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!

AFRICAN AMERICAN BOYS & RESISTANCE

Significant within group variation – many were

resisting.

May be less likely to resist stereotypes compared to

whites:

Double standard of stereotypes associated with

race & gender -- to be African American and a boy

means to be hypermasculine in our culture (Morgan,

1999).

A response to the larger social and historical macro

contexts that have shaped the African American

male experience including poverty, racism, and

violence (e.g., Cunningham, 1999).

PUERTO RICAN BOYS & RESISTANCE

Reveal significant within group variation in

levels of resistance across stereotypes.

Most stereotypes were resisted at the

aggregate level (see Way, Santos & Cordero,

in press) except autonomy. May be due to:

Double standard that frames Latino boys’

identity as machista.

In NYC, Puerto Ricans have been shown

to experience social power relative to

other groups (see Way, Santos, & Niwa,

2006). Such power may increase desires

for autonomy.

Dominican boys & Resistance

Reveal significant within group variation in

levels of resistance across stereotypes.

Most stereotypes were resisted at the

aggregate level (see Way, Santos & Cordero,

in press) except in physical toughness. This

may be due to:

Bearing the racialized and gendered

stereotypes of being Latino supplemented

by the stigma of being immigrants (see

Way, in press).

CHINESE BOYS & RESISTANCE

• Important to examine Chinese boys’ resistance in

the context of stereotypes that tend to feminize

Asian American boys’ identities (see Chua and

Fujino, 1999; Mok, 1998).

• May be related to context:

• Most Chinese boys were sampled in a predominantly

Chinese school which may make racial stereotypes less salient.

WHITE BOYS & RESISTANCE

• Resistance among these boys may be related

to their majority status in the larger culture.

Viewed as the “standard” (see Connell, 1996)

• Context: • Most were middle to upper class. Resistance may

differ among low SES white boys given influence of stereotypes of low income boys as “tough” or “gang-bangers” (see MacLeod, 1995).

IMPLICATIONS

Work is needed to further examine the

intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender

given their theoretical, empirical, and practical

implications.

Studies focusing on ethnic and/or gender

differences should focus on why such

differences exist. This analysis will inevitably

reveal the macro contexts in which they are

embedded (e.g., stereotypes about nationality,

race, gender).