Poster #85 - Boys' Masculinity Profiles Predicting How They Relate to Their Gender, Peers, and Themselves Emotionally

• In Event: Poster Session 10

Abstract

Developmental scholarship on boys’ conformity to traditional masculinity has consistently pointed to its association with a range of behavioral, interpersonal, and emotional difficulties for boys (Rogers et al., 2021). However, traditional masculinity is multidimensional, centering varying forms of bravado including physical toughness, emotional stoicism, and avoidance of femininity, to name a few. Extant research on boys’ masculinity has typically aggregated these dimensions, or studied them from a variable centered approach in which singular dimensions are examined for their unique associations with outcomes of interest. These approaches are valuable for their own purposes. However, boys do not endorse or conform to these norms in isolation, but consider the universe of prevalent male gender roles holistically and in relation to one another. As such, boys likely orient themselves toward these gender role norms in different ways, incorporating some behaviors (e.g., emotional stoicism) more than others (e.g., physical aggression). These orientations are likely situation dependent and may have implications for their interpersonal and emotional well-being. In this study, we will use a latent profile analysis to detect evidence for distinct profiles (e.g., typologies) of boys based on their adherence to three male role norms common in adolescence: physical toughness, emotional stoicism, and avoidance of femininity. We will then examine mean differences among these latent profiles on indices of their social and emotional wellbeing, specifically friend support and internalizing symptoms.
We drew a sample of 305 adolescent boys from across the United States (ages 14 – 17; 49% White, 25% Black, 20% Latinx). We administered online surveys that assessed their adherence to various dimensions of traditional masculinity, as well as indices of their interpersonal and intrapersonal well-being. Specifically, we used the Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale (Chu et al., 2005), which taps masculinity dimensions of physical toughness and emotional stoicism. Avoidance of femininity was assessed with a proxy, using a scale of homophobic name calling, a behavior rooted in a-feminine role expectations (Poteat et al., 2015). We also assessed their perceived similarity to other boys (Martin et al., 2017), a key dimension of gender identity; their perceived friend support, and depressive and anxiety symptoms (combined to represent internalizing symptoms).
We will conduct a latent profile analysis using the three dimensions of masculinity as observed indicators of underlying profiles of boys. We hypothesize that there will be variability in how boys orient to these gender roles, which will manifest as distinct subgroups based on how much they conform to different dimensions of masculinity. However, our hypotheses about the quantity of these profiles, as well as their varying qualities, are exploratory.
Then, we will examine differences among these groups in how they relate to other boys, measured through their gender identity and friendship support, and how they relate to themselves, measured through their emotional well-being, specifically depression and anxiety. We hypothesize that boys incorporating more overtly aversive dimensions of masculinity (e.g., aggression, homophobic name calling) will have relatively more interpersonal and intrapersonal difficulties than boys who incorporate more socially-acceptable and subtle forms (emotional restriction).

Authors

• Julie Button, Brigham Young University
  Presenting Author

• Adam Rogers, Brigham Young University