Professional men's attitudes toward race and gender equity.
This study examined adult men's attitudes toward race and
gender equity and their sexual harassment proclivities in relation to
male identity status and traditional masculinity ideology. It was
hypothesized that a male identity characterized by dependence on a male
reference group for one's gender role self-concept would be related
to traditional attitudes about masculinity, and both would be associated
with attitudes unsupportive of race and gender equity and attitudes
conducive to the sexual harassment of women. Conversely, it was also
hypothesized that a male identity characterized by not being dependent
on a male reference group for one's gender role self-concept would
be related to attitudes supportive of race and gender equity, not having
attitudes conducive to the sexual harassment of women, and not endorsing
traditional attitudes about masculinity. Support for both hypotheses was
found, and implications of the findings for understanding men's
psychosocial functioning are discussed.
Key Words: men's attitudes toward race and gender equity, sexual harassment, male identity, masculinity ideology, gender role, male reference group
|Article Type:||Statistical Data Included|
Racism (Social aspects)
Sex discrimination (Social aspects)
Masculinity (Social aspects)
Employment discrimination (Social aspects)
|Author:||Wade, Jay C.|
|Publication:||Name: The Journal of Men's Studies Publisher: Men's Studies Press Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Social sciences; Women's issues/gender studies Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2001 Men's Studies Press ISSN: 1060-8265|
|Issue:||Date: Fall, 2001 Source Volume: 10 Source Issue: 1|
|Geographic:||Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States|
Several writers have speculated on the social and psychological
reasons for the race- and gender-related discriminatory attitudes and
behavior of men (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Kimmel, 1996; Segal, 1990;
Weis, Proweller, & Centrie, 1997). According to Kimmel's (1996)
cultural analysis, historically, White American manhood has been
grounded upon the exclusion of others, in particular, Blacks, women,
immigrants, and homosexuals. This exclusion has been associated with
sociocultural changes that have affected men's working lives. Work
being "one of the main anchorages of male identity ... women's
presence in the workforce has always been a threat to men's sense
of their masculinity" (Segal, 1990, p. 297). Similarly, it can be
argued that the presence in the workforce of racial ethnic minorities
has been a threat to White men's sense of their masculinity. The
extent to which racial ethnic minorities have been fully included in the
workforce has changed in relation to sociocultural events that have
occurred in the history of the United States. However, it wasn't
until the civil rights movement that the traditional way White American
men had defined their manhood (i.e., through their work and the relative
exclusion of racial minorities from the workplace/force) began to lose
its sure footing and disintegrate, as African Americans (and other
marginalized groups) demanded and were legislatively granted full
economic, social, and political equality (Kimmel, 1996; Wellman, 1996).
Masculinity has been discussed in the literature as constructed around assumptions of social power (e.g., Connell, 1995; Levant & Brooks, 1997; O'Neil & Egan, 1993; Segal, 1990) and around ingroup-outgroup distinctions (e.g., Marusza, 1997a, 1997b; Glick & Fiske, 1999; Wade, 1998). In terms of social power, O'Neil and Egan (1993) have argued that "sexism maintains patriarchy by enforcing a primarily masculine worldview ... keeping women in less powerful positions" (p. 52). Further, differential gender role socialization of the sexes contributes to men's use of power over women to validate and maintain their masculine identity. For White American men, "both racial and gender identity offer an integrated experience of membership in socially privileged or advantaged groups that hold certain degrees of power over White women and people of color" (Zane, 1997, p. 343). The real or perceived erosion of such power and privilege, and the encroachment of women and minorities into the work sphere, threatens the masculine identity of some White men (Marusza, 1997a; Wellman, 1996). One possible response to this sense of loss or threat may be discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward women and racial ethnic minorities.
Although for different reasons, there may be a similar dynamic of race/gender exclusion in the construction of male identity and masculinities among racial ethnic minority men. For example, theory and research suggest that African American families of higher socioeconomic status, and traditional Mexican American and Asian American families, tend to be patriarchal (Cantu & Sparks, 1998; Eshleman, 1985; Nghe & Mahalik, 1998); that lower-class African-American masculinity tends to be misogynistic (Franklin, 1984); that racial minority males endorse attitudes representing traditional masculinity ideology to the same extent as White males, if not more so (Levant & Majors, 1997; Levant, Majors, & Kelley, 1998; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993; Wade, 1996); and that for some men, masculinity may in part be grounded in racial ingroup-outgroup distinctions (Majors & Billson, 1992; Pierre, 1998; Wade, 1998).
The purpose of this study was to examine how male identity and traditional masculinity ideology are related to men's attitudes toward race and gender equity and their sexual harassment proclivities. Male identity was examined using Wade's (1998) model of male reference group identity dependence. In that male gender role socialization has been suggested in the literature as a contributing factor, traditional masculinity ideology was examined as a predictor. Additionally, male identity was examined in relation to men's traditional masculinity ideology.
Masculinity ideology refers to men's acceptance or internalization of a culture's definition of masculinity and beliefs about adherence to culturally defined standards of male behavior (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993). Although there may be many masculinity ideologies, the masculinity ideology that has been examined most within the literature has been referred to as "traditional," which has been described by several researchers (e.g., David & Brannon, 1976; Franklin, 1984; Harris, 1995; Levant et al., 1992; O'Neil, 1981) and operationalized by measures of attitudes toward the male gender role (Pleck et al., 1993). Conceptual formulations of traditional masculinity ideology in contemporary American culture have focused on those standards and expectations that have various negative consequences (Pleck, 1995), such as anti-femininity, homophobia, emotional restrictiveness, competitiveness, toughness, and aggressiveness. A few studies have examined how traditional masculinity ideology relates to men's attitudes toward gender equity and sexual harassment, while none have examined how it relates to men's racial attitudes.
Sinn (1997) investigated the predictive and discriminative validity of traditional masculinity ideology by correlating the Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS; Thompson & Pleck, 1986) with measures of attitudes toward gender relations and other gender-related constructs. The results indicated that traditional masculinity ideology was related to more traditional, non-egalitarian attitudes regarding men's and women's roles. Additionally, traditional masculinity ideology was related to a more adversarial view of heterosexual sexual relationships. Truman, Tokar, and Fischer (1996) found similar results with the MRNS when they investigated the relationship between traditional masculinity ideology and date rape supportive attitudes. Traditional masculinity ideology was related to more traditional attitudes toward women and women's roles, a more adversarial view of heterosexual relationships, date rape myth acceptance, and violence against women. One study has examined how gender role conflict relates to sexual harassment. Using O'Neil et al.'s (1986) Gender Role Conflict Scale, Jacobs (1996) found that the experience of conflict associated with adherence to traditional male role norms was related to more tolerant attitudes about sexual harassment, and in particular, gender-role conflict with regard to achieving success and power and competing with others.
MALE REFERENCE GROUP IDENTITY DEPENDENCE
Male reference group identity dependence is defined as the extent to which a male is dependent on a male reference group for his gender role self-concept (Wade, 1998). The gender role self-concept is one's self-concept with regard to gender roles and includes one's gender-related attributes, attitudes, and behaviors (McCreary, 1990). Wade (1998) conceptualized three male reference group identity statuses that have different implications for the gender role self-concept. The No Reference Group status is characterized by a lack of psychological relatedness to other males. There is no particular group or image of males that the individual feels he is similar or connected to or that he identifies with, and the gender role self-concept is therefore relatively undefined or fragmented. The Reference Group Dependent status is characterized by psychological relatedness to some males and not others. There is a particular group or image of males the individual feels he is similar or connected to or that he identifies with while this is not so with males perceived to be unlike or dissimilar to oneself. Here, the gender role self-concept is dependent on the reference group and therefore externally defined, stereotyped, conformist, and rigid. The Reference Group Nondependent status is characterized by psychological relatedness to all males. There is a sense of commonality, similarity, connectedness, and identification with various types or images of males. The gender role self-concept is not dependent on a male reference group and therefore is internally defined, pluralistic, flexible, and autonomous.
The Reference Group Identity Dependence Scale (RGIDS; Wade & Gelso, 1998) was developed based on Wade's (1998) theory. Some preliminary support for the three male identity statuses has been found in research conducted with college males (see Wade & Brittan-Powell, in press-a; Wade & Brittan-Powell, in press-b; Wade & Gelso, 1998). The no reference group status has been found to be positively related to a diffused ego identity, anxiety/depression symptomatology, low self-esteem, social anxiety, and nontraditional masculinity ideology; and negatively related to collective identity, social connectedness, and trait masculinity. The reference group dependent status has been found to be positively related to both an achieved ego identity and a foreclosed ego identity, gender role conflict, traditional masculinity ideology, attitudes unsupportive of race and gender equity, attitudes conducive to sexual harassment, social identity, and social connectedness; and negatively related to nontraditional masculinity ideology. The reference group nondependent status has been found to be positively related to an achieved ego identity, trait femininity and masculinity, personal identity, collective identity, social connectedness, and a universal-diverse orientation; and negatively related to a foreclosed identity and gender role conflict (see Table 1 for a description of the three male identity statuses).
Prior to this study, The Reference Group Identity Dependence Scale had not been used in research with adult men. The purpose of this study was therefore twofold: 1) to examine the relationships between male identity, traditional masculinity ideology, and attitudes about race and gender in a sample of adult men; and 2) to develop a version of the RGIDS appropriate for use in research with adult men. Based on the conceptualizations of the male reference group identity statuses and previous research examining the variables in this study in a sample of college men, the following hypotheses were tested in this research. It was hypothesized that having feelings and beliefs representative of the reference group dependent status and attitudes consistent with traditional masculinity ideology would be associated with negative attitudes toward race and gender equity and attitudes conducive to the sexual harassment of women. Conversely, it was hypothesized that having feelings and beliefs representative of the reference group nondependent status would be associated with positive attitudes toward race and gender equity and not having attitudes. that are conducive to sexual harassment behavior. Further, it was hypothesized that the reference group dependent status would be associated with having attitudes consistent with traditional masculinity ideology, whereas the reference group nondependent status would be associated with not having attitudes consistent with traditional masculinity ideology.
Participants were 170 adult men across the U.S. The average age was 44.63 (SD = 9.79). Eighty-seven percent (147) were White, 5% (8) Black/African American, 5% (9) Asian American, 1% (1) Latino, and 2% (4) other race/ethnicity (e.g., Mediterranean, Pacific Islander). Eighty percent were married, 11% single, 7% divorced, and 2% separated. Income was reported as follows: 1% below $20,000; 10% between $20,000 and $50,000; 28% between $50,000 and $80,000; 18% between $80,000 and $100,000; 31% between $100,000 and $150,000; 8% between $150,000 and $250,000; and 4% above $250,000. Occupations were categorized as follows: CEO, President (5%); Vice-President (2%); Coordinator, Manager, CFO (26%); Supervisor (2%); Professional (e.g., physician, lawyer, nurse, teacher, professor, dentist, minister, researcher, entertainer) (51%); Retired (4%); and Other (e.g., self-employed, student, software developer) (10%). Thus, the average participant was a married White male between the ages of 35 and 54 in a professional occupation, and the median annual income of participants was between $100,000 and $150,000.
Male Reference Group Identity Dependence. An adult version of The Reference Group Identity Dependence Scale (RGIDS; Wade & Gelso, 1998) was developed for use in this study. The RGIDS assesses a man's feelings of psychological relatedness to other men. The initial adult scale consisted of 42 items based on the initial version of the RGIDS that was developed on a sample of male college students. Each of the 42 items was developed specific to one of the three male identity statuses. First, an item total correlation procedure was used to identify those items that correlated above .25 on their respective scales. This resulted in the deletion of one item from the No Reference Group scale, five items from the Reference Group Dependent scale, and two items from the Reference Group Nondependent scale. The remaining 34 items were then factor analyzed using principal component analysis with varimax rotation. Four factors were extracted based on the results from the development of the original version of the RGIDS with college students, and analysis of the scree plot indicated four major common factors. The four-factor extraction resulted in an orthogonal solution after six iterations accounting for 43.5% of the variance. Using .40 as the factor loading criteria, two items were eliminated. Four more items were eliminated that loaded on the No Reference Group factor because these items were almost identical in content to other items with higher loadings. The final form of the adult version of the RGIDS consisted of 28 items with salient loadings on the four factors. The four factors were used to develop four subscales that measure the three male reference group identity dependence statuses. (The Reference Group Nondependent status items resulted in two factors.)
The No Reference Group scale (Factor 1: Eigenvalue = 6.89; 20.3% variance) consists of nine items that measure feelings of disconnectedness from other men or a lack of psychological relatedness to other men. Items represent the feeling that there are no other men like oneself or with whom one identifies or feels connected. Example items include: "I have little in common with most other men" and "I find it difficult to describe who I am as a man." The Reference Group Nondependent Diversity scale (Factor 2: Eigenvalue = 3.46; 10.2% variance) consists of six items that measure feelings of connectedness or psychological relatedness to a diversity of men. Items represent comfort with, understanding of, and appreciation of differences in men. Example items include: "I feel comfortable relating to different types of men" and "I understand differences in men." The Reference Group Nondependent Similarity scale (Factor 3: Eigenvalue = 2.60; 7.6% variance) consists of six items that measure feelings of connectedness or psychological relatedness to all men. Items represent the feeling and belief that although there are differences among men, there is a connection, identification, sense of commonality, and/or association with all men. Example items include: "Although I feel most similar to some men, I am also similar to all men" and "Although men may differ in some ways, we are essentially all the same." The Reference Group Dependent scale (Factor 4: Eigenvalue = 1.82; 5.4% variance) consists of seven items that measure feelings of connectedness or psychological relatedness to some males and not others. Items represent the feeling and belief that there are similar males like oneself with whom there is an identification and sense of commonality, whereas there is no identification or sense of commonality with males perceived as dissimilar. Examples of items include: "I basically only relate to men who are like myself' and "I find myself reacting strongly to men who are different from myself."
Scores are continuous with higher scores on the subscales indicating higher levels of the relevant feelings and beliefs associated with each male identity status. Individuals respond on a 6-point, Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients in this study were: No Reference Group, .83; Reference Group Dependent, .67; Reference Group Nondependent Similarity, .77; Reference Group Nondependent Diversity, .76.
Traditional masculinity ideology. Seven items were selected from The Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI; Levant et al., 1992) to develop a short measure that assesses men's traditional attitudes about masculinity. The MRNI is a 57-item scale that assesses masculinity ideology. There are eight subscales: seven that are used to assess dimensions of traditional masculinity ideology and one subscale that assesses nontraditional attitudes about masculinity. The seven traditional masculinity subscales include 45 items representing the dimensions of avoidance of femininity, fear and hatred of homosexuals, self-reliance, aggression, achievement/status, attitudes toward sex, and restrictive emotionality. Based on a previous study using the MRNI (Wade & Brittan-Powell, in press-a), an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to select the most discriminating items from the 45 items that measure traditional masculinity ideology on the MRNI. Items that loaded on the first factor were used, and eight items were chosen with the highest item total correlation. However, when internal consistency was examined in the current study, one item was deleted because it significantly lowered the reliability. Participants responded to normative statements by indicating their agreement/disagreement on a five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Example items include: "For men, touching is simply the first step towards sex" and "A man should never reveal worries to others." The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was .71 for the 7-item scale and .60 for the 8-item scale. (The item deleted was: "In a group, it's up to the men to get things organized and moving ahead." Of note is when the reliability was examined using White participants only, the 8-item scale reliability coefficient was .75.)
Race and Gender Equity. The Quick Discrimination Index (QDI; Ponterotto et al., 1995) is a 30-item, self-report instrument that assesses attitudes toward racial diversity (multiculturalism) and women's equality. The QDI consists of three factors: a) cognitive attitudes about racial diversity and multiculturalism, b) affective attitudes regarding racial diversity related to one's personal life, and c) general attitudes regarding women's equity issues. Individuals indicate their agreement/disagreement by responding to items on a
five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Higher scores indicate more awareness, sensitivity, and receptivity to racial diversity and gender equality. In the initial development and evaluation of construct validity of the instrument, the QDI was found to be internally consistent and stable over a 15-week test-retest period and demonstrated preliminary support for construct validity (Ponterotto et al., 1995). Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients in this study were: Cognitive, .82; Affective, .68; Equity, .47.
Sexual Harassment Attitudes. The Sexual Harassment Proclivities Scale (SHP; Bartling & Eisenman, 1993) is a 10-item, self-report instrument that measures likelihood of sexual harassment. Individuals respond to attitude statements by indicating their agreement/disagreement on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Higher scores indicate attitudes more conducive to sexual harassment behavior. Initial evaluation of construct validity indicated that the SHP had acceptable internal consistency reliability and correlated positively with measures of adversarial sexual beliefs, likelihood to rape, and likelihood of sexually exploiting subordinates on the job. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was .75 in this study.
Demographic Information. A personal data sheet asked participants to provide information regarding age, marital status, race/ethnicity, occupation, and income.
Participants were recruited through their e-mail address listed in The 1997 International Who's Who of Professionals. A letter addressed to potential participants living in the U.S. was sent via e-mail describing the study and requesting their participation. Those men interested in participating responded to the e-mail, and the questionnaire with a return stamped envelope was sent to them via the postal service. Participants then completed the survey questionnaire and returned it in the envelope provided. There were 769 men from the Who's Who directory who received an email inviting their participation in the research study (response rate of 22%).
Scale means, standard deviations, and scale ranges are provided in Table 2. Participants' strongest endorsements were for the reference group nondependent status concerning diversity among men, and they tended to disagree with attitudes representing traditional masculinity ideology. They were mostly "not sure" in terms of being sensitive, receptive to, and aware of racial diversity and gender equality and tended to disagree with attitudes conducive to sexual harassment.
Scale means were tested for group differences at the .05 level of significance comparing racial ethnic minority and majority men. Racial ethnic minority men scored significantly higher on the two subscales representing the reference group nondependent status, the QDI scales measuring cognitive and affective attitudes toward racial diversity, and the measures of sexual harassment proclivities and traditional masculinity ideology.
Correlations among the variables in the study are provided in Table 3. First, it should be noted that correlational analyses were initially conducted separately for majority and minority race males. Examination of the strength and direction of the relationships between the variables in the two groups revealed some discrepancies with no particular pattern. However, in general, the reference group dependent and traditional masculinity ideology relationship patterns were mostly consistent across both groups, whereas the patterns mostly differed for no reference group and reference group nondependent (Diversity and Similarity). Due to the differences in the two groups and the small sample size of minority race males, the correlational analyses and following regression analyses reported here were based only on majority race males. As such, the 8-item measure of traditional masculinity, with the higher reliability for Whites, was used for analysis.
It was hypothesized that the reference group dependent status and traditional masculinity ideology would be related to negative attitudes toward race and gender equity and attitudes conducive to the sexual harassment of women. This hypothesis was partially supported as indicated by the significant negative correlations between two of the three QDI subscales and Reference Group Dependent (Affective: r = -.33, p <.005; Equity: r = -.15, p <.05) and all three QDI subscales with traditional masculinity (Cognitive: r = -.24, p <.005; Affective: r = -.29, p <.005; Equity: r = -.49, p <.005); and by the significant positive correlations between the SHP scale and Reference Group Dependent (r = .27, p <.005) and traditional masculinity (r = .41, p <.005). Conversely, it was hypothesized that the reference group nondependent stares would be related to positive attitudes toward race and gender equity and not having attitudes conducive to sexual harassment behavior. This hypothesis was partially supported as indicated by the significant positive correlations between Reference Group Nondependent Diversity and two of the QDI subscales (Affective: r = .28, p <.005; Equity: r = .26, p <.005) and the significant negative correlation with the SHP scale (r = -.21, p <.05). Last, it was hypothesized that the reference group dependent status would be associated with having attitudes consistent with traditional masculinity ideology, whereas the reference group nondependent status would be associated with not having attitudes consistent with traditional masculinity ideology. This hypothesis was partially supported as indicated by significant positive correlation between traditional masculinity ideology and Reference Group Dependent (r = .31, p <.005) and the significant negative correlation with Reference Group Nondependent Diversity (r = -.24, p <.005).
Three regression analyses were conducted in order to ascertain the amount of variance accounted for by the male identity and masculinity ideology variables on QDI subscale scores and SHP scores. Hierarchical regression was used to examine the unique contribution of each independent variable set; in particular, the amount of variance accounted for by traditional masculinity ideology after accounting for male identity. Therefore, the significant male identity variables (Reference Group Dependent, Reference Group Nondependent Diversity) were entered in the first step of the equation, and traditional masculinity was entered at the second step. Results of the regression analyses are provided in Table 4. For the SHP regression equation examining sexual harassment proclivities, at the first step male identity accounted for 9.1% of the variance in SHP scores with Reference Group Dependent as a significant positive predictor. At the second step, traditional masculinity ideology accounted for an additional 11.3% of the variance and was a significant positive predictor. The change in R square was significant, and traditional masculinity was the only significant predictor in the full model. For the QDI regression equation examining affective attitudes regarding racial diversity related to one's personal life, at the first step male identity accounted for 14.3% of the variance with Reference Group Dependent as a significant negative predictor and Reference Group Nondependent Diversity as a significant positive predictor. At the second step, traditional masculinity ideology accounted for an additional 3% of the variance and was a significant negative predictor. The change in R square was significant, and the male identity statuses remained significant predictors, in the full model. For the QDI regression equation examining general attitudes regarding women's equity issues, at the first step male identity accounted for 8.1% of the variance with Reference Group Nondependent Diversity as a significant positive predictor. At the second step, traditional masculinity ideology accounted for an additional 19.4% of the variance and was a significant negative predictor. The change in R square was significant and Nondependent Diversity remained a significant predictor in the full model.
This research study examined the influence of male reference group identity dependence status and traditional masculinity ideology on professional White men's attitudes towards racial diversity and women's equality and their sexual harassment proclivities. The findings of this study suggest possible explanations as to why men may hold attitudes against race and gender equity, as well as why men may reject such attitudes.
In general, dependence on a reference group for one's gender role self-concept was found to be associated with endorsement of traditional attitudes about masculinity, and both were related to attitudes unsupportive of racial diversity and women's equality and attitudes conducive to the sexual harassment of women. These results suggest that traditional masculinity and male identity may in part be constructed around the exclusion of others. In other words, men may partially define their male identity and masculinity based on what it is not, such as anything associated with the feminine and racial ingroup-outgroup distinctions with regard to a male reference group. Therefore, it is possible that men whose reference group is the "traditional" male, and who are dependent on this image of masculinity to define themselves as characteristically male, may also define themselves by excluding from their identity any characteristics that are contrary to that image. Without being able to identify with and integrate other images of masculinity into one's gender role self-concept, as this might present a threat to one's sense of manhood, perhaps the consequence is a lack of tolerance for difference, be it based in race or gender.
The second set of findings complement the above results by suggesting possible influences on professional White men's acceptance and support of racial diversity and gender equality and their rejection of attitudes conducive to sexual harassment. The results indicate that such attitudes are related to not being dependent on a reference group for one's gender role-self concept, which is also associated with not endorsing traditional attitudes about masculinity. However, it was only the Diversity factor of the nondependent status (i.e., comfort with, understanding of, and appreciation of differences among males) that related to positive attitudes about racial diversity and gender equality and to not endorsing traditional attitudes about masculinity. This finding suggests that perhaps having a male identity that is internally defined and not dependent on a male reference group for one's gender role self-concept allows for an acceptance and possibly an appreciation of differences, in particular with regard to race, gender, and gender roles.
A major limitation of this study concerns the low reliability of some of the measures. As such, results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, this research demonstrates and provides support for further exploration into how a man's gender role self-concept and feelings of psychological relatedness to other men may have implications for one's attitudes about race and gender equity, and potentially for how one views racial and gender others. The assumption is that being nonracist and nonsexist, accepting and tolerant of racial and gender differences, and able to appreciate and respect differences between men and women is psychologically and socially healthy. Future research in this area should consider using larger and more diverse sample populations, as well as explore other areas of men's interpersonal and psychosocial functioning. Such research can provide further understanding into the psychological and social influences on both men's adaptive and maladaptive attitudes and behaviors.
Bartling, C. A., & Eisenman, R. (1993). Sexual harassment proclivities in men and women. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 189-192.
Cantu, S., & Sparks, E. (1998, August). Male gender roles in Mexican American immigrant families: The intersection of race, culture, and class. In J. R. Mahalik (Chair), The impact of culture and racism on masculinity for minority men. Symposium conducted at the 106th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
David, D., & Brannon, R. (1976). The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Eshleman, J. R. (1985). The family: An introduction (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Franklin, C. (1984). The changing definition of masculinity. New York: Plenum.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Sexism and other "isms": Independence, status, and the ambivalent content of stereotypes. In W. B. Swann, J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society (pp. 193-222). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harris, I. M. (1995). Messages men hear. London: Taylor & Francis.
Jacobs, J. R. (1996). Psychological and demographic correlates of men's perceptions of and attitudes toward sexual harassment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3826A.
Kimmel, M. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free Press.
Levant, R. F. & Brooks, G. R. (Eds.) (1997). Men and sex: New psychological perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Levant, R. F., Hirsch, L., Celentano, E., Cozza, T., Hill, S., MacEachern, M., Marty, N., & Schnedeker, J. (1992). The male role: An investigation of norms and stereotypes. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325-337.
Levant, R. F., & Majors, R. G. (1997). An investigation into variations in the construction of the male gender role among young African American and European American women and men. Journal of Gender, Culture, and Health, 2, 33-43.
Levant, R. F., Majors, R. G., & Kelley, M. L. (1998). Masculinity ideology among young African American and European American women and men in different regions of the United States. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4, 227-236.
Majors, R. G., & Billson, J. M. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of Black manhood in America. New York: Lexington Books.
Marusza, J. (1997a). Urban White working-class males and the possibilities of collective anger: Patrolling Riley Road. The Urban Review, 29, 97-112.
Marusza, J. (1997b). Skill school boys: Masculine identity formation among White boys in an urban high school vocational autoshop program. The Urban Review, 29, 175-187.
McCreary, D. R. (1990). Multidimensionality and the measurement of gender role attributes: A comment on Archer. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 265-272.
Nghe, L. T., & Mahalik, J. R. (1998, August). Influences on Vietnamese men: Examining gender role socialization, acculturation, and racism. In J. R. Mahalik (Chair), The impact of culture and racism on masculinity for minority men. Symposium conducted at the 106th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
O'Neil, J. M. (1981). Male sex role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Psychological implications for men, women, and the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 61-80.
O'Neil, J. M., & Egan, J. (1993). Abuses of power against women: Sexism, gender role conflict, and psychological violence. In E. Piel Cook (Ed.), Women, relationships, and power: Implications for counseling (pp. 49-78). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
O'Neil, J. M., Helms, B., Gable, R., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. (1986). Gender Role Conflict Scale: College men's fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14,335-350.
Pierre, M. R. (1998, August). Understanding African American masculinity from a historical and social adaptation framework. In J. R. Mahalik (Chair), The impact of culture and racism on masculinity for minority men. Symposium conducted at the 106th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11-32). New York: Basic Books.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology and its correlates. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender and social psychology (pp. 85-110). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ponterotto, J. G., Burkard, A., Rieger, B. P., Grieger, I., D'Onofrio, A., Dubuisson, A., Heenehan, M., Millstein, B., Parisi, M., Rath, J. F., & Garrin, S. (1995). Development and initial validation of the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 1016-1031.
Segal, L. (1990). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changing men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminant validity of masculinity ideology. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 117-135.
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531-543.
Truman, D. M., Tokar, D. M., & Fischer, A. R. (1996). Dimensions of masculinity: Relations to date rape supportive attitudes and sexual aggression in dating situations. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 555-562.
Wade, J. C. (1996). African American men's gender role conflict: The significance of racial identity. Sex Roles, 34, 17-34.
Wade, J. C. (1998). Male reference group identity dependence: A theory of male identity. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 349-383.
Wade, J. C., & Brittan-Powell, C. S. (in press-a). Men's attitudes toward race and gender equity: The importance of masculinity ideology, gender-related traits, and reference group identity dependence. Men and Masculinity.
Wade, J. C., & Brittan-Powell, C. S. (in press-b). Male reference group identity dependence: Support for construct validity. Sex Roles.
Wade, J. C., & Gelso, C. J. (1998). Reference Group Identity Dependence Scale: A measure of male identity. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 384-412.
Wellman, D. (1996). From "new political linguistics" to anti-affirmative action minstrels. Socialist Review, 26, 147-153.
Weis, L., Proweller, A., & Centrie, C. (1997). Re-examining "a moment in history": Loss of privilege inside White working-class masculinity in the 1990s. In M. Fine, L. Weis, L. C. Powell, & L. Mun Wong (Eds.), Off white (pp. 210-226). New York: Routledge.
Zane, N. (1997). Interrupting historical patterns: Bridging race and gender gaps between senior White men and other organizational groups. In M. Fine, L Weis, L. C. Powell, & L. Mun Wong (Eds.), Off white (pp. 343-353). New York: Routledge.
The Fordham University Ames Fund supported this research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jay C. Wade, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TABLE 1 Male Reference Group Identity Dependence Statuses, Their Characteristics, and Some Modal Statements No Reference Group Lack of psychological relatedness to males No male reference group Undifferentiated or unintegrated ego identity Gender role self-concept undefined, fragmented Confusion, alienation, insecurity, anxiety related to gender roles Sample items from RGIDS: "I have little in common with most other men" and "I find it difficult to describe who I am as a man." Reference Group Dependent Psychological relatedness to particular males Ingroup/outgroup distinction re: reference group Conformist ego identity Gender role self-concept externally defined, conforming Rigid adherence to gender roles, stereotyped attitudes, limited and restricted gender role experiences and behaviors Sample items from RGIDS: "I basically only relate to men who are like myself" and "I find myself reacting strongly to men who are different from myself." Reference Group Nondependent Psychological relatedness to all males More universal male reference group orientation Integrated ego identity Gender role self-concept internally defined, integrated Flexible, autonomous, pluralistic, and relatively unlimited gender role attitudes, attributes, and behaviors Sample items from RGIDS: "I feel comfortable relating to different types of men" and "Although men may differ in some ways, we are essentially all the same." TABLE 2 Scale Means, Standard Deviations, and Scale Ranges Measures Scale Mean S.D. Scale Range No Reference Group 22.87 6.99 9-54 Reference Group Dependent 20.87 5.45 7-42 RGND Similarity 23.19 4.68 6-36 RGND Diversity 26.84 3.82 36 Traditional Masculinity 16.30 3.88 7-35 QDI Cognitive 27.34 6.51 9-45 QDI Affective 23.74 4.04 7-35 QDI Equity 21.92 3.63 7-35 Sexual Harassment Proclivities 27.36 5.54 10-50 Note: N = 170. RGND = Reference Group Nondependent; QDI = Quick Discrimination Index. TABLE 3 Correlation Matrix Age 2 3 4 5 2. Income .13 -- -- -- -- 3. No Group -.15 * .06 -- -- -- 4. RG Dependent -.21 * -.16 * .11 -- -- 5. RGND Diversity -.05 -.05 -.41 ** -.31 ** -- 6. RGND Similarity .07 -.12 -.45 ** .05 .36 ** 7. Masculinity -.02 -.12 -.05 .31 ** -.24 ** 8. SHP -.12 .05 .02 27 ** -.21 * 9. QDI Cognitive .02 .23 ** -.04 -.11 .10 10. QDI Affective .12 .11 -.07 -.33 ** .28 ** 11. QDI Equity -.02 .13 -.05 -.15 * .26 ** Age 6 7 8 9 10 2. Income .13 -- -- -- -- -- 3. No Group -.15 * -- -- -- -- -- 4. RG Dependent -.21 * -- -- -- -- -- 5. RGND Diversity -.05 -- -- -- -- -- 6. RGND Similarity -.07 -- -- -- -- -- 7. Masculinity -.02 .09 -- -- -- -- 8. SHP -.12 .03 .41 ** -- -- -- 9. QDI Cognitive .02 -.09 -.24 ** -.15 * -- -- 10. QDI Affective .12 .05 -.29 ** -.25 ** .44 ** -- 11. QDI Equity -.02 .06 -.49 * -.38 ** .51 ** .34 ** Notes: N = 147. No Group = No Reference Group; RG = Reference Group; RGND = Reference Group Nondependent; Masculinity = Traditional Attitudes About Masculinity Measure from Male Role Norms Inventory; SHP = Sexual Harassment Proclivities Scale; QDI Cognitive = General cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity; QDI Affective = Affective attitudes toward more personal contact with racial diversity; QDI Equity = Attitudes toward women's equity. * p<.05. ** p<.005. TABLE 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Sexual Harassment Proclivities and Attitudes toward Race and Gender Equity Sexual Harassment Adjusted Predictors R Square R Square Beta Step 1: RG Dependent .091 .078 .235 RGND Diversity -.130 Step 2: RG Dependent .203 .186 .144 RGND Diversity -.071 Traditional Masculinity .357 Race Equity (Affective) Predictors Step 1: RG Dependent .143 .130 -.265 RGND Diversity .200 Step 2: RG Dependent .173 .155 -.219 RGND Diversity .169 Traditional Masculinity -.185 Women's Equity Predictors Step 1: RG Dependent .081 .067 -.066 RGND Diversity .257 Step 2: RG Dependent .274 .258 .052 RGND Diversity .183 Traditional Masculinity -.467 Sexual Harassment Predictors t F Ratio Step 1: RG Dependent 2.76 * 6.93 ** RGND Diversity -1.54 Step 2: RG Dependent 1.75 11.73 ** RGND Diversity -0.87 Traditional Masculinity 4.41 ** Race Equity (Affective) Predictors Step 1: RG Dependent -3.21 * 11.49 ** RGND Diversity 2.42 * Step 2: RG Dependent -2.61 * 9.56 ** RGND Diversity 2.05 * Traditional Masculinity -2.24 * Women's Equity Predictors Step 1: RG Dependent -0.77 6.05 * RGND Diversity 3.00 * Step 2: RG Dependent 0.66 17.25 * RGND Diversity 2.37 * Traditional Masculinity -6.05 ** Notes: N = 147. RG = Reference Group; RGND = Reference Group Nondependent. * p<.05. ** p<.001.
JAY C. WADE Department of Psychology Fordham University Bronx, New York
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|