is noteworthy how many of the topics highlighted in the
psychology of men parallel topics emphasized in the psychology of women.
For example, men’s mental health, physical health, and body image, capably
reviewed here (see, respectively, Chapters 6, 7, and 8, this volume), have been
major areas of men and masculinities research (Wong, Steinfeldt, Speight, &
Hickman, 2010). In the …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Submit a Comment