Early Conceptualization of GRC 1970s’ & 1980s’
In the very early days of the research program, this simple diagram conveyed my overall sense of how gender role conflict interacted with past socialization and personal and institutional sexism causing gender oppression and psychological turmoil in both men’s and women’s lives. Since these topics were provocative a simple diagram was needed to begin dialogues and discussions.
The Counseling Psychologist Model 1981
Taken from: O'Neil, J. M. (1981). Male sex-role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Implications for men, women, and the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 61-80.
Figure 1 depicts the common themes found in the men’s literature and areas of sex-role strain and conflicts that emerge from the male socialization process. This model provides a simplification of complex biological, sociological, and psychological processes and represents a synthesis of the central themes in the literature concerning men’s sex role development and conflicts. The model was designed to initiate discussions and research on the specific sex role strains, conflicts, and problem areas that men may develop from the restrictive male sex role.
Figure 1 shows that men’s sex role socialization process is affected by both biological and environmental factors. Men’s sex role development is affected by their unique biological heritage and masculine values learned from their families, schools, peers, and other societal influences. These masculine values, taken collectively, represent a Masculine Mystique and Value System that reflects the current societal norms concerning what is appropriate and desired masculine behavior. This Masculine Mystique is defined as a complex set of values and beliefs that define optimal masculinity in a given society. Many of these values and beliefs are based on unproven sex differences and sex role stereotypes that are assumed to have value but may have negative outcomes for men, women, and children.
Figure 1 shows two primary outcomes of the Masculine Mystique that produce sex role strain and conflict for men. These outcomes include: a) restrictive emotionality and b) control, power, and competition issues. Restrictive emotionality is defined as having difficulty expressing one’s own feelings or denying other their rights to emotional expressiveness. The emotionally restricted person has difficulty in being vulnerable, self-disclosing, and in understanding and integrating the complexities of emotional life. Control implies to regulate, restrain, or to have others or situations under one’s command. Power is authority,, influence, or ascendancy over others. Competition is the act of striving against others to win or gain something. These primary outcomes have secondary effects on four major life areas for men: a) interpersonal life, b) career development and work life, home and family life, and d) physical life. Sex role strain and conflict occur when restrictive emotionality and control, power, and competition restrict people’s rights to act a certain way (e.g., masculine, feminine, androgynous) in a given situation. Sex role strain and conflict will vary considerably depending on early sex role socialization experiences and how narrowly the male sex role is defined. The degree and the kind of sex-role conflict will also vary depending on the man’s age, social class, cultural heritage, and geographic location.
The double arrow in Figure 1 shows that the primary outcomes of the masculine socialization process (restrictive emotionality) and control, power, and competition) interact and affect bot the Masculine Mystique and the four major life areas of men.
Early Model and Assumptions About Gender Role Conflict
In this second model of GRC, men’s socialization and masculinity ideology and norms are show being shaped by the fear of femininity that promotes four patterns of gender role conflict (SPC, RE, RABBM, CBWFR). The hypothesis was that personal and institutional sexism and GRC were related to men’s sexist gender role socialization, ideologies, and the fear of femininity. This model was explained with the 10 assumptions.
Assumptions About Gender Role Conflict and Sexism*
- Gender role socialization affects gender identity and personal beliefs about the nature of masculinity and femininity.
- Children socialized toward rigid stereotypes of masculine and feminine behaviors may learn restrictive attitudes and behaviors that limit their growth and ability to cope with the complexities of adult life.
- Rigidly socialized masculine or feminine stereotypes about men and women can produce gender role conflict and sexism.
- Gender role conflict and sexism can produce considerable psychological stress for men and women.
- Gender role conflict and sexism have caused men and women to devalue one another in order to solidify their own gender identities.
- The devaluation of women by men and the devaluation of men by women is a central concept in understanding how personal and institutional sexism operate in society.
- Neither sex is exclusively responsible for learned sexism emanating from gender role socialization or conflict. Men and women both contribute to the maintenance of restrictive gender roles that produce gender role conflict, and both sexes need to take personal responsibility for how gender role conflict and sexism restrict their own or other’s human potential.
- Most people will experience varying degrees of stress due to their gender role socialization, gender role stereotypes, and sexism.
- Gender role conflict can be better understood if we continue to assess how gender role socialization, gender role conflict, and sexism mutually interact and affect our relationships with each other.
- Counselors and other human service providers need to be prepared to help men and women who are experiencing the effects of sexism and gender role conflict.
A Conceptual Paradigm to Understand Men’s and Women’s Gender Role Transitions and Conflict Over the Lifespan
Five theoretical premises were the basis for this model--
Men and Women Can:
- Be socialized in sexist ways by our patriarchal society into restrictive gender role values and beliefs.
- Develop gender role identities based on restrictive and sexist gender role stereotypes during gender role socialization. Learn distorted gender role schemas of masculinity and femininity during gender role transitions and gender role socialization
- Experience these distorted gender role schemas as fears and negative emotions including: anger, fear, anxiety, shame, guilt, loss, sadness, self-hatred, and hurt.
- Develop patterns of gender role conflict that inhibit human growth and development across the lifespan and that can become potential mental health problems.
- Develop self-protective defensive strategies and use defense mechanisms to protect their gender role identity when coping with gender role conflict and negative emotions.
Gender Role Conflict and Fathering Contexts
Fathering Contextual Model
The covert contexts of fathering provide a rationale for clinicians to assess a father’s problems and psychological functioning. The model shown in Figure 1 depicts fathering contexts related to GRC and ineffective parenting. Arrows A1 and B1 imply that restrictive masculinity ideology, unfinished problems with one’s father, and the father wound are related to higher GRC. Furthermore, the model implies that higher GRC relates to inconsistent, inept, ineffective, dysfunctional, and dissatisfying fathering. Research and theory exist to support the relationship of masculinity ideology with GRC, as shown by arrow A1 (O’Neil, 2008; Pleck, 1995; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993). No empirical research has documented that clients’ unfinished business with their fathers or the father wound relate to GRC as is implied with arrow B1. There is some research indicating that higher GRC may relate to ineffective fathering for men in general (Alexander, 1999; DeFranc & Mahalik, 2002, McMahon, Winkel, & Luthar, 2002; O’Neil, 2008) as depicted in Figure 1, but no research has been completed with fathers who are clients. The concepts in Figure 1 are operationally defined and discussed in subsequent sections.
Diagnostic Schema to Assess Fathers During Therapy
From: O’Neil, J.M. & Lujan, M. L. (2009) An assessment paradigm for fathers in therapy using gender role conflict theory. In C. Z. Oren & D. C. Oren (Eds.) Counseling fathers. Taylor & Francis Group.
Therapist’s Knowledge of the Psychology of Men and Fathering, Bias Against Men, and Self Analysis of Personal Fathering Conflicts
This self-assessment area has three dimensions. Therapists need to assess their knowledge about fathering and the psychology of men. Therapists can assess the knowledge they have on fathering and the psychological consequences of restrictive gender roles. No standard curriculum currently exists on what therapists should know when doing therapy with men in the context of GRC. Until such a curriculum exists, therapists should consult with the current authorities on therapy with men (Brooks & Good, 2001; Englar-Carlson & Stevens, 2006; Pollack & Levant, 1998; Rabinowitz & Cochran, 2002). Furthermore, therapists should also consult the literature on fathering and its relevance to helping men (Kiselica, 1995; Lamb, 2004; Osherson, 1987; Shapiro, 2001).
Another critical domain for therapists to assess is biases towards fathers and men. Therapists’ biases against men have been documented (Robertson & Fitzgerald, 1990), but few studies have assessed prejudice against fathers. Two studies have shown that therapists’ GRC significantly relates to having less liking for nontraditional and homosexual men (Hayes, 1985; Wisch & Mahalik, 1999). Current stereotyping and having biases against men are probably as frequent as they were with women in the 1970s (Brodsky & Holroyd, 1975). Therefore, therapists need to evaluate continuously the degree that their stereotypic biases may affect their assessment of fathers.
The third issue is therapists’ awareness of unfinished business or father wounds they might have with their own fathers. This is a critical counter transference issue when using fathering as a diagnostic category. Therapists can assess whether they have unresolved conflicts with their own fathers that may interfere with the therapy processes. Without this awareness, therapists may not recognize a client’s problems with fathering and avoid discussing it. Expressed more precisely, counter transference may impede the therapeutic process.
Assessing Father’s Masculinity Ideology and Norms
Assessing masculinity ideology and norms with fathers includes probing values and standards that define, restrict, and negatively affect a man’s life. There are numerous questions that can be asked about masculinity ideology during therapy. The critical question is what internalized masculine values does the client have that restrict his approaches to fathering? More specifically, how much do rigid, sexist, or stereotypic values impede positive fathering? Were these masculine values learned from the client’s own father? Therapeutic questions about a client’s masculinity ideology can be an important part of therapy with men. Many fathers may not know any alternative male values to replace restrictive and sexist ones. The therapist can help the client discern new values that are not sexist or restrictive. This therapeutic process involves discussing the healthy aspects of men’s gender roles and patterns of positive masculinity with fathers (O’Neil & Luján, in press; Luján & O’Neil, 2008). This means identifying men’s strengths, such as responsibility, courage, altruism, resiliency, service, protection of others, social justice, perseverance, generativity, and non violent problem solving. This kind of activity moves away from what is wrong with men and fathers to identifying the qualities that empower men to improve their fathering, their families, and their lives.
Assessing Father’s Defenses
Discussion of a man’s fathering and his past experiences as a son are issues that may activate psychological defenses. To our knowledge, no studies have correlated men’s defensiveness and problems with fathering. Defensiveness is important to assess because many theorists have conceptualized men’s socialization experiences as a defensive process (Boehm, 1930; Jung, 1953; O’Neil & Nadeau, 1999). Defensiveness may serve various functions for fathers that therapists can actively assess. For example, defensiveness can mediate difficult and powerful emotions, help men cope with fears about appearing feminine or being emasculated, and help men protect against perceived losses of power and control. These defensive functions could be important vantage points to understand fathers in therapy. Additionally, therapists can point out that defensiveness can produce restrictions in thought and behavior, emotional and cognitive distortions, over-reactions, cognitive blind spots, and increased potential for restriction and devaluation of others (O’Neil & Nadeau, 1999). The client can consider how these defensive postures affect his parenting or other parts of his life.
Therapists can directly explore a client’s defensiveness about his father or fathering competence. One quick way to assess whether there is defensiveness related to a client’s fathering is to ask some pointed questions. For example, the client could be asked - How does your relationship with your father affect: a) your current problems as a man? b) your effectiveness as a father with your own children? Verbal and nonverbal responses to these questions could determine how to proceed with the therapeutic process. Wherever there are strong defenses, there are also usually deep emotions. The assessment of defensiveness about fathering can also be a strategy to uncover repressed or difficult emotions about one’s own father or fathering.
Assessing Father’s Distorted Cognitive Schemas About Fathering
Distorted cognitive schemas about fathering are inaccurate, narrow, and sexist views of gender roles as they impact fathering. Distorted cognitive schemas develop when men experience pressure, fear, or anxiety about meeting or deviating from stereotypic notions of masculinity. Many men have internalized a definition of fathering that is based on rigid and patriarchal values. The traditional definition of fathering exclusively focuses on provider roles, discipline, protection, and enforcement of a moral code. Traditional definitions of fathering have excluded important emotional, psychological, and educational processes. Therefore, traditional fathering may not include active involvement with such important male issues as emotional development, introspection, spiritual and sexual education, self confidence, fears of failure, problem solving, and decision making. Some fathers may define these issues as feminine, women’s work, and not part of traditional masculinity ideology.
What can therapists do with distorted cognitive schemas about fathering? Mahalik (1999, 2001) has identified four steps in helping men with their distorted cognitions including (a) assessing the specific areas of men’s cognitive distortion; (b) educating men about how cognitions, feelings, and behaviors are interrelated; (c) exploring the illogical nature and accuracy of the cognitive distortions; and (d) modifying the biased distortions with more rationality. These steps provide a useful framework for working with distorted cognitive schemas, GRC, and fathering issues. Exploring and resolving fathers’ distortions about the meaning of masculinity and fathering can enhance the therapeutic alliance and set the stage for emotional release and effective problem solving
Assessing Father’s Acculturation, Diversity, and Oppression
There is diversity with fathering values and attitudes based on race, class, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and acculturation experience. Therapists and clients can explore how ethnic, racial, and acculturation variables affect fathering attitudes and values. Different races, classes, and ethnicities approach fathering in unique ways that need to be understood. For those fathers who have acculturated to American society, there may be contradictions in fathering values between this society and their society of origin. The therapist may need to help the man understand his parenting in the context of his racial, ethnic, and cultural identity (Wester, 2008). Therapists can help fathers reconcile conflicted values about fathering in terms of their cultural and bicultural identities. Therapists also need to consider how diversity variables can promote positive parenting and how they can produce barriers. Most importantly, these diversity issues need to be understood in the context of the overall societal demands on men that can be oppressive and sexist.
Personal oppression from sexism, racism, classism, ethnocentrism, heterosexism, or any other discrimination needs to be assessed in the context of any man’s fathering role. An oppressed man is usually angry, humiliated, emasculated, and vulnerable. For example, a father who cannot provide for his family (a basic masculine mandate in our society) because of racism is likely to feel angry, vulnerable, worthless, shamed, embarrassed, desperate, and inadequate as a man. When a man experiences these emotions, effective fathering may become irrelevant or less important. Survival and how to avoid further discrimination and humiliation may become the main priority. Some men will compensate for the oppression by becoming hypermasculine or aggressive. Oppression, discrimination, and poverty are not conducive to effective fathering and are serious barriers to many men’s desires to be positive fathers. Therapists need to have multicultural, acculturative, and diversity perspectives on fathering when working with a wide array of men.
Assessing the Father Wound
Assessment of the father wound during the therapy process is complex. Many times assessing the family of origin can help the therapist explore whether the client has internalized a father wound. Sometimes, simple exercises or homework assignments can uncover the wounds. For example, having a client draw a picture of his overall relationship with his father in the past or present can bring wounds into clear focus. Another activity could be writing a brief essay on the quality of the relationship with his father as a young boy. Having the client bring in a picture of his father can help focus the discussion of the father-son relationship. Many times, the path to healing is through increased compassion for the father’s wound as he experienced it.
Assessing Father’s Patterns of Gender Role Conflict
Therapists can assess the four empirically derived patterns of GRC (SPC, RE, RABBM, CBWFR) in the context of men’s fathering roles and functions (See Figure 2). The assessment of men’s patterns of GRC as part of the therapy process has support from the research. All four GRC patterns have significantly correlated with depression, anxiety, stress, low self esteem, shame, intimacy problems, marital dissatisfaction, homophobia, attachment problems, and abuses of women (O’Neil, 2008). The GRC patterns and these problems can impede effective fathering. For example, fathers need to be able to process their own emotions and the feelings of their children since family life can be emotionally charged. Constructive use of power and control is critical in successful parenting as sons and daughters test limits and challenge authority. Restriction of affectionate behavior can produce distance between fathers and their children. The CBWFR is a critical problem to be resolved because stress and fatigue do not contribute to effective fathering.
Direct questioning of clients about the degree to which they experience the patterns of gender role conflict is one way to assess fathers. Additionally, the Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS) and the Gender Role Conflict Checklist (O’Neil, 1988) can be used as diagnostic tools both in therapy (O’Neil, 2006; Robertson, 2006) and workshops for men (O’Neil, 1996, 2001; O’Neil & Roberts Carroll, 1988). The direct assessment of GRC can help clients develop a gender role vocabulary that can help them understand their psychological problems. Identifying GRC patterns can also stimulate discussion and emotional disclosure about the personal experience of fathering. One of the primary roles for the therapist is to listen to the client’s story about being a man, interpret the story from a gender role perspective, and provide support for making healthy changes.
Assessing Self Efficacy in Fathering and Need for Information About Fathering
In our literature search we found information about parenting self efficacy but no specific theory or measures on fathering self efficacy. Fathering self efficacy is defined as the father’s belief in his ability to effectively fulfill parental roles, functions, and responsibilities. As with attitudes about problem solving (Heppner, Witty Dixon, 2004), we hypothesize that a father’s belief in his ability to father effectively is one of the most critical variables in actually developing positive fathering. From our perspective, fathering self efficacy is more likely to occur if fathers have useful information on fathering roles, functions, and processes. Many fathers will have insufficient information about how to father, and this lack of information can produce insecurities about parenting or unrealistic norms about positive fathering. Therapists can be a source of information on the positive effects that fathers can have on their children. Books and articles can be given to fathers to help them develop a personal framework for parenting and how to create enjoyable fathering.
Many fathers can obtain needed information and fathering skills in psychoeducational group programs. These psychoeducational interventions can be developed by mental health professionals using the content in Figures 1-3. Changing strongly socialized attitudes about fatherhood may require potent interventions over extended periods of time. Furthermore, how to attract men to these fathering programs may require creative advertising. Research indicates that titles and formats can activate negative attitudes about help seeking (Blazina & Marks, 2001; Robertson & Fitzgerald, 1992; Rochlen, McKelley, & Pituch, 2006). Fathering programs should be described in positive terms that communicate men’s strengths and vitality.
Descriptive Contextual Model of Men’s Gender Role Socialization and GRC
Figure 2 : Descriptive Contextual Model of Men’s Gender Role Socialization and GRC
Figure 2 depicts a new descriptive model that expands our contextual understanding of gender roles and GRC. The new contextual model has three separate but related parts: a) psycho-social developmental contexts, b) macro-societal contexts, and c) gender related contexts. The purpose of this model is to convey descriptive (generalized) contexts to understand men and their GRC. First, on the left and at the bottom are the life stages, psychosocial developmental contexts, and the gender role transformation and growth through healthy positive masculinity. Second, the black and bold triangle in the middle of the figure, with the three boxes, is the macro-societal context. This context includes: a) patriarchy, hegemonic masculinity, sexism, stereotypes, as organizers of society, b) personal and institutional oppression from discrimination that creates social injustice, and c) stereotypes and differential socialization of boys and girls to sexist masculinity and femininity ideologies. Finally the gender related contexts are all concepts inside the bold triangle shown as two trapezoids. The gender related context focuses on gender role identity and the patterns of GRC. The gender role identity context is shaped by situational, biological, unconscious, familial, multicultural, racial, and ethnic contingencies, b) restrictive and sexist masculinity and femininity ideologies, c) fear of femininity, d) distorted gender role schemas. In the second trapezoid, the patterns of gender role conflict, as the negative outcomes of sexism and other oppressions, are discussed in the context of defensiveness, gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations, and male vulnerability. Both the macro-societal and gender related contexts point directly to the rectangle at the bottom showing men’s psychological and interpersonal problems, internalized oppression, and violence.
All developmental stages and psychosocial processes on the left of Figure 2 are affected by the contexts within the bold triangle resulting in possible psychological and interpersonal problems. In other words, gender related conflicts that cause psychological problems can occur anytime throughout the life cycle from early childhood to very old age. The directionality of the pointed bold triangle does not imply that they are only experienced at the very old age end of the life cycle. GRC can occur at any point in the life cycle and the same is true for the gender role transformation and growth processes shown at the bottom of the page. Each of these descriptive contexts include expanded conceptual knowledge about men and are defined below.
Table 3 enumerates 14 theoretical assumptions that represent the ideas in Figure 2
Table 3 New Theoretical Assumptions About Men’s GRC
__________________________________________________________________
- Descriptive–antecedent contexts can be identified in men’s lives that help explain men’s GRC and possibilities for growth to healthy positive masculinity.
- Gender role development, transitions, and transformations are experienced while mastering the developmental tasks and psychosocial crises over the lifespan.
- Journeying with gender roles over the lifespan and managing gender role transitions are part of seeking positive and healthy masculinity.
- Macro-societal contexts negatively restricts male gender role socialization and include patriarchy, sexism, restrictive stereotypes, oppression and social injustices, and the differential socialization of boys and girls to sexist masculinity and femininity ideologies.
- Gender role identity is negatively and positively affected by the macro-societal contexts.
- Situational, biological, unconscious, familial, multicultural, racial, and ethnic contingencies shape gender role identity in both positive and negative ways.
- Three gender-related contexts that negatively affect men’s gender role identity are: restrictive and sexist masculinity and femininity ideologies, the fear of femininity, and distorted gender role schemas.
- The effects of a restrictive gender role identity produce patterns of gender role conflict, defensiveness, and gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations.
- GRC, defensiveness, and the gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations promote male vulnerability.
- The negative results of the macro-societal and the gender related contexts are internalized oppression, psychological and interpersonal problems, and violence.
- The micro-contextual, functional, and situational contexts of men’s lives need to be studied to document both the positive and negative outcomes and consequences of male gender role socialization and GRC.
- Micro-contextual, functional, and situational contexts of men’s lives can be understood with further conceptualization and work by applied behavioral scientists.
- Therapeutic and psychoeducational interventions can be developed to help men and boys heal from their GRC and their gender related problems.
- A call to action is needed to advance the psychology of men in theoretical, research, and psychological service domains.
Summary of Descriptive Contextual Model
Figure 2 provides many concepts to understand men’s problems in a broad, descriptive contextual sense and represents a substantial expansion of the earlier GRC theory and makes new conceptual connections not made before. Figure 2 provides an expanded number of descriptive contexts to think about men’s lives in a developmental, macro-societal, and gender related ways. The contexts have potential for stimulating future GRC research but other concepts in the psychology of men could be substituted in the figure, and therefore the model is only one way to explain men’s problems from restrictive gender roles. Researchers and theoreticians are encouraged to add (or substitute) their own concepts to the theoretical formulations in Figure 2 to broaden the contextual understanding of men’s GRC and healthy, positive masculinity.
The new model in Figure 2 raises numerous theoretical and empirical questions to be pursued in the future. For example, what are the developmental and psychosocial contexts of gender roles across the lifespan that promote developmental growth or GRC for boys and men ? How do situational, biological, unconscious, familial, multicultural, racial, ethnic contingencies affect gender role development over the lifespan? Furthermore, does GRC differ across races, classes, cultures, and nationalities, and, if so, are the differences associated with variations in racial, ethnic, class, and cultural values related to gender roles. For example, how, exactly, does GRC relate to racial and sexual identity, family, cultural and religious values, racism, ethnocentrism, and acculturation for immigrants ? Additionally, the political aspects of masculinity and GRC are articulated in a more direct way (See Figure 2). How do different political systems for example, capitalism, socialism, and tribal governance, affect men and their masculinity? In the political and economic realms, does oppression cause GRC or vice versa or both? How does patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity relate to GRC and societal discrimination against men and women? Is there evidence that masculinity issues and GRC cause internalized oppression? Furthermore, how do ethnic and family values contribute to different degrees of GRC for men in different countries ? Finally, what therapeutic interventions can help men change and move toward more positive healthy masculinity ? Researchers and practitioners can utilize the descriptive concepts in Figure 2 to conceptualize future research and implement new interventions with men.
The new model does not directly address men’s actions in environments, micro-contextual issues, and the immediate experiences in men’s lives as noted earlier in the chapter. What is not shown diagrammatically in Figure 2 are the micro-contextual cues, norms, and outcomes, expectations, associated with temporally limited environments (Jones & Heesacker, 2012) and the social learning of gender (Addis et al., 2010). The criticism of contextual experts (Addis et al., 2010; Jones & Heesacker, 2012) of my previous attempts to contextualize (O’Neil, 2008b) are addressed in the next section.
Situational and Mediational Model of Men’s Gender Role Conflict
From: O’Neil, J.M. & Denke, R. (2015). An Empirical review of the gender role conflict research: New conceptual models and research paradigms. In J. Wong and S. Wester (Eds.) APA Handbook of the Psychology of Men and Masculinities. (pp 51-80), Washington, D.C.: APA Books.
A Contextual Model of GRC
A situational model is shown in Figure 1 that connects the macro-societal and micro-interpersonal dimensions of men’s lives. The numbers in Figure 1, positioned close to each arrow convey a correlational relationship between the micro-intra-personal and interpersonal factors. Later in the chapter, these numbered lines are operationalized in terms of specific research questions that are relevant to advancing GRC theory and research.
The outer triangle in Figure 1, the macro-societal level of analysis, connects patriarchy, sexism, and other oppressions as organizers of society with stereotypes, biases about men, discrimination, and social injustice. The macro-societal context is defined as the social, political, economic, and religious systems based on patriarchy that negatively shape both men and women’s gender role socialization. The outer triangle represents the socio-political context and a way to understand how societal factors contribute to restrictive masculinity ideologies, and GRC that cause emotional and psychological problems and internalized oppression.
The micro-intrapersonal and interpersonal level of analysis is shown inside the macro-societal triangle described above. At the top of Figure 1, the micro-intra-personal and interpersonal levels of men’s experience are shown and are connected to three rectangles, all labeled as the situational and mediational contexts. These rectangles are described later in the chapter and operationalized by two new research paradigms. The micro-intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions reflect the emotional-psychological experiences with situational, contextual, multicultural, and gender roles issues that are shaped by the macro-societal dynamics. Many times both men and women are unaware of the interaction of macro-societal and micro-interpersonal levels but it is fully operative in negative psychological ways.
Just below the micro-intrapersonal and interpersonal levels in Figure 1 are the GRC patterns: Success, power, and competition (SPC), restrictive emotionality (RE), restrictive and affectionate behavior between men (RABBM), and conflict between work and family (CBWFR) as well as the personal experiences of GRC in terms of gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations. On the far left, restrictive masculinity ideology is shown related to GRC with a bi-directional arrow (line 1) suggesting that masculinity ideology relates to GRC and vice versa. On the right, the multicultural, diversity, demographic, correlates and moderators are shown and include race, ethnicity, culture, class, sexual orientation, age, religious orientation, and cultural identities and ideologies religion, and other diversity factors. The bi-directional arrows show that these multicultural and demographic correlates and GRC relate to each other (Line 2). Restrictive masculinity ideologies, multicultural, demographic correlates and GRC are hypothesized to relate emotional and psychological problems, vulnerability and internalized oppression (lines 3). The situational and mediation contexts shown on three sides of the figure (Number 4) imply that third variables and actual events can play a part in the how GRC contributes to men’s psychological problems. Finally, line 5 implies that men’s emotional psychological problems could be directly related to personal, societal, and institutional discrimination and social injustices toward men.
The model is one way to address past criticism, conceptualize situational research, and connect GRC to societal discrimination and social justice issues. The critical question is whether any empirical research exists documenting the numbered relationships (1-5) in Figure 1.
Descriptive, Functional, and Micro-contextual Model
1 I am very grateful to Marty Heesacker for helping me locate the Crick and Dodge model and his advice on model development and micro-contextual aspects of masculinity.
Functional and Micro-contextual Aspects of Men’s Behavior
An information processing model was found that captures some of the key elements of assessing men’s actual behaviors and interactions (Crick & Dodge, 1994)1. The model is altered and simplified to serve as an initial template for understanding situational and micro-contextual aspects of men’s actions and behaviors. Readers are referred to the complete manuscript for full details and more in depth accounts of the information processing theory. (Crick & Dodge, 1994)
Crick and Dodge’s model depicts social information-processing mechanism in children’s social adjustment and is adapted here to understand men’s behavior. The model also depicts behavior as having a past “data base” that includes memory store, acquired rules, social schemas, and social knowledge. Their model depicts in a circular fashion six behavioral processes that can be adapted to understand men’s behavior and interactions. The processes include: a) encoding of cues, b) interpretation of cues, c) clarification of cues, d) response access or construction, e) response decision, and f) behavioral enactment.
Figure 3 depicts an adaptation of Crick and Dodge’s information processing conceptualization by integrating their concepts with their descriptive contexts discussed in Figure 2. The information processing perspective of Crick and Dodge is multifaceted and complex compared to my simple adaptation. Nonetheless, the processes described do provide a preliminary example of functional and micro-contextual analyses and with more work could be operationalized in research. On the left of Figure 3 are the descriptive antecedent contexts described earlier in the chapter (psychosocial-developmental, gender role journey phases and transitions, macro-societal, and gender related contexts). The small arrows imply that the descriptive context directly impacts the entire information processing described in the rest of Figure 3. Furthermore, the model shows the positive and negative outcomes leading back to the data bases and the descriptive antecedent contexts in a circular way (See longer arrows). This implies that the consequences of gender related situations contribute to the ongoing shaping of the person and the larger macro-societal system in a circular way.
The descriptive contexts are shown as influencing a man’s “data base” shown in the second rectangle on the left in Figure 3. What this means is that psychosocial developmental aspects of gender roles, the macro-societal dimensions, and the gender related dynamics all become internalized psychologically in the man’s mind. Crick and Dodge define this information as “data bases” that include memories, acquired rules, social schemas, and social knowledge. Each of these data bases have direct implications for the internalization of masculine gender roles and the development of male gender role identity (See Figure 2). Furthermore, the data base categories all relate to the internalization of gender role norms and conflicts (masculinity ideologies and GRC) that are relevant to understanding men’s processes and behavior in situations.
A Multicultural Psychology of Men Model
Seven Assumptions on GRC, Oppression, and the Multicultural-Contextual Factors
Seven multicultural and diversity assumptions provide a context for the multicultural studies reviewed in this chapter. The following assumptions are made:
- The multicultural psychology of men identifies the commonalities and differences between men (i.e. diversity) but also studies the psychological costs of the macro-societal oppression that emanates from restrictive masculinity ideologies and GRC.
- Macro-societal oppression are organizers of society and include patriarchy, classism, racism, ageism, heterosexism, and other unjust discrimination that negatively affect men, women, and children.
- Stereotypes and biases about men cause discrimination, GRC, oppression, and social injustices.
- A macro-societal analysis of men’s oppression explains how GRC and masculinity ideologies predict, moderate, mediate, and cause psychological problems, discrimination, and social injustices in men’s and women’s lives.
- Many different masculinity ideologies and identities exist based on racial, ethnic, age, nationality, religious, sexual orientation, and other situational indices of diversity that differentially predict, moderate, mediate, and cause GRC.
- At the micro-interpersonal level, contextual, situational, and multicultural factors (i.e. race, sex, ethnicity, class, culture, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, acculturation, age, and other diversity indices) are related to men’s restrictive masculinity ideologies, GRC, and gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations.
- Men experience vulnerability, societal discrimination, internalized oppression, psychological/emotional problems, and violence as a result of gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations and other forms of dehumanization.
Overall, the assumptions imply that multicultural study of men involves analyzing how diversity indices shape many different male ideologies and identities. Furthermore, the costs of patriarchy, GRC, stereotypes, and biases about men emanating from the larger macro-societal system cause internalized oppression, psychological problems, and gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations. These assumptions support the development of a multicultural psychology of men model that can promote further conceptualizing and research on men’s diversity.
A Multicultural Model of the Psychology of Men
Based on the previous assumptions stated earlier, a multicultural psychology of men model is shown in Figure 1 that connects the macro-societal and micro-interpersonal dimensions of men’s lives. As discussed in chapter 3, the macro-societal context is defined as the social, political, economic, and religious systems based on patriarchy that shape both men and women’s gender role socialization. In Figure 1, the numbers positioned close to each arrow convey a correlational relationship between the different macro-societal and micro-interpersonal factors. Later in the chapter, these numbered lines are operationalized in terms of specific research questions related minority men’s GRC and the factors that moderate and mediate their experiences as men.
The outer triangle, the macro-societal level of analysis, connects patriarchy, sexism, and other oppressions as organizers of society, with stereotypes and biases about men, with discrimination and social injustice (See lines 1-3). The outer triangle represents the socio-political aspects of diversity and multiculturalism and is a context to understand how multicultural factors, restrictive masculinity ideologies, and GRC cause emotional and psychological problems and internalized oppression.
The micro-interpersonal level of analysis is shown inside the macro-societal dimensions described above. The micro-interpersonal dimensions reflect the emotional-psychological experiences with contextual, multicultural, and gender roles issues that are shaped by the macro-societal dynamics. Many times this connection is unknown or unclear to individual men and women, but it is fully operative in negative ways that affect people’s lives. In the top middle part of Figure 1, the micro-interpersonal level is shown the GRC patterns: Success, power, and competition (SPC), restrictive emotionality (RE), restrictive and affectionate behavior between men (RABBM), and conflict between work and family (CBWFR) as well as the personal experiences of GRC in terms of gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations. On the far left, the multicultural, contextual, and situational indices include race, ethnicity, culture, class, sexual orientation, age, religious orientation, and cultural identities and ideologies religion, and other diversity factors. The bi-directional arrows show that these diversity indices and GRC relate to each other (Line 4). Furthermore, on the right, the model shows restrictive and sexist masculinity and femininity ideology and the GRC patterns and gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations relating to each other (line 5).
Multicultural, contextual, and situational indices, the GRC patterns, and masculinity ideology are hypothesized to relate emotional and psychological problems and vulnerability for men resulting in emotional-psychological problems, vulnerability, internalized oppression (lines 6). In other words, studying the multicultural psychology of men is documenting the commonalities and differences between men (i.e. diversity) but also assessing the psychological costs of endorsing restrictive masculinity ideologies that cause personal, societal, and institutional discrimination and injustices against men and women (Line 7).
Diversity and the multicultural psychology of men are studied to better understand the relationships shown in Figure 1. The critical question is whether any empirical research exists documenting the relationships in Figure 1. For example, is there any evidence that the contextual, situational, and multicultural indices of diversity predict, moderate, or mediate GRC and masculinity ideology resulting in negative psychological outcomes and oppression for diverse men and others in their lives? The literature reviewed next reports studies related to the assumptions discussed earlier and the concepts in Figure 1.
Attachment and Gender Role Conflict
Taken From: O’Neil, J.M. Denke, R. & Blainza, C. (2016). Gender role conflict theory, research, and practice: Implications for understanding the human-animal bond. In C. Blazina, &L.R. KIogan (Eds.) Men and their dogs: A new understanding of man’s best friend (pp. 11-45). New York: Springer.
Conceptual Model Linking Human and Animal Attachment To Gender Role Conflict and Men’s Psychological and Interpersonal Problems
The primary theoretical model used to summarize the premises of GRC dates back to the early 1980’s (O’Neil, 1981a, 1990, 2008b; O’Neil, et al.,1995). Figure 1 depicts a newer model that shows gender related contexts and men’s psychological problems related to human attachment and the human-animal attachment. This new model also shows the process oriented factors of men’s attachment as well how transformation can occur. A brief description of the new model provides a summary of ideas about GRC in the context of the animal-human bond.
The human and animal attachment processes are shown in the circle in Figure 1. Fifteen contexts are depicted on the outside of the circle. At the top of Figure 1 are shown three precursor processes that affects gender role development over the lifespan including being in a certain phase of the gender role journey, experiencing gender role transitions, and having distorted gender role schemas. As shown with the bold arrows at the top, these processes affect the human and animal bonding and interact with a man’s gender role socialization. At the bottom of Figure 1 is shown the gender role transformation process. These processes are changes in psychological defenses, correcting false assumptions, increased dialogue with self, psychological warfare, and symbol manipulation. These processes represent how the transformation and growth can occur for men whether the bond is with human or animals.
On different sides of the circle are shown gender related contexts including the patterns of GRC, restrictive masculinity ideologies, the fear of femininity, and gender role devaluations, restrictions, and violations. Also shown are men’s psychological and interpersonal problems. These contexts are connected by straight lines implying that they theoretically relate to each other. Each of these contexts are also shown with bi-directional arrows implying that the gender related contexts and men’s problems have a reciprocal relationship with both animal and human attachment processes. What is unknown is how both human and animal attachment relates to men’s psychological and interpersonal problems in the context of GRC and restricted masculinity ideologies. The concepts in Figure 1 represent an advance organizer for the rest of the chapter as well as a depiction of the theoretical, research, and practical issues related to men and their animal bonds.
A Model Expanding Our Understanding of the Human-Animal Bond
Taken From: Blazina, C., O’Neil, J.M., Denke, R. (2016). A new understanding of man best friend: A proposed contextual model for the exploration of the human-animal bond interactions among insecurely attached males. In C. Blazina, & L.R. Kogan (Eds.) Men and their dogs: A new understanding of man’s best friend (pp. 47-71). New York: Springer.
How masculinity ideology and GRC affects men’s relationships with animals raises a number of provocative questions. How do masculine norms and stereotypes play out in men’s relationship with animals ? Are the expected gender role stereotypes, typical in human interactions, suspended and altered when men interact with animals and if so, why does this happen? Is animal bonding easier than human bonding for some men because worries about power, control, competition, and potential for devaluations and violations are not operating in animal relationships? Furthermore, a bond with an animal may be involved in a gender role transition, where a man changes his self-assumptions and world views about gender roles, thereby changing his behaviors. In this case, distorted gender role schemas may be mediated and changed with animal interaction, promoting healthy human development. Whether the animal-human bond facilitates men’s journey with their gender roles and helps them deconstruct stereotypic views of masculinity and femininity is an empirical question. How the processes occurs and how men change their relational capacities through animal interaction deserves study.
Our proposed model (see Figure 1.) suggests there will be an intersection of multiple contextual factors directly influencing males’ experience of both human-human interaction (HHI) and human-animal interaction (HAI). In keeping with ideas shared earlier, there is a range of variability and individual differences among men with insecure attachment histories, leading to at least two possible outcomes regarding the human-animal bond (especially with dogs). One possibility is that insecure attachment experience is generalized to most if not all attachment scenarios (i.e., generalization). The other outcome involves how an animal companion can offset those challenges leading to improved quality of life through deeper more meaningful attachment bonds (i.e., compensation). Generalization implies that one’s prior insecure attachment process with humans can be negatively replicated with animals mirroring one another. For example, insecure bonding with humans will be repeated with animals and yield negative psychological outcomes, low relational capacity, higher GRC, and strained relationships with both human and animals (See the long arrow labeled number 1).
The second outcome involves compensation. Compensation means that what attachment problems that men have with other humans can be ameliorated and changed through bonding with animals and produce positive psychological outcomes, greater relational capacity, lower GRC, awareness and advocacy for both humans and animals, greater potential for existential and transcendent experiences, and greater affirmation of both humans and animals (See arrow 2).
Figure 1 depicts a model that expands our understanding of the animal human bond by focusing numerous contexts, processes, and outcomes. At the bottom of the figure are four contextual parameters that include the actual attachment experiences, moderators and mediators of the human/animal processes that include restricted masculinity ideology and gender role conflict, and psychological outcomes that include concepts like generalization, compensation, and positive and negative psychological outcomes.
Located above the parameters is one way to map the contextual factors that influence the animal human bond in both positive and negative ways. On the left in the rectangle shows men’s insecure human attachment history that produces a variety of different bonding experiences. The most common attachment experiences have been described using the following terminology: secure/insecure, avoidant/ambivalent, anxious-ambivalent, and disorganized. The degree of insecurity in the human bonding processes predicts a men’s relational capacity with both humans and animals.
Moving to the right, in the first circle, the human-animal interaction processes are hypothesized to be moderated and mediated by restricted masculinity ideology and gender role conflict. The bi-directional arrow implies that a man’s insecure attachment history, masculinity ideologies, and GRC have a reciprocal relationships, each potentially influencing each other.
The two circles in the middle of the diagram are defined as the primary attachment outcomes between animals and humans including generalization and compensation. These outcomes are defined as two bonding patterns based on prior attachment experiences and suggest variability in how attachment to humans and animals are played out in real life. Each aspect of the model above is discussed in more detail with special attention paid to the theoretical rational and supporting research.
Biologic, Sociocultural, and System Thinking Model of GRC: System 1 and 2 Thinking
From O’Neil, J.M. Heesacker, M. Wester, S. & Snowden, S (2017) Masculinity as a heuristic: Gender role conflict theory, superorganism, and system-level thinking. In R. Levant & J. Wong (Ed.) The psychology of men and masculinities (pp.75-103). Washington, D.C.: APA Books.
Biologic, Sociocultural, and System Thinking Model of GRC: System 1 and 2 Thinking
This model is a summarized in O’Neil, Heesaker, Wester, & Snowden, 2017.
Male gender roles are socially constructed, and therefore largely, though not completely, shared among groups of men. This is a critical observation for linking superorganism status to the decision-making methods employed by men; these social constructions of gender reside, it would seem as a complex interconnected set of heuristics that activate automatically in response to situational demands. That is, male gender schemas organize a repository of interconnected, relatively simple guideline for behavior which, like all heuristics, take the place of more careful, effortful, and therefore complex analyses that humans are generally reluctant to undertake because we are, in fact, cognitive misers (e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1984). This perspective therefore suggests that these traditional male gender role components that drive superorganism status are largely automatic. They reflect what Kahneman (2011), among others, has called System 1 thinking.
System 1 thinking is automatic and unconscious, emotional and intuitive. It reacts quickly to the environment and quickly produces responses in reaction to the incoming stimuli. This is the critical component linking superorganism status to the problem-solving methodology; System 1 guides responses to the environment as quickly as possible. Through automatic application, a relevant heuristic guides behavior based upon decision rules that are simple and largely unexamined. This short reaction time increases the likelihood of survival in situations, which probably confers some evolutionary advantage. Applied to the male gender role, for example, "immediately observable contextual cues [microcontexts - Jones & Heesacker, 2013]... activate corresponding stereotypes and belief systems" (Deaux & Major, 1987, p. 374). The presence of a female, for example, might activate specific behavioral patterns in men – whether those behavioral patterns be the display rules regarding emotional expression, or the simple act of straightening one’s posture in order to present a more “manly” physique. These beliefs systems are the heuristics discussed earlier; they contain information about the nature of gender-role appropriate behaviors, data regarding the match between any given situation and one's gender role, and knowledge "about how men and women should behave in various types of situations" (Eagly, 1987, pp. 25-26).
In contrast, System 2 thinking is effortful, rational, and intentional. System 2 is the slower, more reflective thinking system. It allows humans to deliberate and consider options carefully. This is the system humans employ when they rely upon well-articulated reasons and more fully developed evidence. It is reasoning based on what we have learned through careful analysis, evaluation, explanation, and self-correction. This is the system which comes into play when humans are called upon to think carefully and solve complex or novel problems. It also is responsible for the review and revision of our behaviors in light of relevant guidelines, rules of procedure, or goal-meeting outcomes. From a superorganism perspective, System 2 is a luxury; it takes time to sort through the myriad of potential choices an individual might face in any given moment. Indeed, System 2 decisions are directly influenced by the correct or incorrect application of heuristic maneuvers - correct or incorrect being defined exclusively as the meeting (or not meeting) of situational goals rather than any externally imposed, ideologically-based definition. Said another way, it is the meeting of those goals (or not) which is at stake with regards to any evolutionary advantage regardless of how society might evaluate the good or bad of resultant behavior.
People typically rely on System 1 and heuristics, but not always. Context heavily determines System 1 vs. System 2 use (though so do individual factors), but the default condition is System 1. However, when people have sufficient motivation to think effortfully (for example when they perceive the cost of behavioral errors to be high) and have the available capacity (e.g., not stressed, not anxious, not using available capacity on something else, not multitasking, not fatigued, not intoxicated, not distracted), they will rely on System 2. The point is that a lot of pieces have to fall in place for System 2 thinking to override System 1. Scholars, such as those of us who study men and masculinity (authors of this chapter included), have tended to overestimate the power of System 2 in everyday lives because we tend to live in our own heads more than most people. For an example of how scholars may not mirror people generally consider what you are doing now. Readers are reading text that we wrote, both activities which reflect (we hope) deliberate, effortful, and systematic thinking—lots of System 2.
Ironically, even the assumption that there is more System 2 thinking going on than System 1 reflects System 1 thinking. In their classic Science paper (1974) entitled “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Tversky and Kahneman blamed the availability heuristic, in which people estimate the likelihood of an event or group of events (such as the probability someone will engage in System 2 thinking) by relying on how many instances of that event readily come to find. Academics probably can readily think of more cases of System 2 thinking--because they do so much of it in their work--than other people, and thus they would overestimate System 2 thinking likelihood and underestimate System 1 thinking.
There are many examples of these dual processing models in psychology, starting with Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) analysis of dual processing as an alternative to long term vs. short term memory, Craik and Tulving’s (1975) deep vs. shallow memory processing accounting for systematic differences in recall, continuing through research on attitude change and persuasion, such as Petty and Cacioppo’s (1985) elaboration likelihood model and the more recent associative-propositional evaluation model (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006a) in which the interactions between the two types of evaluative mechanisms more holistically explain the attitude change process. However, much of the psychology of men scholarship has been, understandably, focused on understanding the consequences of System 1 thinking using samples of what Gawronski and Bodenhausen (2006b) labeled explicit attitudes (e.g., p. 745). Evolving beyond a study of those consequences, in effect working toward a comprehension of why men do things through the meaning men assign the concept of masculinity as well as the contexts in which said masculinity is enacted would require the study of specific System 1 content, as well as an acknowledgement of the role played by System 2 in maintaining System 1.
From this, therefore, male gender role socialization would produce psychological distress only under specific conditions; men being unable to adapt their socialization to current life situations, interpersonal or family demands, for example, might reflect struggles in shifting from System 1 to System 2. Indeed, reconceptualizing GRC as largely the result of System 1 thinking may prove helpful in understanding and addressing the dysfunctions associated with the traditional male gender role. Put simply, we believe that increasing men’s System 2 thinking and decreasing men’s System 1 thinking will reduce the adverse impact of traditional masculinity on men’s behaviors, allowing men to adapt more effectively to the situations they experience, instead of simply and automatically relying on the traditional male gender role.
Linking this work to our earlier discussions of heuristics and superorganisms, we believe that traditional male gender role components drive superorganism status in men, and are activated automatically. That is, they are activated quickly and without conscious decision-making. They efficiently guide behavior in reaction to the situation. They reflect System 1 thinking. From this perspective, hegemonic masculinity can be viewed as the natural consequence of the traditional male gender producing superiority over other species and over women and girls. The so-called “battle of the sexes” reflects this competition, as does the feminist movement, which may be viewed as the development of women’s superorganism in response to male domination. Indeed, there remain parts of this world where hegemonic masculinity still holds sway; one potential explanation for this could be that the biological and environmental presses experienced in those locations still confer the significant benefits associated with superorganism status. Consider a war-torn nation, or a country which is struggling to recover from a long-term environmental disaster. On a smaller level, consider the behavioral patterns evidenced by individuals as well as larger groups of men. Environments where men are much more likely to face real threats of predation while also experience the real need to be effective predators may still confer survival benefits to those affiliated with superorganism status. We raise these examples only to provide anecdotal evidence for the rise of traditional masculinity being part of the sociocultural evolutionary process that was effective in responding to biological and environmental presses in antiquity but which are less beneficial (and more costly) now.