This item is only available as the following downloads:
ASSESSING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY USING CRITICAL INCIDENT METHODOLOGY By STEVEN SNOWDEN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2013 Steven Snowden
To my partner
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my adviser for his outstanding mentorship. I would also like to thank the kind members of my cohort. They have been an exemplary group of peers who have challenged me and helped me grow as a therapist and scholar.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 15 2 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 17 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 17 ................................ ................................ ... 18 3 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20 4 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 22 APPENDIX A TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 29 B PERMISSI ON TO REPRODUCE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL ............................. 35 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 36 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 40
6 LIST OF TABLES Table p age A 1 Coding scheme for qualified critical i ncidents ................................ ..................... 29 A 2 C hi square table for internal consequences ................................ ....................... 34 A 3 Chi square table for external consequences ................................ ...................... 34
7 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science ASSESSING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY USING CRITICAL INCIDENT METHODOLOGY By Steven Snowden December 2013 Chair: Martin Heesacker Major: Psychology Hundreds of published studies report development and use of validated measures of male gender roles. Their common approach relies on experts and their theories to develop scale items. One area still in need of measurement is hegemonic masculinity, defined approach to assessing hegemonic masculinity. Instead of relying on experts and theories, I sampled 264 reg ular men about their personal experiences of hegemonic masculinity, specifically asking them about the codes men are expected to follow to be considered men and the consequences of these behaviors. I also assessed whether their reported experiences mirror the content of scales related to masculinity ideology and conformity, all of which were produced by experts. Results revealed three important findings. First, several of the themes from these data mirror dimensions in published scales, but several do not, including the single most common theme participants masculine behavior, clearly suggesting a gap between knowing the code and following
8 it. Third, self reported consequences for not following the code were more favorable than the consequences reported for following it. This unexpected finding was true for both internal consequences ( like pride and guilt) and external consequences (like popularity and shunning). In short, important information was generated by asking men directly about their relevant experiences.
9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Literature Review Research on male gender roles and the social construction of gender differences Brannon, 1976; Kimmel, 2004) and as masculine ideology (Pleck, 1981, 1985), has pro studies that used a wide array of measures of internalized masculine gender roles and assessed the relationship between gender role and psychological distress in men. summary makes a convincing case that maladaptive aspects of traditional and interpersonal problems. measures of mascu that produces 379; see Wetherell & Edley, 1999), and conformity pressures on men (Connell, 2005; Whitehead, 2002). The purpose of this investigation is to assess the nature of hegemonic masculinity i n a sample of men using critical incident methodology. Initially theorized in reports from a field study of social inequality in Australian high schools (Kessler et al., 1982) as well as in seminal work completed by Connell on theory of hegemonic masculinity has received attention across academic fields and inspired a wealth of scholarly research. The earlier scholarship on hegemonic
10 masculinity, which over the decades has e volved to account for how male gender roles relate to social power, male agency, and patriarchy, has, in recent years, inspired important extensions and refinement. Demetriou (2001), for example, has argued that the concept of hegemonic masculinity cannot merely rely on the strict sex roles characteristic of White, heterosexual men, but must also include what Demetriou referred to as the hybridity of masculinities observed in non White, hetero and homosexual men. Further, Collier (1998) articulated the con cern that hegemonic masculinity cannot be solely associated with characteristics of masculinity that are deemed negative, and that scholars must also be mindful of the traditionally masculine behaviors, which may be hegemonic, that receive praise in societ y. Hearn (2004) has articulated the need for hegemonic masculinity to be extended to include an understanding of the hegemony of men Hearn has argued that this shift in focus, from ender roles. According to Hearn, men are not only members of a social category, but are also the socio political hierarchy. The contributions of Hearn, Demetriou, and Collier are mirrored in Connell and masculinity. Connell and Messerschmidt have addressed these and other concerns about hegemonic masculinity from an array of academic perspectives. They suggested that (a) the theory of hegemonic masculinity is in need of more rigorous analysis and (b) the definitions of the roles and norms men are socialized to follow, which result in patriarchy, must be refined to reflect the evolving nature of masculinities. To this end,
11 they encouraged scholars to discard one dimensional understandings of hierarchy as well as trait conceptions of gender. Useful reformation of the theory, according to Connell and Messerschmidt, will include analysis o f the psychological processes that govern gender hierarchy as well as better understanding of how non traditional masculine behaviors can influence the degree to which men continue to accept traditional behaviors. tified several scales that aim to masculinity. These scales include the Male Roles Attitudes Scale (Pleck et al., 1983), Group Identity Scale, the Conformity to Masculine Norms Identity Scale (Mahalik et al., 2003), and the revised Male Role Norms Inventory (Levant et. al, 2007). These scales are important in understanding masculine roles, identi ty, and ideology, but they have in common a similar approach to scale construction: relying on experts and prior theory. Smiler (2004) has noted that both Pleck and Wade have emphasized flexibility in the measurement of masculine ideology, which reflects a challenge to masculinity as a relatively fixed state. Yet, neither scholar has assessed the effect of context on masculinity as measured by their scales (Smiler, 2004). The extent to which these measures and other measures of masculine ideology fit theor etical models of hegemonic masculinity is consistent with this need for assessment, as is Connell and h all category for any traditionally masculine ideology.
12 The calls for changes in the conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity reflect a larger change in the philosophy of science that serves as the foundation for scholarship on masculinity. Wester and Vogel (2012) suggested that two movements currently guide psychological investigations of men and masculinity, the essentialist movement and the constructivist movement. According to Wester and Vogel, research conducted from an essentialist perspective tre ats characteristics of group members as global traits. Men are conceptualized as embracing a set of socialized traits whose enactment produces adverse consequences for them, for those around them, and for society. Consistent with this essentialist movement internalized male gender role identity with fear of femininity at its core (Levant et al., psychological research c onducted from a constructivist perspective is concerned with which that definition fits the current context (Wester & Vogel, 2012). Fit or lack of fit with the situat ional largely determines the consequences of enacting aspects of a male gender role, according to the constructivist perspective. Addis et al. (2010) suggested that the pervasive reliance on essentialist, trait based paradigms has put the psychology of me n and masculinity out of step with scholarly approaches currently used to understand gender in sociology, anthropology, and other behavioral sciences. According to Addis, these other behavioral sciences have adopted constructivist and critical perspectives on masculinities, perspectives in which gender is understood, not as a property of individuals but, as nested layers of highly situated and contextualized social practices (see Falmagne, 2000; McVicker,
13 Clinchy & Norem, 1998). Addis et al. (2010) pointed out various limitations of earlier investigations of masculinity, concluding that a pragmatic/functional approach may be superior to approaches that he viewed as currently driving most research on the psychology of men and masculinity. These limitations in clude the small proportion of world behavior, as well as too much focus on dysfunction and deviance. The essenti alist movement has, indeed, been helpful in describing the impact of about being in touch with the lives of men is an echo of earlier work by sociologist Eric Anderson (20 09), whose theory of inclusive masculinity describes recent changes in the ways men conceive of and enact their masculinity. Employing ethnographic methods and what he terms social feminist thinking, Anderson (2009) has provided evidence that men who atte nd universities are rapidly discarding the traditional masculinity that scholars have been describing for the past 25 years. suggestions of Addis and Anderson that the field focus on c onstructivist approaches to masculinity suggests that the key to developing a precise measure of hegemonic natural context. Consistent with this focus, Ponterotto (2005) art iculated the benefits to psychological research of embracing pluralistic methodologies, including constructivist interpretivist approaches. Ponterotto cautioned scientists against relying only on essentialist approaches. My study is meant to address this d isconnect between
14 psychology and other behavioral sciences, and between scholar developed measures on the other. In the present study, men were invited to report incident s from their lives in which they followed or did not follow what they understood to be an informal rule for behaving as a man. In addition, they were invited to share what they experienced (both internally and externally) as the consequences of their decis ion to follow or not follow this rule. Asking men about a masculine code is consistent with a key observation made by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) that men are often complicit in their enactment of gendered social practices. Further, asking men about t he consequences of followed or not following the code, reflects the possibility that men may not consistently meet the normative standards of hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). It also men who are successful and who hold a great deal of social power may not necessarily embody traditional masculinity. Demetriou (2001) has also pointed out that hegemony occurs not only externally (i.e., en), but also internally (i.e., valuing some masculine behaviors over others), as well. This investigation was designed to provide more information about those internal elements of hegemony. Participants recounted incidents from their lives using Flanagan technique (Flanagan, 1954). His technique was chosen for its demonstrated ability to established utility beyond industrial organizational psychology, for which it was develope d (Butterfield et al., 2005; occurring experiences represents a
15 contrasting approach to that of the extensive reliance on formalized scales that concept of hegemonic masculinity has failed to specify what conformity to hegemonic masculinity looks like in practice. Research Questions I assess ed four research questions in this study. First, I assessed whether a statistically significant proportion of participants would describe a critical incident in their lives in which they reported that they either followed or did not follow an informal rule for male conduct. Having a significant proportion of men describe one of these critical incidents would suggest that (a) assessing informal rules for male conduct might some c onscious awareness of these informal rules. Second, I assessed whether the resulting critical incidents could be reduced to a significantly smaller number of categories of informal rules, each of which would be instantiated by at least five critical incide nts. Men may have a shared set of informal rules for acceptable male behavior if incidents can be reliably grouped into broader categories. Third, I assessed whether a statistically significant proportion of the participants who provided a critical incident also reported that they failed to follow the code. If so, behavior. Fourth, I assessed whether men who reported incidents in which they followed informal rules for male behavior would also report receiving significantly more positive
16 and fewer negative consequences and that men who reported incidents in which they did not follow them. If participants who followed informal rules report being rewarded more and punishe d less than participants who did not follow these rules, operant conditioning can be nominated as at least one mechanism by which adherence to these rules is maintained.
17 CHAPTER 2 METHODS Participants Participants ( n = 264) were recruited online through a survey link hosted on a (http://www.postmasculine.com). The website has a large domestic and international male audience. The website focuses on self improve ment and dating advice for men. take part in the study, participants had to be least 18 years of age and identify as male. Participants identified as predominantly ( 94%) heterosexual. Their reported ages ranged from 18 to 64 years old. Seventy percent reported being single and 63% reported being U.S. citizens. Based on IP addresses, most of the participants from outside the United States appear to have come from the U nited Kingdom. Participants most frequently reported that they were White (79%). Ten percent reported that they were Hispanic. Most men (85%) reported that they had completed college. Procedure Participants accessed the materials using the Qualtrics TM online survey system. Upon accessing the survey link, participants first provided informed consent. rules that each man is expected to follow in order to be considered a man. These rules in a text box that detailed one specific incident from their lives in which they clearly did o abide by to be considered a man. They were reminded to write down any consequences that resulted from their
18 actions. These consequences could be favorable or unfavorable and could be internal Participants were then asked to complete a brief demographic questionnaire. echnique Narratives provided by the participants were collected and coded using T; Flanagan, 1954; see also Butterfield et al., 2005). The CIT outlines a practical step by step approach for collecting indirect observations of human behavior having special significance while meeting systematically defined criteria (Flanagan, 1954, p. 3 27). As the name suggests, the CIT involves the study of critical incidents, or memorable personal experiences of a specific activity, as reported by research participants. Analysis of these critical incidents enables researchers to identify similarities, differences, and patterns and to garner insight into how and why people engage in the target activity (Hughes, 2007). Self reports of real according to Flanagan, negatively, to the general aim of the activity (Flanagan, 1954, p. 344). Woolsey (1986) suggested that the CIT is both flexible and appropriate for counseling psychology research, because of its ability to capture factual happenings, qualities, and attributes, not just critical incidents, and because if its utility as both foundation/exploratory tool in the early stages of research and its role in building theories or models. The CIT produc es a categorization scheme that describes and synthesizes the narrative data,
19 The CIT requires fiv e steps: (1) description of the general aims of the studied activity (2) setting plans and specifications; (3) collecting data (4) data analysis; and (5) data interpretation and reporting results. Because the general aim of this study was to assess whether men could identify incidents in which they followed or failed to follow elements of a male code, the critical incidence prompt directed participants to recall as many details as the could about a specific incident in their lives in which they clearly did or clearly did not follow some aspect of an informal code that men are expected to follow in order to be considered a man. The prompt also asked participants to provide any consequences that resulted from their actions. As noted in the prompt, these conseq uences could have been favorable or unfavorable and could have been internal or external. ng they did not represent a critical incident. What qualified a response as a critical incident were the following: (a) a specific, real incident was described, (b) a specific aspect of male code was mentioned, and (c) the response included a description o f internal and/or external consequences that the person perceived as being related to following or not following the code. The qualified critical incident narratives were then coded for categories (see Table A 1), for whether or not the men reported follow ing the code, as well as for the reported consequences of following or not following this code. My category coding was then independently judged by an undergraduate research ss inter rater agreement.
20 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS The first research question assessed whether a statistically significant proportion of the men in the sample would be able to describe a critical incident that occurred in their lives, in which they either follow ed or did not follow a rule for male conduct. Indeed, a significant proportion of surveyed men described a critical incident in their lives, 56% (148/264; z(256)=88.44, p < .0001). In addition, nearly all (97.7%) of the men surveyed indicated that they bel ieved in the existence of an unwritten code of male conduct The second research question asked whether reported incidents could be reduced to a significantly smaller number of categories. The 148 incidents were significantly reduced to 8 discrete categories, plus other, each of which included at least five critical incidents, z (148)= 110.04, p < .0001. I entitled these categories (in descending frequency): Male Friends First (63 incidents), Stand by Your Man (17 incidents), Gallantry (13 incidents), Wingman (12 incidents), Sex as Conquest (8 incidents), Feminizing Objects (7 incidents) Restricted Emotionality (6 incidents), Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men (5 incidents), and Other (17 incidents; see Table A 1 for descriptions and examples of these Categories). An undergraduate research assistant also co ded each of the incidents after being provided Table A 1 (without incident frequency, percentage, or examples). An inter rater whether an independent judge would significantly ag ree with my coding of these incidents and she did, = .84. In addition to these 148 incidents, participants wrote 116 responses that did not qualify as critical incidents. In the vast majority of these cases,
21 the response did not qualify because it referred to a group or class of incidents that exemplified a man code, rather than detailing one specific, actual incident. In the case of the other category, more often than not the narrative provided a critical inc ident, but the thematic content did not meet the defined criteria required by the CIT to warrant its own category, i.e. five critical incidents. An example of an incident that was deemed qualified but whose theme did not come up frequently enough to be cat egorized was a Demographic variables did not significantly predict whether participants did or did not provide a qualifying incident (all p The third researc h question assessed whether a statistically significant proportion of men reported that they did not follow the code. Of the 148 participants who both reported a critical incident and who indicated whether they did or did not follow a that code, a statisti cally significant portion (33.1% or 49 participants) reported that they did not follow the code, z (148)=39.25, p < .0001. The fourth research question assessed whether men who reported following the code would also report receiving significantly more posi tive and fewer negative personal and/or social consequences than men who did not follow the code. The findings were surprising: Following a man code was associated with significantly fewer positive and significantly more negative consequences than not foll owing it. This pattern was true for both internally generated consequences, such as guilt or satisfaction, 2 (2, N= 79) = 8.74, p <.05, as well as for external consequences, such as social rejection or praise by friends, 2 (2, N= 110) = 14.10, p <.05 (see Tables A 2 & A 3)
22 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION These data provide support for the notion that hegemonic masculinity operates at the psychological level, in addition to the sociological level, as described by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005). This notion is suppo rted by the fact that not only are the reported incidents the product of individual experience, but also the incidents included in the five most common categories all depict men creating and sustaining male social power. The findings presented here also ad vance work done by Wetherell and Edley (1999), who proposed that hegemonic norms, in this case traditional masculine behaviors, are enacted strategically by men in particular circumstances. Wetherell and Edley did not provide a description of how individua l men negotiate these hegemonic norms, so the present study addresses that need by providing information about the everyday experiences. The data also support the not ion that men may have a shared set of informal rules for acceptable male behavior: the 148 separate qualifying incidents were readily and reliably reducible to eight categories, plus other. Moreover, an independent rater significantly agreed on my categori zations, suggesting that the categories are stable. The content of incidents in two of these categories, restricted emotionality and restrictive affectionate behavior between men, closely mirrors the items in two of the four subscales of the Gender Role Co surprising result with regard to categorization is that nearly half of the incidents fell into the category Male Friends First, which is an aspect of masculinity that I do not see clearly reflected in an y of the published scales or subscales measuring adherence to
23 common factors found in the most popular scales of masculine conformity, such as were among the least frequently reported incidents in this study. This discrepancy in what men reported being part of their masculine ideology and what experts have theorized represents an important methodological issue. I uncovered no research assessing how the most popular measures of masculine norms fit with theoretical models of hegemonic masculinity. Results from the present study revealed two categories of masculine ideology that appear to be very closely related to the hegemonic masculinity construct: Male Friends First, which is the belief that loyalty to male friends takes precedence over loyalty to femal e romantic partners or romantic interests, and Stand by your Man, which is the belief that one must remain loyal to male friends even if they engage in behaviors one disagrees with. Reported to day negotiation of male codes may take their focus away from the hegemonic consequences of following the se codes. As I have understood from reading participant accounts, Male Friends First and Stand by your Man appear to have the largely unacknowledged and unrecognized consequenc e of preserving status over women by creating normative pressure for men to embrace them or risk losing this status. Perhaps the reason scholars have not developed psychological measures of hegemonic masculinity is because they have not been aware of the p ossibility that these specific personal codes of male behavior may serve as the building blocks of hegemonic masculinity.
24 One third of participants who reported an incident also reported that they did not follow the code. This finding complements research in the essentialist literature, which tends to focus only on the degree to which men believe in traditional masculinity, not on cases when they do not follow its dictates. This observation is in line with some of the ry of hegemonic masculinity: it cannot account for how male identities are communicated among men, whether more than one hegemonic strategy can exist at any one time, or whether men experience conflict or tension as they move from one version of masculinit y to another (Wetherell & Edley, 1999). Collecting narrative content using critical incident methodology from a sample of community dwelling men holds the promise of determining not only what is hegemonic p. 399) recommendation that new lines of research should evaluate violations of masculine norms suggests that learning what is not hegemonic in masculinity may be as valuable as learning what is. These data raise the question of whether whole categories o f traditional masculinity, including some that relate directly to male hegemony, have gone heretofore unidentified, and suggest that men sometimes follow these codes but sometime they do not. Data on the reported consequences of adhering or not adhering to a male code of conduct were unexpected and raise an interesting question: Why follow a code that produces more self perceived costs than benefits? The research literature indicates that men often expect to benefit from following a code of masculinity and also expect to be opposite. So, should not these non reinforcing experiences eventually lead to abandonment of these informal rules? Not necessarily. Anderson, Lepper, and Ross
25 (1980) found that many people were unwilling to admit that their assumptions were incorrect, even when shown convincing evidence of their incorrectness. Anderson et al. c onvincing proof and cling to inaccurate beliefs even more tenaciously, especially when the belief has been publicly announced to others. Said more plainly, once people have decided that we believe something, they will tend to keep on believing it, even in the face of disconfirming evidence. Particularly, if other people know of our beliefs, it can be especially embarrassing to recant them. It is also difficult to change a belief that has been woven into a wider web of belief, because to do so would disturb that entire network of beliefs. Findings from a recent series of studies completed by Vendello and Bosson (2013) suggest that manhood can be understood as a precarious social status, one that is both difficult to achieve and easy to lose. According to thes e authors, what makes manhood precarious is the constant need for it to be proven or displayed across a wide variety of situations. Though the precarious manhood hypothesis can potentially integrate and explain an array of male behaviors, Addis and Schwab (2013) pointed out that Vandello and Bosson (2013) asked men about manhood in contrast to womanhood. According to Addis and Schwab (2013), this kind of binary approach to assessing gender roles limits advancement of a broader, contextual understanding of g ender. With this critique in mind, I chose not to ask men about manhood in reference to womanhood, but rather simply to ask about their own personal experiences of manhood.
26 I have argued elsewhere (Heesacker & Snowden, 2013) that the concept of precarious manhood (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), unlike most other negative which participants, not scholars, were recruited to provide experiences of hegemonic masculinity operat ing at the psychological level, what I observed was largely consistent with precarious masculinity concerns. The content of the codes point to insulation from the loss of potency as a primary motivator for adhering to the code, and so do these two curious findings: First, many participants reported knowing and believing in the code, yet did not report following it consistently and second, participants reported following the code even though the outcomes of following it were more likely to be negative than n ot measuring hegemonic masculinity, my findings revealed different categories of expectations, such as Male Friend First and Stand by your Man, than those reported in prio r research. The emergence of these different categories provides support for the idea that studying the experiences of regular men may represent a different and useful lens through which to view hegemonic masculinity. The lens I used suggests that hegemoni c masculinity may have as much to do with preserving potency at the individual level as it does with preserving the status quo and preservation of existing power structures at the societal level. A formalized measure of hegemonic masculinity at the psychol ogical level holds promise for researchers interested in investigating the mental health.
27 Although results generally supported my hypotheses, they need to be evaluated with stu dy limitations in mind. The first limitation of this study is sample characteristics. Participants were primarily White, heterosexual men. These men also typically reported formal education beyond high school. Future studies should include samples of men w ho differ in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of education, and other aspects of diversity. Collecting the critical incidents of more diverse samples of men should add The second limitat ion of this study is its reliance on a self selected convenience sample. Men who chose to participate in the study may possess characteristics that would make them both more inclined to visit the website the study was hosted on, but also more likely to hav e or recall gender related incidents different from those of other men. Future research should employ samples of men who are not as likely to select into or out of participation based on a description of the research that highlights masculinity and a male code. Another limitation of this study is that it relies exclusively on the memory of participants, with no collateral confirmation from friends or family members. Future who can provide different perspectives on the same incidents. is that only a single narrative was solicited from each participant. In addition, I asked all participants first about an incident in which they did follow a code and only second about one in which they did not follow the code. When combined, these two aspects of the method may have influenced participants to contribute incidents in which they
28 followed the code more than they might have, had I asked for more than one incident and/or counterbalanced the order of follow and did not follow the code. This concern raises the possibility that the one third of men who reported not following the code was an underestimate, be cause they were first primed to think of an incident in which they followed the code and were only given the opportunity to report one incident. Future research can address the degree to which these procedures produced more reported incidents of following the code than would occur naturally. method await validation in future research, using both similar research methods and, perhaps more importantly, using different methods. For example, if these incident categories can be transformed into an easy to administer instrument, confirmatory factor analysis can be conducted to assess the degree to which the model that emerged using critical incidents is corroborated by data from a quest ionnaire. Such corroboration would lend credence to the conclusion that this study may have identified enduring and viable categories of the psychology of hegemonic masculinity.
29 APPENDIX A TABLES Table A 1 Coding scheme for qualified c ritical Incidents Code Label Incident Frequency Definition Example Male Friends First 63 Men should be more l oyal to male friends than to women, regardless of the type of relationship the man has with a woman Typical "bro code" states that you don't date your friend's ex girlfriend. Usually, you're never allowed to do this, ever no amount of time is enough time before it's okay. Only in some rare cases does the dumped friend condone his friend dating his ex g irlfriend. In my situation, I was friends with a guy for several years, we went to high school together and played on the same sports teams. We had the same taste in movies which was a big part of our friendship. He had a girlfriend that was awesome but he never really appreciated her. Her and I became acquaintances via group hangouts where they'd both come along. Their relationship eventually started to deteriorate and during that time I started talking to her more and more. It began as simple support for her during the difficult time with her boyfriend. But eventually, I started falling for her. / / They eventually broke up and I had an opportunity to express My feelings for her. I knew that if I didn't take that chance, I'd probably never see her again. So I told her how I felt and to my surprise, she felt the same way. Obviously, this became a bit of an issue because I which in general is something my friends and I don't even talk about, we're far fr om typical "bros" but the notion still stands: don't date your friends' ex!. / / I was
30 very afraid that being with this girl would lose me all the mutual friends I shared with the guy, as well as the guy hm3self. Rather than be sketchy and carry on behin d his back, I told him what was up. He was obviously very angry and stopped speaking to me. As for the mutual friends we shared? They couldn't care less. Turns out they never really liked this guy so they didn't care. Plus, they knew that I'd had a run of bad luck with girls and that this girl was a perfect match for me, so they understood why I couldn't let her go. / / So, bottom line: I broke the guy code of never dating your friend's ex girlfriend, the consequence (turned out to be a positive) was that I lost him as a friend which has never really bothered me because I was getting annoyed with him anyway, I didn't lose any friends, and I found an amazing woman that I've formed a great relationship with going on four years now. Stand by your Man 17 Me n must remain l oyal to male friends regardless of the context. Guys aren't supposed to snitch on their guy friends. You gotta keep your mouth shut no matter what. My friend once stole a bottle of adderal from our pill head roommate. We found a chick who w as willing to take the blame, but she rolled over immediately and said it was us. I was confronted about it and had a hard time dealing with the pressure. My girlfriend convinced me that I should be honest, so I told the truth. My buddy STILL gives me **** about it. It's been 9 years. This occurred in college there were 5 of us in a small house. Things got tense and there was confrontation as a consequence. I also felt pretty ****** about getting caught. Gallantry 13 Men should protect women based on the assumption that they are less mature During high school (we were around 17) I was in a party with my classmates (guys and girls), around 20 in total. A girl got really drunk and a lot of g uys where
31 and more vulnerable than men. trying to hit on her, touch her, etc... and the girl was playing the girl too. Not even close to rape or something related. Other girls were actually cool with the situation and I did play along until I felt this was already too much so I went to talk with one of the girls who was closer to this drunk girl. I talked to my friends and told them this was unacceptable, shame on you, etc... Everybody reacted right away and the other girl brought the drunk girl to her room and in a way I ''shut the par ty down'' / I guess the next day a few people were ashamed but I also got reactions like... ooh man, wtf did you do, etc... / I didnt feel bad with myself at all, and I actually felt kind of proud. But in a way, I still feel Wing man 12 A man should assist a male friend in his efforts to attract and have sex with a woman. My first year of university, I joined a fraternity so as to impress my older brother. This led to many such cases of "man code" which I still regret years later. It was expected of us to do several things far beyond what my moral compass allowed and I left the fraternity shortly after joining. / / This specific incident has to do with my pseudo mentor within the frat. He was a pretty decent guy but surprisingly s hy and so he didn't get many girls. This is one of the most intense pressures in a fraternity, to be a Lothario of sorts. Well, there was a girl who had been coming around lately who I found out really liked me. 3y "Big borther (mentor)" apparently really wanted to date her. I knew that he would be offended if, after all his effort and flirting with her, I became her boyfriend. So, I followed the code. I took her to a club, asked her to dance, and then, I did nothing. I knew that if I backed off immediatel y she would think it was strange. I danced with her for about 10 minutes, and then I literally just left without making
32 anymore advances. I didn't kiss her, or take her home, and I also quit calling her. That was that, my wingman duties were complete. Cons equences: She got somewhat upset with me being so terrible to her and soon chose the guy who's shoulder she cried on. a month. I felt like crap for hurting a girl's feelings so he could date her fo r a month. Lovely. / / Oh, also, by the end, everybody assumed I was gay because I wasn't a man whore. Sex as Conquest 8 Men win by having sex with women, regardless of the context or the nature of the relationship. This happens to me quite often. Last week I was at the bar chatting with a girl. I then left her for a few minutes and had guys telling me "dude you gotta hit that" etc. They told me to take her home. I did not hook up with the girl. The code here would be that guys are supposed to hook up with girls they meet out on weekends, I did not follow the code. But, the consequences for me have actually been pretty good. feel happy, and my friends actually end ed up thinking it was a smart move. Feminizing Objects 7 M en should avoid involvement with traditionally feminine objects or activities Guys are supposed to drink beer. I drink sweet cider or vodka mixed with juice. One night, about two years or so ago, I had ordered such a drink at a friendly get together (me and mixed group of friends). One of my guy friends pointed out to me several times that it's a very girlish or "gay" thing to do, the meaning obviously being that it's inferior. I've been asked if I was gay (I'm not), and when I asked why, one of the reasons was my choice of drinks. It's kinda odd, but it doesn't really bother me. As far as consequences, I was proud I other friends praised me for not caring.
33 Restricted Emotionality 6 M en should not display emotion al vulnerability. It was sophomore year and I was sitting with my buddy at lunch. Guys are not supposed to get emotional with each other is the code, and when I tried to talk to my friend ab out how my sophomore year breakup had been affecting me he told me he didn't want to talk about it because he "didn't have time for emotional ****". So, following the code, and trying to not show my emotions has actually really affected me, for example, I felt pretty sad and angry at my friend for not being there for me. I was 20. Restricted Affectionate Behaviors Between Men 5 M en should limit how verbally and physically affectionate they are with other men I was walking down the street with my friend P and we were talking and laughing. Suddenly, overcame with "brolove" I grabbed his head and kissed the top of it. I felt a suddenly felt ashamed and that I had violated the bro code don't touch or kiss your male friends" and also "its bad to love or feel too much affection for your male friends". The consequences were an (entirely self created) sense of shame and some Other 17 Incidents too few in number to merit a separate category ( n < 5).
34 Table A 2 Chi square table for internal consequences Followed Code? Internal Consequences Favorable Unfavorable Mixed 2 Yes 10 32 12 8.74* .33 No 12 7 6 Note. *= p < .05 Table A 3. Chi square table for external consequences Followed Code? External Consequences Favorable Unfavorable Mixed 2 Yes 9 53 16 14.10* .25 No 13 12 6 Note. = p < .05
35 APPENDIX B PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL Any candidate who intends to quote or reproduce material beyond the limits of "fair use" from a copyrighted source must have written permission from the copyright holder. A copy of this written approval must be submitted to the Graduate School Editorial Office no later than the final submission date of the term the candidate graduates. The form below is intended to aid the candidate in fulfilling his or her responsibility. ______________________________________ _______________________________ PERMISSION TO QUOTE/REPRODUCE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL I (We),_______________________________________, owners(s) of the copyright of the work known as ________________________ _______________________________ _______________ _________________________________________________________ _____________ ___________________ ________________________________________ hereby authorize _________________________________ to use the following material as part of his/her thesis/dissertation to be submitted to the University of Florida. Page Inclusive Line Numbers Passages to be Q uoted/Reproduced The following should be added for doctoral students: I (We) further extend this authorization to ProQuest Information and Learning Company (PQIL), Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the purposes of reproducing and distributing microformed cop ies of the dissertation. _______________________________________ Signature of Copyright Holder _______________________________________ Date
36 LIST OF REFERENCES Addis, M. E., Mansfield, A. K., & Syzdek, M. R. (2010). Is Framing the effects of gendered social learning in men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 11 (2), 77. doi:10.1037/a0018602 Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation i n the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (6), 1037 doi: 10.1037/h0077720 Bosson, J. K., Taylor, J. N., & Prewitt Freilino, J. L. (2006). Gender role violations and identity misclassification: The rol es of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles 55 (1 2), 13 24. doi:10.1007/s11199 006 9056 5 Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954 2004 and beyond. Qualitative Re search 5 (4), 475 497. doi: 10.1177/1468794105056924 Connell, R. W. (1982). Class, patriarchy, and Sartre's theory of practice. Theory and Society 11 (3), 305 320. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/657273 Connell, R. W. (1983). Which way is up? Essays on class, sex and culture. Sydney and Boston: Allen and Unwin. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1188150 Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. G ender and Society 19 829 859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639 David, D. S., & Brannon, R. (Eds.). (1976). The forty nine percent majority: The male sex role Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Demetriou, D. (2001). Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinit y: A critique. Theory and Society 30 (3), 337 361. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/657965 Falmagne, R. J. (2000). Positionality and thought: On the gendered foundations of thought, culture, and development. In P. H. Miller & E. Kofsky Scholnick (Eds.), Toward a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 191 213). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin 51 (4), 327. doi:10.1037/h0061470 Kessler, S., & Sydney, N. (1982). Ockers & disco maniacs: a discussion of sex, gender and secondary schooling (2nd ed.). Stanmore, N.S.W.: Inner City Education Centre. Goldberg, H. (1976). The hazards of being male: Surviving the myth of masculine privilege New York: Nash Pub.
37 Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies New York: Routledge. Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory 5 (1), 49 72. doi: 10.1177/146470010404081 3 Hughes, H. (2007). Critical incident technique. Exploring methods in information literacy research (pp. 49 66). Wagga Wagga, N.S.W.: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University. Heesacker, M., & Snowden, S. J. (2013). Pay no attention to th at man behind the curtain: The challenges, causes, and consequences of precarious manhood. Psychology of Men and Masculinity 14 (2), 121 124. doi: 10.1037/a0031369 Keen, S. (1991). Fire in the belly: On being a man New York: Bantam Books. Kimmel, M.S. (1997). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free Press. Kimmel, M. S. (2004). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In P. S. Rothenberg, (Ed.), Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study (pp. 81 93) New York: Worth Levant, R. F. (1992). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Journal of Family Psychology 58 379 402. doi: 10.1037/0893 3200.5.3 4.379 Levant, R. F., Smalley, K. B., Aupont, M., House, A T., Richmond, K., & Noronha, D. (2007). Initial validation of the male role norms inventory revised (MRNI R). The Journal of Men's Studies 15 (1), 83 100. doi: 10.3149/jms.1501.83 Lindau, S. T., Schumm, L. P., Laumann, E. O., Levinson, W., O'Muircheartai gh, C. A., & Waite, L. J. (2007). A study of sexuality and health among older adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 357 (8), 762 774. doi: 0.1056/NEJMoa067423 Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Journal of Men and Masculinity 58 3 25. doi: 10.1037/1524 9126.96.36.199 masculinities. Gender and Society 12(4), 472 474. doi: 10.1177/089124398012004008 McVicker Clinchy, B., & Norem, J. K. (1998). The gender and psychology reader New York: New York University Press. Morawski, J. G. (1994). Practicing femini sms, reconstructing psychology: Notes on a liminal science Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
38 Morawski, J. G. (2001). Feminist research methods: Bringing culture to science. In D. L.Tolman & M. Brydon Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectiviti es: A handbook of interpretive and participatory methods (pp. 57 75). New York: New York University Press. O'Neil, J. M. (1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men's lives. Personnel and Guidance Journal 60 203 210. doi: 10.1002/j.2164 4918.1981.tb00282.x O'Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender role conflict scale: College men's fear of femininity. Sex Roles 14 (5 6), 335 350. doi: 10.1007/BF00287583 O'Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men's gender role conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications. Counseling Psychologist 36 358 445. doi: 10.1177/0011000008317057 The Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 375 409) New York: Oxford University Press. Pleck, J.H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pleck, J. H. (1985). Working wives, working husbands Beverly Hills, Calif.: Published in cooperation with the National Council on Family Relations [by] Sage Publications. Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male roles among adolesc ent males: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex roles 30 (7 8), 481 501. doi: 10.1007/BF01420798 Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex roles 50 (1 2), 15 26. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000011069.02279.4c Terman, L., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculin ity and femininity. New York: McGraw Hill. Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2012). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men and Masculinity 14 (2), 101 113. doi: 10.1037/a0029826 Wade, J. C. (1998). Male Reference Group Identity Dependence A Theory of Male Identity. The Counseling Psychologist 26 (3), 349 383. doi: 10.1177/0011 000098263001
39 Wester, S. R., & Vogel, D. L. (2012). The psychology of men: Historical developments, current research, and future directions. In N. A. Fouad, J. Carter, & L. Subich (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling Psychology Washington, DC: American Psycholog ical Association. Whitehead, S. M. (2002). Men and masculinities: Key themes and new directions. Cambridge : Polity. Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology 9 (3), 335 356. doi: 10.1177/0959353599009003012 Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological bulletin 128 (5), 699. doi: 10.1037/003 3 2909.128.5.699 Woolsey, L. (1986). The Critical Incident Technique: An innovative method of research. Canadian Journal of Counselling 20 242 254.
40 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Steven Snowden rec eived his Bachelors of Arts in psychology and c riminology from Marquette University located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Currently, the author is pursuing his Doctor of Philosophy in counseling p sychology at the University of Florida. His main research interests include the psychology of men and m asculinit ies, suicide prevention in the veteran population, and improving quality of therapeutic care for LGBT persons.