Psychology of Men and Masculinity

Unexamined whiteness in the psychological study of men and masculinities: Situating research and practice within white space and white time.
Although the psychological study of men and masculinities (PSMM) field has continued to develop (Addis et al., 2010; Valentine & Wong, 2023), notions of white masculinities have remained mostly uninterrogated (Liu, 2017; Wong & Wang, 2022). In this article, we emphasize the unexamined “whiteness” and assumed Americanness of masculinities research and scholarship (Liu, 2017) and use a racial–spatial framework to explore how systemic racism renders differential racialized experiences for white men when compared with the racialized experiences of men of Color (Liu et al., 2023). We critique the use of intersectionality to understand the asymmetric dominance of white men and masculinities. Additionally, we describe how the construction and maintenance of whiteness in the United States and the protections offered to white men, due to their whiteness, provide them with spaces of comfort and privileges that are unique to them and their masculinities. We contend that future psychological research in men and masculinities could be conceptualized within a racial–spatial framework of systemic racism wherein white racial power and privileges are explicitly interrogated. We offer seven recommendations that underscore the critical examination and naming of whiteness in researchers’ and practitioners’ theoretical assumptions, methods, practices, and positionalities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Gonadal hormones: The men, the myths, and the legends.
Gender is one of the most essentialized social categories, with putative differences between cisgender men and cisgender women often framed in biological terms. We propose that the consequences of inaccurate and widely held essentialist beliefs about gonadal hormones (EBAGHs) in particular—that is, that androgens signify “men” and estrogens signify “not-men”—have yet to be fully appreciated. For example, placebo effects such as increased strength, sexual desire, and irritability have been documented for the androgen testosterone. Accumulating research also suggests that lay understandings exaggerate the causal importance of testosterone in men’s aggression. Consequently, testosterone is often either eschewed (i.e., men are “poisoned” by it) or enshrined (“more is good, less is bad”). Moreover, the efficacy-bolstering role of estrogens such as estradiol across the physical, cognitive, and sexual health domains for men has been downplayed or ignored by those who assert pejorative links between estrogen and weakness or effeminacy. Critically, EBAGHs may fuel “hypermasculine” behaviors such as excessive red meat consumption, problematic alcohol intake, and anabolic steroid misuse as well as treatment seeking for “low T” in the absence of proper medical diagnosis—which can all, ironically, result in disrupting men’s optimal hormonal balance. Implications of our analysis for research (e.g., EBAGHs as predictors men’s health behaviors, use of bogus “hormonal profiles” to induce or assuage threats to masculinity in experimental studies) and interventions (e.g., “hormone education” to offset the adverse effects of EBAGHs) are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Understanding masculinity: A multifaceted organizing framework.
Masculinity is a central construct within the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinities and has been a component of a substantial amount of research. At the same time, masculinity has been examined from a variety of theoretical perspectives that exist at a range of levels of analysis (e.g., individual differences, immediate environment, societal/environmental influence). The range of theories and the variety of levels of analysis point to the complex nature of masculinity, create barriers to the integration of research findings, and hinder the field’s ability to communicate and apply this research to men’s lives. In this article, I present the multifaceted masculinity framework (MFMF) as a method of organizing different theoretical approaches and findings while also facilitating application and communication. The MFMF posits that focusing on four established research constructs—criteria, achievement, types, and negotiations—would achieve these goals. The MFMF is presented in full, including examples of integration within each construct, primarily in the realm of providing/breadwinning. Applications and implications of the framework for both researcher and interventionists are provided to help guide future work. Connections with intersectional approaches are addressed throughout the article. Limitations, particularly regarding the boundaries of masculinity, are addressed in some detail. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
On the future of the psychological study of men and masculinities: A developmental perspective.
Over the past 40 years, the psychological study of masculinities grounded primarily in the gender role strain paradigm has characterized psychological representations of masculine gender and documented ways they correlate with psychological, behavioral, interpersonal, and social problems that frequently affect men. Although scholars working from this perspective acknowledge the complex interaction of multiple influences on the psychological construction of masculinities, they have not yet explored important questions about the development of individual differences in the structure and correlates of masculine gender identity among boys and men of all ages. Consequently, this conceptual review highlights ways the principles of developmental psychopathology might inform the next generation of research on the psychology of men and masculinities by more clearly documenting developmental pathways to adaptive versus maladaptive masculine gender identities across the lifespan. Five critical issues are explored: (a) development as a dynamic process, (b) the complementary nature of adaptive and maladaptive development, (c) critical issues in defining pathways to adaptive versus maladaptive developmental outcomes, (d) the complex nature of causal influences on development, and (e) the concepts of resistance and resilience. The discussion closes with brief notes on research methodology in developmental science and the conceptualization of developmentally informed approaches to preventive and clinical intervention. Throughout the discussion, the primary goal is to highlight ways a developmental perspective might advance the psychological study of men and masculinities and reduce the harm associated with maladaptive psychological representations of what it means to be a masculine man. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Theorizing mankeeping: The male friendship recession and women’s associated labor as a structural component of gender inequality.
Many men’s social support systems are romantically centered, with fewer men than women reporting regular emotional disclosure and intimacy outside of heterosexual romantic bonds. The field has not yet reckoned with the ways that shortcomings in men’s social networks may further instantiate women’s disproportionate emotion work on men’s behalf. The current article theorizes an increasing and unequal dependency on close bonds with women in response to the decline of men’s social networks through a discrete form of gendered labor we call mankeeping. Specifically, mankeeping is defined as the labor that women take on to shore up losses in men’s social networks and reduce the burden of men’s isolation on families, the heterosexual bond, and on men. Three testable postulates scaffold this theory that (a) women tend to provide increased emotional support to men who do not have it elsewhere, (b) women’s provision of this support is a form of labor, and (c) women experience a burden on their time and well-being when this labor is not equally reciprocated. Mankeeping, a new extension of Carolyn Rosenthal’s theory of kinkeeping, is framed in relation to the future of men and masculinities research to advance a fuller understanding of the impact of men’s changing social networks on society at large. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Beyond sexual victimization and perpetration: Men, masculinities, and unwanted consensual sex.
The field of men and masculinities has examined rigid adherence to traditional masculine gender roles as a risk factor for sexual perpetration and as a vulnerability factor for sexual victimization. Very little research, however, has examined the role of masculinities in unwanted consensual sex (UCS). UCS is sex that is not wanted or desired by an individual but to which the individual consents or agrees—even though there is no immediate pressure from their partner to do so. UCS is sometimes called “sexual compliance” or “sexual acquiescence.” This conceptual article reviews the literature on UCS, including describing the theoretical distinction between unwanted and nonconsensual sex, discussing sexual script theory as the predominate theoretical approach to research on UCS, summarizing the potential consequences of UCS, and addressing the—fairly limited—research on the intersections between masculinities and UCS. This article argues that traditional masculine ideologies may put men at risk for consenting to sex that they do want and may make them less sensitive to their partners’ lack of desire during consensual sex. The article offers several future directions for research on men, masculinities, and UCS, and it discusses how research on UCS might guide prevention and therapeutic interventions to reduce rates of problematic UCS for men and their sexual partners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Looking back and looking forward: Men and masculinity in psychological research on violence against women.
In this article, we systematically and critically review the past decade of empirical psychological research (n = 132) on masculinity and violence against women (VAW) to demonstrate an overreliance on individualist and “culturalist” (or culturally essentialist) approaches to theorizing and studying masculinity. Individualist and essentialist approaches assume that masculinity is something men are or possess based on the extent to which they identify with, conform to, or approve of traits or norms (pre)deemed masculine. We argue that these approaches cannot explain why it is men who overwhelmingly practice VAW, or account for the contextual, material, and structural power asymmetries that create conditions for gendered violence. We demonstrate the potentiality of formulations of masculinity (structuralist, poststructuralist, and especially processual) for ending VAW that move beyond individualism and essentialism. While they have helpfully situated masculinity within wider systemic forces, structuralist approaches often overlook how structures operate in constituting masculinities; and they impose false unity by theorizing masculinity through a homogenizing categorical lens. Poststructuralist approaches have accounted for fluidity in the complex construction of masculine subjects, but not for sociomaterial forces, or systemic inequities and modes of structural violence (e.g., neoliberalism, colonialism) that coproduce VAW. We argue that processual approaches, not yet mobilized in the empirical psychological masculinity and VAW literature, offer a particularly productive new way forward in that they map how the individual and social intertwine. We outline implications for theory, research, and praxis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Men in feminism: A self-determination perspective and goals for the future.
Men can make important contributions to gender equality, but a variety of obstacles impede their engagement with feminism. In this article, we propose a self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000) approach to supporting men’s feminist engagement. We argue that men are more likely to engage with feminism more consistently and effectively if they internalize feminist goals and incorporate them into their sense of self, that is, if they develop autonomous motivation. We argue further that men are more likely to develop autonomous motivation if their engagement with feminism satisfies basic psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. We suggest a variety of strategies to meet these needs, among them: framing feminism as a men’s issue, considering men’s viewpoints and values, portraying feminism as consistent with gender and masculine norms, encouraging positive interactions with feminist women, and presenting other feminist men as role models and mentors. According to bell hooks (1984), “sexism and sexist oppression, they can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to assume responsibility for transforming their consciousness and the consciousness of society as a whole” (p. 81). Our article applies the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) to encourage men to do so. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Creating a system that cares: A PRISMA review and road map to increase men’s representation in early childhood education and care.
Careers in early childhood education and care (ECEC) are stereotypically perceived as the work of women, and men less often pursue them. Consequently, men are highly underrepresented in child care work worldwide, and when men work in ECEC, they are often treated as “other”—different from the feminine default. Yet, increasing men’s representation in ECEC would bring various benefits such as reducing the rigidity of gender roles across society, addressing labor shortages, and increasing job opportunities for men. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed 120 qualitative, quantitative, and theory articles on redressing the issue of men’s underrepresentation in ECEC from 2003 to 2023 to develop a theory-based road map of strategies to foster men’s greater inclusion in these careers. Our review identifies key areas for systemic change in organizations, which educate and care for young children, and describes how action is required to professionalize child care, engage gatekeepers, and foster caring masculinities. Further, it highlights relevant issues to be aware of when designing interventions in this specific context, such as the valuing of “women’s work,” the importance of intersectional approaches, and the critical evaluation of intervention methods. To sustainably increase gender diversity in ECEC, our road map identifies actors that have the most influence and describes how efforts need to come from government, policymakers, organizational leaders, and broader society. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

Psychology of Men & Masculinities - Vol 25, Iss 4