LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

Using scales and multidimensional analysis techniques to assess the pressures of sociocultural norms regulating masculinity on the psychosocial well-being of college male students (based on a sample from NaUKMA)

stmm. 2024 (4): 135-164

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2024.04.135

Full text:

NAZAR LISOVYI, MA (Sociology), (кафедра соціології), NaUKMA (8/5, Volosska St., Building 4, Kyiv, 04655)

nazar.lisovyi@ukma.edu.ua

https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1500-4077

Norms are inherently social entities. The link between collectively shared social norms and individual well-being is an important juncture for social scientists as well as for applied social researchers. In this regard it is oftentimes contended that in a modern society the internalized norms of masculinity tend to form behavioral models that frequently contribute to young men’s forming an apathetic attitude toward their social responsibility, as well as to dissociation and indecision, and can worsen their emotional states and, eventually, lead to poorer well-being. The goals of the present research were two-fold and involved exploring the contents of the cultural norms of masculinity and evaluating their effect on mental well-being of young college males (based on a sample from National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (N = 215)). Grounded in the operationalization of Pearson & Marr conceptual framework, a formalized instrument was designed to measure the degree of consensuality of different norms of masculinity and to investigate their relationships with the mental well-being of the study participants. The study conducted in Kyiv in Spring 2024 collected self-reported cognitive data by means of an online form. The data analysis employed techniques of multidimensional analysis operating on multi-item scales. The findings show that a more pronounced expression of the normative traits that are marked as masculine serves as a predictor of higher mental well-being levels, more salient feeling of social belonging, more positive outlook on life and perceiving life events in a more constructive way. Granted that individual correspondence to sociocultural normativity in the domain of masculinity also positively affected psychological condition and the experience of social belonging of male participants, improving their well-being, it can be surmised that the destructive criticism of masculinity per se, radical reshaping of agreed-upon norms regulating masculinity and exposing the young men to the mixed signals of “what a man should be” can have harmful consequences for social adaptation and psychological well-being of male students. On the other hand, it is important to contextualize the criticism of masculinity within collectively meaningful axiological networks of a society and their contingencies. Specifically, congruence with socially desirable repertoires can confer a greater sense of responsibility, understanding one’s role in the group and developing one’s decision-making skills.

Keywords: measurement, multi-item scale, masculinity, norms, well-being

References

  1. Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215

  2. Brown, Belinda. (2016). From boys to men: the place of the provider role in male development. New Male Studies, 5, 36-57.

  3. Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.

  4. Connell, R.W., Messerschmidt, J.W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

  5. De Boise, S. (2019). Editorial: is masculinity toxic? NORMA, 14(3), 147-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2019.1654742

  6. Dembitskyi, S. (2019). Development of sociological tests: methodology and practices of its application. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine.

  7. Dench, G. (2018). Transforming men: Changing Patterns of Dependency and Dominance in Gender Relations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351301367

  8. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-w., Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. In: E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 247-266). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12

  9. Els, C.J. (2004). Personal archetypes, aspects of personality and psychological well-being. Master's dissertation, North-West University.

  10. Feldman, M., Bell, J., Berger, M.T. (2003). Gaining access: A practical and theoretical guide for qualitative researchers. New Yok: Alta Mira Press

  11. Fossas, A. (2019). Psychological maturity predicts different forms of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 20(6), 1933-1952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0033-9

  12. Gilbert, M. (2013). Joint commitment: how we make the social world. New York, NY, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970148.001.0001

  13. Harrington, C. (2021). What is "Toxic Masculinity" and Why Does it Matter? Men and Masculinities, 24(2), 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20943254

  14. Jung, C.G. (1969). Collected Works of C.G. Jung. Volume 9 (Part 1): Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious / Ed by: G. Adler, R.F.C. Hull. Princeton University Press.

  15. Lemon, J. (1992). The crisis of masculinity and the renegotiation of power. Communicatio, 18(2), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500169208537709

  16. Malone, G.P., Pillow, D.R., Osman, A. (2012). The General Belongingness Scale (GBS): Assessing achieved belongingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 311-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.027

  17. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

  18. Moore, R.L., Gillette, D. (1990). King, warrior, magician, lover: rediscovering the archetypes of the mature masculine. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

  19. Pearson, C.S. (1991, July 19). Awakening the Heroes Within. Harper Collins. https://doi.org/10.1080/03060497.1991.11085149

  20. Pearson, C.S., Marr, H.K. (2002). Introduction to archetypes: the guide to interpreting results from the Pearson-Marr archetype indicator (PMAI) instrument. Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

  21. Searle, J.R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press.

  22. Sober, E., Wilson, D.S. (1998). Unto others. Harvard University Press.

  23. Sommers, C.H. (2000). The war against boys: how misguided feminism is harming our young men. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  24. Song, G., Liang, C.T.H. (2019). Masculine gender role expectations in China: A consensual qualitative research-modified study. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 20, 553-563. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000196

  25. Stavrova, O., Schlösser, T., Fetchenhauer, D. (2013). Are Virtuous People Happy All Around the World? Civic Virtue, Antisocial Punishment, and Subjective Well-Being Across Cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 927-942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213485902

  26. Stavrova, O., Fetchenhauer, D. (2015). Single Parents, Unhappy Parents? Parenthood, Partnership, and the Cultural Normative Context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114551160

  27. Tal, E. (2020). Measurement in Science. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy / Ed. by: E.N. Zalta. Retreieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/measurement-science

  28. Wilson, E.O. (2012). On human nature. Harvard University Press.

  29. Wong, Y.J., Granderson, R.M., Zounlome, N.O.O., McCullough, K.M., Hyman, J.E., Schwabe, S.B. (2020). The assessment of subjective masculine norms in the United States. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 21(4), 545-557. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000254

  30. Wood, W., Eagly, A.H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699-727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699

  31. Zeller, R.A., Carmines, E.G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences: The Link Between Theory and Data. Cambridge University Press.

Received 24.07.2024

Using scales and multidimensional analysis techniques to assess the pressures of sociocultural norms regulating masculinity on the psychosocial well-being of college male students (based on a sample from NaUKMA)

stmm. 2024 (4): 135-164

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2024.04.135

Full text:

NAZAR LISOVYI, MA (Sociology), (кафедра соціології), NaUKMA (8/5, Volosska St., Building 4, Kyiv, 04655)

nazar.lisovyi@ukma.edu.ua

https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1500-4077

Norms are inherently social entities. The link between collectively shared social norms and individual well-being is an important juncture for social scientists as well as for applied social researchers. In this regard it is oftentimes contended that in a modern society the internalized norms of masculinity tend to form behavioral models that frequently contribute to young men’s forming an apathetic attitude toward their social responsibility, as well as to dissociation and indecision, and can worsen their emotional states and, eventually, lead to poorer well-being. The goals of the present research were two-fold and involved exploring the contents of the cultural norms of masculinity and evaluating their effect on mental well-being of young college males (based on a sample from National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (N = 215)). Grounded in the operationalization of Pearson & Marr conceptual framework, a formalized instrument was designed to measure the degree of consensuality of different norms of masculinity and to investigate their relationships with the mental well-being of the study participants. The study conducted in Kyiv in Spring 2024 collected self-reported cognitive data by means of an online form. The data analysis employed techniques of multidimensional analysis operating on multi-item scales. The findings show that a more pronounced expression of the normative traits that are marked as masculine serves as a predictor of higher mental well-being levels, more salient feeling of social belonging, more positive outlook on life and perceiving life events in a more constructive way. Granted that individual correspondence to sociocultural normativity in the domain of masculinity also positively affected psychological condition and the experience of social belonging of male participants, improving their well-being, it can be surmised that the destructive criticism of masculinity per se, radical reshaping of agreed-upon norms regulating masculinity and exposing the young men to the mixed signals of “what a man should be” can have harmful consequences for social adaptation and psychological well-being of male students. On the other hand, it is important to contextualize the criticism of masculinity within collectively meaningful axiological networks of a society and their contingencies. Specifically, congruence with socially desirable repertoires can confer a greater sense of responsibility, understanding one’s role in the group and developing one’s decision-making skills.

Keywords: measurement, multi-item scale, masculinity, norms, well-being

References

  1. Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215

  2. Brown, Belinda. (2016). From boys to men: the place of the provider role in male development. New Male Studies, 5, 36-57.

  3. Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.

  4. Connell, R.W., Messerschmidt, J.W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

  5. De Boise, S. (2019). Editorial: is masculinity toxic? NORMA, 14(3), 147-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2019.1654742

  6. Dembitskyi, S. (2019). Development of sociological tests: methodology and practices of its application. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine.

  7. Dench, G. (2018). Transforming men: Changing Patterns of Dependency and Dominance in Gender Relations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351301367

  8. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-w., Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. In: E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 247-266). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12

  9. Els, C.J. (2004). Personal archetypes, aspects of personality and psychological well-being. Master's dissertation, North-West University.

  10. Feldman, M., Bell, J., Berger, M.T. (2003). Gaining access: A practical and theoretical guide for qualitative researchers. New Yok: Alta Mira Press

  11. Fossas, A. (2019). Psychological maturity predicts different forms of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 20(6), 1933-1952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0033-9

  12. Gilbert, M. (2013). Joint commitment: how we make the social world. New York, NY, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970148.001.0001

  13. Harrington, C. (2021). What is "Toxic Masculinity" and Why Does it Matter? Men and Masculinities, 24(2), 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20943254

  14. Jung, C.G. (1969). Collected Works of C.G. Jung. Volume 9 (Part 1): Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious / Ed by: G. Adler, R.F.C. Hull. Princeton University Press.

  15. Lemon, J. (1992). The crisis of masculinity and the renegotiation of power. Communicatio, 18(2), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500169208537709

  16. Malone, G.P., Pillow, D.R., Osman, A. (2012). The General Belongingness Scale (GBS): Assessing achieved belongingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 311-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.027

  17. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

  18. Moore, R.L., Gillette, D. (1990). King, warrior, magician, lover: rediscovering the archetypes of the mature masculine. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

  19. Pearson, C.S. (1991, July 19). Awakening the Heroes Within. Harper Collins. https://doi.org/10.1080/03060497.1991.11085149

  20. Pearson, C.S., Marr, H.K. (2002). Introduction to archetypes: the guide to interpreting results from the Pearson-Marr archetype indicator (PMAI) instrument. Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

  21. Searle, J.R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press.

  22. Sober, E., Wilson, D.S. (1998). Unto others. Harvard University Press.

  23. Sommers, C.H. (2000). The war against boys: how misguided feminism is harming our young men. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  24. Song, G., Liang, C.T.H. (2019). Masculine gender role expectations in China: A consensual qualitative research-modified study. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 20, 553-563. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000196

  25. Stavrova, O., Schlösser, T., Fetchenhauer, D. (2013). Are Virtuous People Happy All Around the World? Civic Virtue, Antisocial Punishment, and Subjective Well-Being Across Cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 927-942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213485902

  26. Stavrova, O., Fetchenhauer, D. (2015). Single Parents, Unhappy Parents? Parenthood, Partnership, and the Cultural Normative Context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114551160

  27. Tal, E. (2020). Measurement in Science. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy / Ed. by: E.N. Zalta. Retreieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/measurement-science

  28. Wilson, E.O. (2012). On human nature. Harvard University Press.

  29. Wong, Y.J., Granderson, R.M., Zounlome, N.O.O., McCullough, K.M., Hyman, J.E., Schwabe, S.B. (2020). The assessment of subjective masculine norms in the United States. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 21(4), 545-557. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000254

  30. Wood, W., Eagly, A.H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699-727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699

  31. Zeller, R.A., Carmines, E.G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences: The Link Between Theory and Data. Cambridge University Press.

Received 24.07.2024

LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

} } } } }