Too hunky to help: A person-centered approach to masculinity and prosocial behavior beliefs among adolescent boys

Abstract

Boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys may be negatively affected by masculine norm adherence, and there is evidence that early adolescence is a time when boys feel heightened levels of pressure from multiple sources (e.g., friends, family, and self) to adhere to masculine norms like emotional restriction (e.g., appearing stoic and uncaring). However, the relation between boys’ masculinity and their prosocial behavior beliefs is likely further affected by boys’ social competency. Generally, boys’ social competency is positively associated with prosocial behavior, but this is not the case for “tough” boys (boys who adhere to many traditionally masculine norms). We expected that analyzing the relation between early adolescent boys’ pressure to adhere to masculine norms and boys’ unique social profiles (created using adherence to masculine norms and aspects of social competency) would further illuminate boys’ patterns of prosocial behavior beliefs toward other boys. A latent profile analysis estimated profiles of masculinity and social competence among 260 early adolescent boys (59% White, M_age = 11.45 years old, Range_age = 10–12) in the southwestern U.S. Three profiles emerged which we labeled socially precarious (50%), socially self-confident (41%), and socially avoidant (9%). R3Step and BCH procedures indicated that higher levels of felt pressure from all three sources resulted in a significantly higher likelihood of being in the socially precarious profile compared to the socially self-confident profile and that boys in the socially self-confident profile had significantly higher mean levels of prosocial behavior beliefs toward other boys (M = 3.22) compared to boys in the socially precarious profile (M = 3.01). Overall, this study encourages the socialization of social competency while simultaneously discouraging the perpetuation of certain masculine norms among adolescent boys.

Keywords

Early adolescence gender identity latent profile analysis parents peers prosocial

The prosocial behavior of adolescent boys to their male peers is an interesting and understudied topic. It seems likely that early adolescent boys experience an uptick in pressure to adhere to masculine norms (Nielson et al., 2020) which matters because adherence to masculine norms seems to negatively impact boys’ relationships with other boys (Way, 2011) as well as their desires to help others (Hine & Leman, 2013). Masculinity norms in the U.S. center on the importance of boys and men looking tough, cool, and remote, and for them to avoid emotional expression or sensitivity (Brannon, 1976). Thus, it would not be surprising if adhering to these norms came at the cost of connectivity. But boys are not a monolithic group. They do not all feel the same degree of pressure to adhere to norms of masculinity (Nielson et al., 2020), nor do they all manifest the same levels of social competence or prosocial behaviors (Padilla-Walker et al., 2015). In keeping with the relation-specific, person-specific themes of this special issue, we ask whether pressure to adhere to masculine norms relates to early adolescent boys’ social profiles (composed of adherence to masculine norms and social competence indicators), and whether these social profiles, in turn, relate to boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward their male peers. In keeping with the focus of multiple socialization sources, we explore pressure to adhere to masculine norms from three different sources: parents, peers, and from the boys themselves.

Early adolescent boys’ relationships and adherence to masculine norms

Early adolescence is marked by many changes for boys. As their bodies begin to react to the hormones of puberty, their social interactions change in tandem. As children, boys play with other boys because childhood friendship dyads and play groups are almost always segregated by gender (Martin & Fabes, 2001). Though adolescent boys start spending more time with girls during the course of puberty (Arndorfer & Stormshak, 2008), many early adolescent boys’ friends are still mostly other boys. Thus, analyses of boys’ friendships with other boys—including their attitudes about being prosocial toward other boys—likely captures many of boys’ interpersonal interactions.

When boys talk about their childhood friendships with other boys, they often describe strong bonds and sensitive connections (Way, 2011). But these relationships seem to become strained as boys grow up. In hundreds of interviews from multiple time-points with boys from diverse ethnic-racial backgrounds, Way (2011) talked with boys about their relationships with their best friends as they progressed into and through adolescence. She found many of the boys described how the loving relationships from their early adolescence faded over time. As boys progressed deeper into adolescence, they grew emotionally distanced from their male friends and abandoned their connection-oriented language. Way ascribed these changes to the increased importance that boys placed on adhering to the traditional masculine norm of appearing uncaring and tough.

It is unclear, however, whether boys actually experience an increase in pressure to adhere to masculine norms as they progress through adolescence, or whether the changes Way saw might be the result of some other phenomena. A popular theory about gender identity development during adolescence is the gender intensification hypothesis (Hill & Lynch, 1983), which posits that boys feel increased pressure to act masculine as they begin to assume adult roles and responsibilities. Support for the gender intensification hypothesis is mixed, though, and person-centered analyses of adolescent development show many different trajectories of gender norm adherence (Mchale et al., 2009; McHale et al., 2001). While gender intensification may not necessarily be true for all boys, it seems that many early adolescent boys become more focused on masculine norms than they do at other stages (Hine & Leman, 2013; Way, 2011).

Peer relationships may play a role in gender intensification. Adolescents become particularly zealous about “policing” gender norm adherence—that is they watch out for and penalize (e.g., call homophobic names) those around them who do not adhere to gender norms (Pascoe, 2014; Poteat & Espelage, 2007). Importantly it is not just sexual minority boys who experience this kind of gender policing—the majority of U.S. adolescents report hearing homophobic name-calling in their school (Kosciw et al., 2019). Although many youths claim that their use of homophobic names is a friendly practice used without the intention to harm, any and all homophobic name-calling has been found to have negative consequences for the wellbeing of adolescents (DeLay et al., 2016; Toomey et al., 2014). This is likely, in part, because gender policing practices—like homophobic name-calling—reinforce the idea that the only right way to be a man is to adhere to traditional masculine norms.

How might these constant messages about “manning up” affect how boys help and serve those around them? Hine and Leman (2013) asked boys whether they felt it was more important to be masculine or to be prosocial. They found that older boys (ages 14–15) emphasized prosociality, but younger boys (ages 12–13) would forgo appearing kind in order to appear manly. In this, we see how some early adolescent boys may interpret prosociality as antithetical to masculinity. In other words, early adolescent boys are more likely to avoid certain types of prosocial behavior—particularly those that emphasize emotional sensitivity and empathy (e.g., comforting a friend who is upset). This distinction is important: we do not expect that a “masculine avoidance” of prosocial behavior extends to all the various ways in which boys and men can be prosocial. Indeed, boys and men seem particularly motivated to perform certain prosocial acts (e.g., sharing, acts of heroism) if other people are watching (Carlo & Randall, 2002; Takagishi et al., 2015). But we expect, in line with the findings of Hine and Leman (2013), that early adolescent boys who feel more pressure to adhere to masculine norms will report lower levels of multidimensional prosocial behavior that includes aspects of emotional sensitivity. A person-centered approach can assist in parsing out the nuance in such relations, particularly given previous work showing the heterogeneity of boys’ social interactions and masculine norm adherence.

Person-centered social profiles

The foundation for our research is that people—adolescent boys—are heterogenous. This foundation originates in Bronfenbrenner and Morris’ (2006) bioecological model which posits that all humans are unique, innately agentic beings who are influenced by their specific social location. Different kinds of adolescent boys also have different desires, motives, and methods of social interaction. One particularly influential aspect of adolescent social interaction is social competence. Social competence is a multidimensional construct that includes dimensions such as social goals and relational self-efficacy (Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2017; Rose-Krasnor, 1997). Social goals are one’s desired outcome for social interactions. Ryan and Shim (2006) identified how adolescents pursue different social goals with some mainly seeking peer approval (e.g., social desirability and judgment avoidance) and some mainly seeking personal development and fulfillment (e.g., social development). Different combinations of social competency constructs create unique social profiles that relate to more and less effective peer interactions (Wilson et al., 2016). Relational self-efficacy is one’s belief’s regarding their ability to understand and interact with peers, and it is positively related to social adjustment and negatively related to internalizing behaviors (Zosuls et al., 2014). Research on social profiles composed of social goals and relational self-efficacy find that these constructs combine to affect adolescent peer-oriented prosocial behavior. Social profiles marked by desires for authentic peer interaction and high self-efficacy report more prosocial behavior than those who are motivated primarily by the approval of their peers or who have low relational self-efficacy (Rodkin et al., 2000, 2013).

As boys display unique social competency profiles that affect their peer-oriented prosocial behavior, so too they display a range of adherence to traditional masculine norms. Where some boys avoid or resist masculine norms because they find these norms restrictive or harmful (De Visser, 2009; Rogers & Way, 2016; Smiler, 2014), others expend a great deal of effort trying to adhere to norms; trying to be as masculine as possible (Martin et al., 2016). It seems that boys who are striving to be masculine may feel more pressure than boys who have largely rejected traditional masculine norms (Nielson et al., 2020). Given the research indicating a negative relation between adherence to masculine norms and prosocial behavior (Hine & Leman, 2013), it follows that groups of boys with differing degrees of masculinity and could also show a range of prosocial behavior toward their male peers. For example, boys who feel traditionally masculine may subsequently feel confident and successful in peer social interactions (Thorne, 1993)—thus encouraging prosocial interactions with peers. However, it is also possible for less traditionally masculine boys to feel comfortable and at ease when interacting with their peers. Conversely, a traditionally masculine boy who adheres strongly to the more negative qualities ascribed to masculinity (e.g., aggression, restricted emotionality; Levant et al., 2007) may project a “tough” persona marked by low levels of peer-directed prosocial behavior (Kornbluh & Neal, 2016; Rodkin et al., 2000). As such, the degree to which socially powerful boys feel pressure to adhere to masculine norms—and the ways this might impact their beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys—is not well understood. More research is needed to understand whether boys flout masculine norms despite feeling pressure to adhere to norms, or whether boys’ social competence shields them from feeling high levels of pressure to conform in the first place. An analysis that considers how aspects of boys’ social competency may interconnect with adherence to traditional masculine norms is most likely to provide an accurate understanding of adolescent boys’ prosocial behavior beliefs toward other boys.

Unique effects of socialization agents

For good reason, this special issue is focused on the unique effect of multiple socialization agents on prosocial behavior. Though the general goal of prosocial socialization actions may be to increase kindness in the world, the way prosocial behavior is socialized changes across different relationships (for a review, see Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2015). Like the relational effects seen in prosocial behavior, boys’ masculinity, too, is relationally oriented. There is a general universal imperative to masculinity socialization—to continue the present nature of cultural gender norms (Connell, 2005)—but masculinity socialization differs in manner and effect across different kinds of relationships. Below, we review what is known on the masculinity socialization efforts of parents, peers, and how boys act as agents themselves as they internalize cultural masculine norms.

Parents: A common motivation for parents who socialize their boys toward traditional masculine norms is to help their boys avoid being teased (Kane, 2006). For other parents, adherence to traditional gender norms is seen as the only right way to live—a moral obligation (Kane, 2006; Solebello & Elliott, 2011). To achieve this aim, parents may use explicit instruction (e.g., saying things like “Take that off - boys don’t wear dresses”). Such experiences may cause boys to feel pressure to adhere to masculine norms years after the original interactions (Nielson et al., 2022). These socializing practices may lead boys to adhere more closely to masculine norms, but also lead boys to prize popularity and avoid social embarrassment because social power is connected to masculine ideals. Parents also implicitly socialize gender roles by modeling behavior in their daily interactions (Mesman & Groeneveld, 2018). For example, boys might feel more pressure to participate in care work and less pressure to adhere to traditionally masculine gender roles if they see fathers doing an equal share (Averett, 2016; MacPhee & Prendergast, 2019; Rahilly, 2015; Sinno & Killen, 2009).

Peers: Parent’s worries about the gender non-conforming behavior of their children evoking negative peer attention are not baseless. As described in greater detail above, adolescents are quick to identify and ridicule the gender non-conforming behavior of their peers (Pascoe, 2014; Toomey et al., 2014). Adolescents are generally less articulate about the motivation behind their gender socialization behavior than are parents, but adolescents seem strongly motivated to ensure peer uniformity. Adolescent anxieties about acceptance and fitting in seem to compel them to condemn any behaviors that are too far outside norms of any kind. There are exceptions to this rule. For example, boys who are more popular or have other social privileges can get away with breaking masculine norms (Mayeux & Kleiser, 2020; Thorne, 1993), but the non-conforming actions of these popular boys do not seem to change the norms for others; those who are less well-positioned socially are generally still held to the traditional standards.

Self: Consistent with our bioecological framework, we recognize the boys themselves as important agents in their own socialization. For one thing, boys may not even recognize the socialization efforts of those around them (Liben & Bigler, 2002). For another, the messages boys receive are subject to boys’ own interpretation, and these interpretations may be surprisingly contrary to the nature of the original message. For example, children consistently misremember gender non-conforming behavior (e.g., misremembering pictures of construction workers as being men when the pictures displayed were of female construction workers) (Koblinsky et al., 1978; Wilbourn & Kee, 2010). This likely happens because children have internalized cultural gender norms, and the strength of expectations (based on these internalizations) may overwhelm the socialization messages they receive from other sources. In this way, boys become agents of their own socialization. They are more attuned to—and more likely to seek out—messages that are in line with their internalized gender ideology (Martin & Halverson, 1981). As such, in our investigation of the potential links between prosocial behavior, social competence, and masculine norm socialization, we include the boys themselves as important sources of pressure to adhere to masculine norms.

Current study

In the present study, we employed a person-centered approach to assess whether multiple profiles of social competence indicators and adherence to masculine norms would emerge among early adolescent boys, and if some profiles would be negatively associated with boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior to male friends. We hypothesized that multiple social profiles would emerge, and that at least one profile would contain high scores on both masculinity and social competence given prior research linking these constructs (Thorne, 1993). In keeping with our relational framework, and consistent with work showing how pressure to adhere to masculinity norms varies across different socialization sources (Nielson et al., 2020), we next analyzed whether some social profiles felt significantly more pressure to adhere to masculine norms (from parents, friends, and themselves) than did others. We expected that the profiles of boys marked by more traditional masculinity and lower social competence would report higher levels of pressure to adhere to masculine norms, from all three sources, than would boys with lower masculinity and more social competence. Finally, we explored whether beliefs about prosocial behavior toward male peers differed across boys with different social profiles. Although past research indicates that profiles marked by higher masculinity would report lower levels of prosocial behavior (Hine & Leman, 2013), it is unclear how indicators of social competence might affect this relation: high masculinity boys who are more socially competent may still place importance on being prosocial toward other boys, despite their high masculinity. Conversely, high socially competent, high masculinity boys may be crafting a tough persona, which might discourage prosocial behavior toward other boys. Our analysis explores how masculinity and social competence combine to affect boys’ beliefs about helping other boys.

Methods

Participants

Data came from a larger cross-sectional study designed to investigate adolescent attitudes and beliefs about gender and other outcomes across three cohorts collected in either spring 2013, fall 2013, or spring 2014 (students did not participate in more than one session). Participants were 260 sixth-grade students who self-identified as boys (Mean_age = 11.45 years old, Median_age = 12, SD_age = .51, Range_age = 11–13) from 15 classrooms throughout four elementary schools in a large southwestern city in the United States. Participants were ethnically diverse, White n = 158 (58.7%), Latinx n = 33 (12.3%), Black/African American n = 10 (3.7%), Asian American n = 13 (4.8%), American Indian n = 11 (4.1%), Multiracial n = 10 (3.7%), not reported n = 34 (12.6%). Participants were predominantly from educated, upper middle-class families (average income was $76,000–$100,000 annually).

Procedures

Parents were given consent forms and were given the choice to opt their child out of the study; adolescents were provided assent forms (participation rate of 96%). Data collections were scheduled directly with teachers. Adolescents recorded their responses via paper and pencil surveys and all data collections were voluntary and kept confidential. The surveys were administered in a classroom setting and research assistants read the surveys aloud and were present to answer questions. Questionnaires had four different versions that varied the order of items and measures. Adolescents were given a small gift for participating. All procedures were approved by a university Institutional Review Board. Data and other research materials are available upon request.

Measures

Adherence to traditional masculine norms

Masculinity was assessed using the adaptation of the 11-item the Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationship Scale (AMIRS; Chu et al., 2005) utilized by Rogers et al. (2017). The adaptation consisted of converting the original scale from an assessment of endorsement of traditional masculine norms (e.g., “Guys should not let it show when their feelings are hurt”) to adherence to traditional masculine norms (e.g., “I do not let it show to my friends when my feelings are hurt”). Adolescent boys rated their agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Of the 11 items, three were reverse-coded. A composite score was created by averaging the items. Cronbach’s alpha suggested good reliability of the measure (α = .77).

Social competence

Social competence was assessed using two different indicators. First was social goal orientation which was assessed using the subscales of Ryan and Shim’s (2006) Social Goal Orientation measure that captures three social achievement goals: social development, social desirability, and judgment avoidance. Each subscale consists of four items from the 12-item scale. The social development subscale assesses the development of social development (e.g., “In general, I strive to develop my interpersonal skills”). The social desirability subscale focuses on social desirability and obtaining positive judgments from others (e.g., “I want to be friends with popular people”). Finally, the judgment avoidance subscale focuses on avoiding negative judgments from others and that one is not socially undesirable (e.g., “I would be successful if I could avoid being socially awkward”). Participants responded to the measure on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = not at all true of me to 4 = very true of me. Composite scores were created for each subscale. Cronbach’s alpha suggested good reliability of the subscales (αs = .81, .90, .77, respectively).

The second indicator of social competence was relational self-efficacy which was assessed using the 7-item Gender-Based Relationship Efficacy Scale (Zosuls et al., 2014). Boys were asked how efficacious they feel talking to or interacting with other boys (e.g., “How much do you know how to talk to boys?”). Participants rated their responses on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 = not at all to 4 = a lot and a composite score was created. Cronbach’s alpha suggested good reliability of the measure (α = .88).

Beliefs about prosocial behavior

Beliefs about prosocial behavior were assessed using a measure of prosocial behavior created for this study. The measure consisted of seven items in which the participants answered questions about targets of their own gender (i.e., boys only answered questions about other boys). An example item is, “I think that boys should provide physical assistance (e.g., when someone falls down”). Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 = disagree to 4 = agree with higher scores indicating stronger agreement about the importance of prosocial behavior toward other boys. Psychometrics for this measure, including outcomes of factor analyses, are included in the supplementary file. All analyses indicated that all seven items loaded onto one factor with good model fit. Cronbach’s alpha suggested good reliability of the measure (α = .83).

Pressure to adhere to traditional masculine norms

An adapted version of the felt pressure measure (Egan & Perry, 2001) was used to assess boys’ perceived pressure to adhere to traditional masculine norms. The measure consisted of 12 items that form three subscales of four items each. Each subscale represents pressure from a different socialization agent: pressure from friends (e.g., “Other kids would be upset if I acted like a girl”); pressure from parents (e.g., “My parents would be upset if I liked girls’ toys and activities”); and pressure from self (e.g., “I would be upset if I saw myself acting like a girl”). Cronbach’s alpha suggested good reliability of each subscale (α = .84, .86, .80, respectively).

Analysis Plan

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics conducted in SPSS 27 including means, standard deviations, skew, kurtosis, and reliability analyses were used to identify distributional properties of each variable. Paired sample t-tests were used to assess mean differences in felt pressure from the three socializing agents (i.e., family, friends, and self).

Hypothesis testing

We tested hypotheses using latent profile analysis (LPA) in MPLUS v. 8 (Hagenaars & McCutcheon, 2002; Muthén & Muthén, 2019) using a maximum likelihood estimator. Latent profile analysis is a person-centered modeling technique that attempts to identify latent subpopulations within a population by classifying people into profiles based on differences in personal and/or environmental attributes (Spurk et al., 2020). Statistically, this is accomplished by iteratively estimating profiles within the designated sample, increasing the number of profiles one by one until the optimal number of profiles is achieved. Acquiring the most appropriate number of profiles is determined using various fit indices including the AIC, BIC, adjusted BIC, and Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test (VLMR-LRT) and VLMR-LRT-adjusted test. The AIC and BIC account for sample size, number of parameters, and model fit, with lower estimates indicating better fit. The VLMR tests make nested model comparisons using chi-square difference testing, evaluating significant differences in fit between the present model and the model with one less profile specified (K-1). p-values less than .05 signify that the present model has significantly better fit that the K-1 model (Nylund et al., 2007). We further consulted the posterior probabilities, which are reported on a scale of 0–1, with numbers closer to 1 indicating the probability that participants were classified into the correct profile (Lanza et al., 2007). Researchers are also recommended to use conceptual knowledge, common judgment, and preference to parsimony to assess the validity and appropriateness of resulting profiles (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014; Nylund et al., 2007).

After the optimal number of profiles was estimated based on boys’ masculinity, social goal orientation scales, and gender-based relationship efficacy, a 3-step method was used to test whether scores on felt pressure from friends, parents, and the self were associated with membership in each profile (R3Step; Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014; Vermunt, 2010). The R3Step method first estimates the latent profiles, secondly creates a nominal “most likely” variable that represents which profile each participant was likely to be in using the LPA’s posterior distribution (accounting for measurement error), and then thirdly uses multinomial logistic regression to predict latent profile membership with independent variables. In this case the independent variables were the felt pressure types.

Following initial estimation of the LPA and the R3Step procedure, we used the Bolck, Croon, and Hagenaar’s approach (BCH) to examine whether there were significant mean differences in beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys across profiles (Bakk & Vermunt, 2016; Bolck et al., 2004; Croon, 2014; Vermunt, 2010). A form of weighted multiple group analysis is used to accomplish this task, where weights signify measurement error of the latent profile variable. Measurement error for the most likely profile variable is estimated, and subsequently the LPA is re-estimated using this variable and fixing measurement error of this variable to the values previously estimated. Mean differences on the outcome variable, which in the present study is beliefs about prosocial behavior toward boys, were then assessed across profiles.

Results

Descriptive statistics

See Table 1 for descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, distributional properties, and bivariate correlations between all study variables. All study variables appeared to have normal distributions and adequate variability. Paired sample t-tests showed significant mean differences between felt pressure from the self, parents, and friends, with pressure from the self being the highest (Table 1). We also considered that our main variables of interest including adherence to masculinity norms, social competence, and prosocial behavior beliefs might differ across demographic variables. Preliminary one-way ANOVAs thus tested for mean-level differences across participant age, race, mother and father education level (as an indicator of socioeconomic status), and family composition (e.g., parents married, divorced, and living apart). Results showed no significant differences at the p < .05 level.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations amongst study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Masculinity	1
2. SGO: Social competence	−.15*	1
3. SGO: Socially desirable	.40***	.23***	1
4. SGO: Avoiding judgment	.16*	.32***	.49***	1
5. Gender-based relationship efficacy	.05	.10	.25***	.07	1
6. Felt pressure: Peers	.17**	.06	.27***	.27***	.04	1
7. Felt pressure: Parents	.17**	.03	.24***	.24***	.00	.73***	1
8. Felt pressure: Self	.16**	.07	.20**	.22**	.13^†	.67***	.63***	1
9. Prosocial behavior toward other boys	−.34***	.43***	−.03	.13^†	.06	−.01	−.04	−.05	1
Mean	1.63	2.57	1.57	2.18	3.52	2.30^bc	2.10^ac	2.73^ab	3.09
SD	.60	.89	1.09	1.02	.58	1.02	1.16	.88	.63
Min/max	.09/3.27	.0/4.0	.0/4.0	.0/4.0	1.43/4.0	.0/4.0	.0/4.0	.0/4.0	.0/4.0
Skew	−.09	−.68	.16	−.32	−1.51	−.38	−.28	−1.05	−1.05
Kurtosis	.29	.48	−.91	−.52	2.03	−.65	−1.02	.97	2.29

Note. SGO = Social Goal Orientation. Letter subscripts denote that for felt pressure from peers, parents, and the self were significantly different from one another at the p < .001 level (peers/parents: t = 3.80; peers/self t = −8.74; parents/self t = 10.81 (df = 246)).

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, ^† p < .06.

Latent profiles of masculinity and social competence

We fit models that extracted between two and five profiles and included boys’ adherence to traditional masculine norms and two indicators of social competence: social goal orientation (split into three subscales: social development, social desirability, and judgment avoidance) and relational self-efficacy scales. Based on the fit indices and posterior probabilities, as described below, we determined that the best fitting model included three profiles. Although the four-profile model appeared to have slightly better entropy, the LMR-LRT tests were not significant (Table 2), and closer inspection of the profiles showed that one of the profiles had a low n of 15, and it appeared that one of the profiles was simply split into two similar profiles that did not yield additional data above and beyond the three-profile model. The five-profile model had even less significant LMR-LRT values than the four-profile model and retained the excessively small group, giving us additional confidence in the three-profile model. See Table 2 for all comparative fit indices across each model. The three profiles that emerged included (1) a low masculinity/social goals/efficacy socially avoidant profile (9%), (2) a high masculinity/social goals/efficacy socially precarious profile (50%), and (3) a low masculinity/social goals/high efficacy socially self-confident profile (41%). See figure 1 for a graphical representation of each group. Additionally, our posterior probabilities appeared to be proficient in determining accurate classification into profiles (ranged from .87 to .94).

Table 2.

Fit statistics for latent profile analysis models with two to five profiles.

Number of classes	Log likelihood	AIC	BIC (adj. BIC)	LMR-LRT (adj.) p values	Entropy	Class proportions
2	−.1479.66	2991.23	3048.26 (2997.53)	<.001 (<.001)	.75	123 (47.3%)
2	−.1479.66	2991.23	3048.26 (2997.53)	<.001 (<.001)	.75	137 (52.7%)
3	−.1443.90	2931.81	3010.14 (2940.39)	.01 (.01)	.79	104 (40.0%)
						22 (8.5%)
						134 (51.5%)
4	−1419.66	2895.32	2995.01 (2906.24)	.11 (.11)	.80	15 (5.8%)
						73 (28.1%)
						67 (25.7%)
						105 (40.3%)
5	−1402.95	2873.90	2994.96 (2887.17)	.29	.82	15 (5.8%)
						31 (11.9%)
						36 (13.8%)
				.31		36 (13.8%)
						77 (29.6%)
						101 (38.8%)

Note. AIC = Akaike information criteria, BIC = Bayesian information criteria, adj BIC = sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criteria, LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin, LRT = likelihood ratio test. The best fitting class solution is noted in bold.

Figure 1.

Three Profiles of Adherence to Traditional Masculine Norms and Social Competence among sixth Grade Boys (n = 260). Note. PB = Boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys, Masculinity = boys’ adherence to traditional masculine norms; Soc Dev = Social development; Soc Des = Social desirability; RSE = Relational self-efficacy. All measures had a zero to four scale.

The socially precarious term was chosen because boys in this group had high adherence to masculine norms, as well as high levels of social desirability and judgment avoidance compared to the other two groups. This profile thus aligned with precarious masculinity theory, which situates manhood as a valuable, elusive, and competitive social status that needs to be earned and actively maintained in Western cultures (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Accordingly, we characterize this group efficacious and masculine, but generally worried about how they are perceived and losing their social status. Conversely, the term socially self-confident better aligned with the first profile because this group of boys showed high relationship efficacy, but lower levels of social desirability and social judgment avoidance compared to the socially precarious group. We took this to mean that this group was comparatively more confident in how they were presenting themselves in interactions with other boys and not afraid of social repercussions. The socially avoidant group was termed so because this profile had the lowest levels of social development, social desirability, and relational self-efficacy, which indicated a general lack of sociability compared to the other groups.

Felt pressure as an indicator of latent profiles

Next, R3Step analyses explored how multiple sources of felt pressure (e.g., parents, friends, and self) to adhere to masculinity norms were associated with each profile. R3Step results indicated there was a significantly higher (p < .05) likelihood of being in the socially precarious profile compared to the socially self-confident profile when boys experienced heightened pressure from parents (83% more likely), friends (90% more likely), and the self (70% more likely). Additionally, increased felt pressure from the self significantly increased odds of being in the socially precarious profile compared to the socially avoidant profile by roughly 2.5 times. See Table 3 for the full results of the R3Step procedure.

Table 3.

Odds ratios and p-values for the R3Step method showing likelihood of being sorted into latent profiles based on reported felt pressure from the self, parents, and friends.

	Self			Parents			Friends
	OR	SE	p-value	OR	SE	p-value	OR	SE	p-value
Reference: Socially Avoidant
v. Socially self-confident	1.466	.370	.208	.800	.194	.301	.835	.208	.428
v. Socially precarious	2.488	.610	.015	1.460	.335	.170	1.583	.371	.115
Reference: Socially Self-Confident
v. Socially avoidant	.682	.172	.065	1.251	.303	.409	1.198	.299	.508
v. Socially precarious	1.698	.342	.041	1.826	.285	.004	1.897	.347	.010
Reference: Precarious
v. Socially avoidant	.402	.098	<.001	.685	.157	.045	.632	.148	.013
v. Socially self-confident	.589	.119	<.01	.548	.085	<.001	.527	.097	<.001

Note. All values are R3Step logistic regression analyses. If the odds ratio is above one, the person is more likely to be assigned to the latent group (in comparison to the reference group); if the odds ratio is below one, the person is less likely to be assigned to the latent group (in comparison to the reference group). OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error.

Associations between latent profiles and prosocial behavior beliefs

Finally, BCH procedures explored how mean levels of prosocial behavior beliefs differed across profiles. Results showed that boys in the socially self-confident profile had significantly higher mean levels of beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys (M = 3.41) compared to boys in the socially precarious profile (M = 3.15). Boys in the socially avoidant profile had the lowest mean level of prosocial behavior beliefs (M = 2.96) although differences were not statistically significant (potentially due to limited power associated with a small group size). Notably, average values on prosocial behavior beliefs were above the midpoint of the scale in each group (see Table 4 for full results of BCH procedure).

Table 4.

Means and equality tests on prosocial behavior toward other boys across classes using the BCH procedure.

	Mean	SE
Socially avoidant	2.958	.247
Socially self-confident	3.416	.059
Socially precarious	3.152	.060
Equality tests of means
	Chi-square	p-value
Socially avoidant v. socially self-confident	3.051	.081
Socially avoidant v. socially precarious	.580	.446
Socially self-confident v. socially precarious	8.493	.004
Overall	9.552	.008

Note. Beliefs about prosocial behavior: range 0–4.

Discussion

The goals of the current study were threefold. First, we wanted to identify profiles of adolescent boys’ adherence to masculine norms and social competence. Second, we examined whether pressure from parents, friends, or self would be associated with profile membership. Third, we explored whether profiles were associated with boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys. We found three social profiles of adolescent boys: socially precarious (high masculinity/social goals/efficacy), socially self-confident (low masculinity/social goals and high efficacy), and socially avoidant (low masculinity/social goals/efficacy). Profiles evidenced that indicators social competence can trend with high masculinity (i.e., socially precarious boys), but there was a sizable group of boys for which this was not the case (i.e., socially self-confident and avoidant boys). Further, we found that higher levels of felt pressure from parents, friends, and self were all related to the likelihood of being in the socially precarious compared to the socially self-confident group. Further, socially self-confident boys placed more importance on being prosocial to other boys compared to the socially precarious boys and socially avoidant boys. The relation between socially self-confident and socially avoidant boys was not statistically significant, but this may have been the result of inadequate statistical power. However, our hypotheses were generally supported. The remainder of the discussion contains detailed analyses of the different emergent profiles and our suppositions of the reasons for how social profiles related to pressure to adhere to masculine norms and boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys.

Socially precarious boys

Although early adolescent boys tend to have more rigid masculine norms than boys of other ages (Hine & Leman, 2013; Way, 2011), our results indicate variations in boys’ adherence to masculine norms, social competency, and boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward boys. However, our findings do suggest that a preponderance (50%) of boys fall into the socially precarious group wherein they adhere to more traditionally masculine scripts and have strong desires to be socially competent, popular, and avoid appearing socially inept. Interestingly, with their stronger adherence to traditional masculine norms, we would have expected that they would strive to be aloof or uncaring (Way, 2011), but these boys felt more efficacious in their relationships with other boys. Rather than driving them away from other boys during this developmental stage, their masculinity may have helped them feel more confident and secure in their interactions with their male peers. As such, these boys may be attempting to understand other boys and in so doing, they master the social dynamics of their world more quickly than boys who are less socially minded. Through their focus on social dynamics, they learn what is socially acceptable and which behaviors are rewarded. This understanding may then transform into feelings of efficacy in their male friendships. Our findings thus indicate that socially precarious boys might feel more efficacious with other boys because they have spent more time with them compared to boys who are more socially inept or avoidant, although they still fear losing their social status.

Yet our results also indicate that these perceptions of social efficacy do not always translate into boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward male peers. Indeed, socially precarious boys placed less import on prosocial behavior than socially self-confident boys. With these findings, we build on those of Hine and Leman (2013)—that early adolescent boys are more concerned with masculine reputation than prosocial appearance—but we add important nuance. It is the highly masculine, socially competent boys who are more likely to promote masculinity over prosociality. In other words, they believed that the key to acceptance was found in being cool rather than in being kind.

Our study also found that socially precarious boys had higher levels of pressures to adhere to masculine norms from their parents, friends, and themselves when compared to socially self-confident boys, and they had higher levels of pressure from themselves compared to socially avoidant boys. These findings are revolutionary because it has long been assumed that those who are less gender conforming should feel the highest levels of pressure to adhere to gender norms (Carver et al., 2003). This belief was rooted in the idea that gender non-conforming behavior evokes gender policing (Poteat & Espelage, 2007), which was expected to produce more pressure to adhere to gender norms. But our findings add to the growing evidence that this may not be the case. We support the findings of Nielson et al. (2020) which found that more gender-typical youth feel higher levels of pressure to adhere to gender norms.

We know that even popular, traditionally masculine boys experience gender policing (Pascoe, 2014). Perhaps these gender policing experiences produce higher levels of pressure for more traditionally masculine boys compared to less masculine boys because more masculine boys are highly invested in adhering to norms and appearing masculine in the first place. The harassment that masculine boys experience may interact with the high levels of internalized pressure they feel to maintain their masculine image. Investigations into the developmental trajectories of felt pressure is needed to better understand which kinds of boys (and girls) are more likely to feel pressure, how they react to this pressure over time, and what kind of outcomes they experience because of this pressure and their responses to it.

Socially self-confident boys

Another group of boys potentially focused on achieving their social goals through prosociality. This socially self-confident profile consisted of boys who were similarly high in indicators of social competence as were socially precarious boys, but showed comparatively lower adherence to traditional masculine. These findings were illuminating in that such a large portion of boys (41%) reported low adherence to masculinity norms. Prior work seems contradictory in that some shows how early adolescent boys have yet to experience the negative relational consequences associated with increased adherence to masculine norms (Way, 2011) whereas other work indicates how early adolescent boys are particularly prone to prioritizing masculinity over prosocial behavior (Hine & Leman, 2013). We believe that our person-centered profile analysis may resolve these contradictions by identifying how these trends may be the product of different groups of boys.

Indeed, our findings suggest that the large majority of boys fall into two camps: those who care about masculine norms and those who do not. Both types of boys are keyed into social dynamics and strive for acceptance of their peers, but they seem to go about earning it in different ways: the socially precarious boys through pursuit of masculinity (to the detriment of their prosociality), and the socially self-confident boys in ways that boost their prosociality (potentially to the detriment of their masculinity). As our work is cross-sectional, we cannot infer any temporal order in these relations: we do not know whether strong import placed on prosocial behavior precedes low masculinity adherence. But we do show how the socially self-confident boys who lend less importance to masculine appearances and the opinions of their peers report more import on prosocial behavior, and lower levels of pressure to adhere to masculine norms from all three sources (parents, friends, self) compared to socially precarious boys.

Socially avoidant boys

Finally, a small profile consisting of socially avoidant boys (9%) was found wherein boys had low masculinity adherence (compared to socially precarious profile) and low social competence. It is possible that these constructs have a causal relationship: socially avoidant boys might be more socially inept which might be perceived (by themselves and their peers alike) as socially avoidant boys being less masculine. One aspect of traditional masculinity is that real men are successful (Brannon, 1976). This may manifest in traits like confidence and ease in social and physical pursuits. Traditionally masculine boys, then, would be good at social encounters whereas those who do not get them right—or do not even try—might be perceived as failing to live up to this important marker of manhood.

Another explanation is that socially avoidant boys are less impacted by social influences overall. As such, they might reject the socially prized scripts of masculinity and social hierarchies that are pushed on boys their age (Martin et al., 2016). Indeed, socially avoidant boys had the lowest levels of pressure to adhere to masculine norms (from all sources) compared to socially precarious and socially self-confident boys. Nielson et al. (2020) posited that those who felt lower levels of pressure to adhere to gender norms may do so because they are less invested in the traditional gender norms and the cultures in which they are sustained. The boys in our socially avoidant profile may have strong overlap with Martin and colleague’s (2016) low gender-similarity group who felt low levels of similarity and belongingness to peers of any gender. These findings lend support to this idea: socially avoidant boys are not just less engaged with cultural masculine norms, they are also less engaged with cultural social norms in general. As such, it was not surprising to find that these boys placed lower import on prosocial behavior than socially self-confident boys at the mean level.

If the socially avoidant boys are similar to Martin and colleague’s (2016) low gender-similar group, the findings of this study build on those of Martin et al. (2016) to show that although socially avoidant/low gender-similar boys may not have felt very included by their peers, they may not necessarily care about social acceptance (and corresponding prosociality) to the same degree as their socially self-confident peers. Their lack of pressure to adhere to masculine norms may indicate a degree of contentment with their outsider status. As such, socially avoidant boys may experience fewer negative outcomes associated with their perceived distance from their peers than might youth with more intense social orientations. However, due to the small percentage of socially avoidant boys in this sample, more work using a larger sample size is needed to support our findings.

Socialization through different sources of pressure

Our findings were consistent with prior work that assessed felt pressure to adhere to gender norms from different socialization sources. We found, as did Nielson et al. (2020), that adolescents felt more pressure from themselves than from their parents or peers. There are several interesting implications about the nature of socialization revealed by this finding. First is the power of internalization. The socialization messages that are most influential for adolescents are those that they accept as truth themselves. This interpretation gives a great deal of power to the adolescents themselves by highlighting their agency in social interactions. As such, more questions arise regarding the role of individual personality characteristics on adolescents’ perception of and reactions to pressure to adhere to traditional gender norms. We expect that, as with most things, a combination of characteristics lead certain individuals to internalize the messages they receive from those around them more so than individuals with other characteristics combinations. There are also a host of relational factors that might impact how individuals experience pressure to adhere to traditional gender norms such as the strength of the adolescent-socializer relationship, the length of exposure to the socializer, and the repetition and strength of socialized messages. Much work is needed yet to illuminate the processes of socialization and internalization and the effect they have on important outcomes like social competence and prosocial behavior.

Limitations and future directions

Although the current study presents novel findings, it is not without limitations. First, it consisted of a predominately homogenous group of White, upper middle-class sixth graders. Future studies should examine masculinity and prosociality among diverse groups of boys because pressures to adhere to masculinity might be stronger among racial/ethnic minority boys due to different cultural expectations about boys and men (Liang et al., 2011; Schwing et al., 2013; Wong et al., 2012). Similarly, diversity in sexual orientation and gender expression were not examined in the current study, but these factors might play an important role in adolescent boys’ perception of masculinity and social competence. Future studies would benefit by exploring how sexual and gender minority youth feel about pressures to adhere to heteronormative masculinity scripts and how they interact with other boys.

Additionally, although latent profile analysis is beneficial in understanding different profiles of boys, there are certain drawbacks to this type of analysis. For example, the probabilities that boys fall under one of three profiles is not generalizable to other samples or populations and thus our findings should be read with caution. Additionally, the low numbers of boys in the socially avoidant group might have biased our statistical analysis. Future work should pursue a larger, more diverse sample and explore whether our findings are replicated.

Conclusion

Prosociality has been associated with a number of positive traits and outcomes; however little work has investigated how adherence to traditional masculine norms combines with indicators of social competence to create social profiles that relate to (1) boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys and (2) boys’ perceived levels of pressure to adhere to traditional masculine norms. By identifying different types of adolescent boys through latent profile analysis, we move beyond analyses of group-level means to investigate processes at the level of the individual. We addressed gaps in the literature on the relation between masculinity, social competence, and the prosocial behavior beliefs of early adolescent boys by considering the combined influence of these social characteristics to provide a more holistic picture of the prosocial beliefs of certain types of boys. Building on previous literature, we found three different profiles for boys based on their perceptions of social competence, efficacy in their relationships, and masculinity adherence. Further, we found that these three groups experienced socialization pressures differently, with perhaps the most important socializer being the self. We also found that different types of boys exhibited differentially prioritized prosocial behavior toward other boys, with socially self-confident boys, those who were socially adept but perhaps not overly concerned about masculinity and popularity, emphasizing prosocial behavior more than other boys their age. These findings evidence complexity in how social competence and masculinity differentially combine to affect early adolescent boys’ beliefs about prosocial behavior toward other boys. We hope that future scholars build upon our findings by exploring new avenues of research focused on the interface of socialization, gender traditionality, and prosociality. Ultimately, we believe this research will contribute valuable knowledge to the ways in which we can promote positive behavior through healthy and informed socialization practices.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075221084697 – Supplemental Material for Too hunky to help: A personcentered approach to masculinity and prosocial behavior beliefs among adolescent boys

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-spr-10.1177_02654075221084697 for Too hunky to help: A personcentered approach to masculinity and prosocial behavior beliefs among adolescent boys by Matthew G. Nielson, Diana L. Jenkins and Ashley M. Fraser in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants and research assistants who made this research possible.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author contributions

Matthew G. Nielson: conceptualization and writing—original draft.

Diana L. Jenkins: Conceptualization, methodology, and writing—original draft.

Ashley M. Fraser: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, and writing—original draft.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research cannot be publicly shared, but de-identified data are available upon request. The data can be obtained by emailing: mglade@umich.edu.

ORCID iD

Matthew G. Nielson

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Arndorfer

C. L.

Stormshak

E. A.

(2008). Same-sex versus other-sex best friendship in early adolescence: Longitudinal predictors of antisocial behavior throughout adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(9), 1059–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9311-x

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary secondary model. Mplus Web Notes, 21(2), 1–22.

Averett

K. H.

(2016). The gender buffet: LGBTQ parents resisting heteronormativity. Gender & Society, 30(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215611370

Bakk

Vermunt

J. K.

(2016). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling, 23(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.955104

Bolck

Croon

Hagenaars

(2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mph001

Brannon

(1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint for manhood and what it’s done for us lately. In David

Brannon

(Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. 1–48). Addison-Wesley.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley.

Carlo

Randall

B. A.

(2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014033032440

Carver

P. R.

Yunger

J. L.

Perry

D. G.

(2003). Gender identity and adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49(3–4), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024423012063

10.

Chu

J. Y.

Porche

M. V.

Tolman

D. L.

(2005). The Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale: Development and validation of a new measure for boys. Men and Masculinities, 8(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X03257453

11.

Connell

(2005). Masculinities. University of California Press.

12.

Croon

(2014). Using predicted latent scores in general latent structure models. In Latent variable and latent structure models (pp. 207–236). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602961-16

13.

De Visser

R. O.

(2009). “I’m not a very manly man” Qualitative insights into young men’s masculine subjectivity. Men and Masculinities, 11(3), 367–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X07313357

14.

DeLay

Hanish

L. D.

Zhang

Martin

C. L.

(2016). Assessing the impact of homophobic name calling on early adolescent mental health: A longitudinal social network analysis of competing peer influence effects. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(5), 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0598-8

15.

Egan

S. K.

Perry

D. G.

(2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-I649.37.4.45I

16.

Gómez-Ortiz

Romera

E. M.

Ortega-Ruiz

(2017). Multidimensionalidad de la competencia social: Medición del constructo y su relación con los roles del bullying. Revista de Psicodidactica, 22(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.15702

17.

Hagenaars

J. A.

McCutcheon

A. L.

(Eds.). (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge University Press.

18.

Hill

J. P.

Lynch

M. E.

(1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. In Girls at puberty (pp. 201–228). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0354-9_10

19.

Hine

Leman

P. J.

(2013). The developing relationship between gender and pro-social behaviour. Gender and Development, 78–108. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315870878

20.

Kane

E. W.

(2006). No way my boys are going to be like that! Gender & Society, 20(2), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205284276

21.

Koblinsky

S. G.

Cruse

D. F.

Sugawara

A. I.

(1978). Sex role stereotypes and children’s memory for story content. Child Development, 49(2), 452–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1978.tb02335.x

22.

Kornbluh

Neal

J. W.

(2016). Examining the many dimensions of children’s popularity: Interactions between aggression, prosocial behaviors, and gender. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(1), 62–80. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0265407514562562

23.

Kosciw

J. G.

Clark

C. M.

Truong

N. L.

Zongrone

A. D.

(2019). The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools.

24.

Lanza

S. T.

Collins

L. M.

Lemmon

D. R.

Schafer

J. L.

(2007). PROC LCA: A SAS procedure for latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 671–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575602

25.

Levant

Smalley

Aupont

House

Richmond

Noronha

(2007). Initial Validation of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1501.83

26.

Liang

C. T. H.

Salcedo

Miller

H. A.

(2011). Perceived racism, masculinity ideologies, and gender role conflict among Latino men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 12(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020479

27.

Liben

L. S.

Bigler

R. S.

(2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(2), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5834.t01-1-00190

28.

MacPhee

Prendergast

(2019). Room for improvement: Girls’ and boys’ home environments are still gendered. Sex Roles, 80(5–6), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0936-2

29.

Martin

C. L.

Andrews

N. C. Z.

England

D. E.

Zosuls

Ruble

D. N.

(2016). A dual identity approach for conceptualizing and measuring children’s gender identity. Child Development, 88(1), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12568

30.

Martin

C. L.

Fabes

R. A.

(2001). The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 37(3), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.37.3.431

31.

Martin

C. L.

Halverson

C. F.

(1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52(4), 1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129498

32.

Mayeux

Kleiser

(2020). A gender prototypicality theory of adolescent peer popularity. Adolescent Research Review, 5(3), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00123-z

33.

Mchale

S. M.

Kim

J. Y.

Dotterer

A. M.

Booth

Crouter

A. C.

Booth

(2009). The development of gendered interests and personality qualities from middle childhood through adolescence: A biosocial analysis. Child Development, 80(2), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01273.x

34.

McHale

S. M.

Updegraff

K. A.

Helms-Erikson

Crouter

A. C

. (2001). Sibling influences on gender development in middle childhood and early adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.37.1.115

35.

Mesman

Groeneveld

M. G.

(2018). Gendered parenting in early childhood: Subtle but unmistakable if you know where to look. Child Development Perspectives, 12(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12250

36.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2019). Mplus User’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

37.

Nielson

M. G.

Martin

C. L.

Rogers

L. O.

Miller

C. F.

Johnson

S. L

Berendzen

H. M.

(2022). Exploring young men’s experience of resistance to masculine gender norms. Emerging Adulthood, online preprint.

38.

Nielson

M. G.

Schroeder

K. M.

Martin

C. L.

Cook

R. E.

(2020). Investigating the relation between gender typicality and pressure to conform to gender norms. Sex Roles, 83(9–10), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01136-y

39.

Nylund

K. L.

Asparouhov

Muthén

B. O.

(2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/10705510701575396

40.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Carlo

(Eds.). (2015). Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach. Oxford University Press.

41.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Dyer

W. J.

Yorgason

J. B.

Fraser

A. M.

Coyne

S. M.

(2015). Adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward family, friends, and strangers: A person-centered approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12102

42.

Pascoe

C. J.

(2014). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school (2nd ed.). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

43.

Poteat

V. P.

Espelage

D. L.

(2007). Predicting psychosocial consequences of homophobic victimization in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431606294839

44.

Rahilly

E. P.

(2015). The gender binary meets the gender-variant child. Gender & Society, 29(3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214563069

45.

Rodkin

P. C.

Farmer

T. W.

Pearl

Van Acker

(2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.14

46.

Rodkin

P. C.

Ryan

A. M.

Jamison

Wilson

(2013). Social goals, social behavior, and social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1139–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029389

47.

Rogers

A. A.

DeLay

Martin

C. L.

(2017). Traditional masculinity during the middle school transition: Associations with depressive symptoms and academic engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(4), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0545-8

48.

Rogers

L. O.

Way

(2016). “I have goals to prove all those people wrong and not fit into any one of those boxes”: Paths of resistance to stereotypes among black adolescent males. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(3), 263–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558415600071

49.

Rose-Krasnor

(1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development, 6(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00097.x

50.

Ryan

A. M.

Shim

S. S.

(2006). Social achievement goals: The nature and consequences of different orientations toward social competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1246–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206289345

51.

Schwing

A. E.

Wong

Y. J.

Fann

M. D.

(2013). Development and validation of the African American men’s gendered racism stress inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028272

52.

Sinno

S. M.

Killen

(2009). Moms at work and dads at home: Children’s evaluations of parental roles. Applied Developmental Science, 13(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690802606735

53.

Smiler

A. P.

(2014). Resistance is futile? Examining boys who actively challenge masculinity. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15(3), 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037286

54.

Solebello

Elliott

(2011). “We want them to be as heterosexual as possible”: Fathers talk about their teen children’s sexuality. Gender & Society, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211403926

55.

Spurk

Hirschi

Wang

Valero

Kauffeld

(2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445.

56.

Takagishi

Fujii

Koizumi

Schug

Nakamura

Kameshima

(2015). The development of the effect of peer monitoring on generosity differs among elementary school-age boys and girls. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(895). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00895.

57.

Thorne

. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. Rutgers University Press.

58.

Toomey

R. B.

Card

N. A.

Casper

D. M.

(2014). Peers’ perceptions of gender nonconformity: Associations with overt and relational peer victimization and aggression in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(4), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613495446

59.

Vandello

J. A.

Bosson

J. K.

(2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826I

60.

Vermunt

J. K.

(2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18(4), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq025

61.

Way

(2011). Deep secrets: Boys’ friendships and the crisis of connection. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/674714

62.

Wilbourn

M. P.

Kee

D. W.

(2010). Henry the nurse is a doctor too: Implicitly examining children’s gender stereotypes for male and female occupational roles. Sex Roles, 62(9), 670–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9773-7

63.

Wilson

T. M.

Zheng

Lemoine

K. A.

Martin

C. P.

Tang

(2016). Achievement goals during middle childhood: Individual differences in motivation and social adjustment. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 723–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1094648

64.

Wong

Y. J.

Owen

Tran

K. K.

Collins

D. L.

Higgins

C. E.

(2012). Asian American male college students’ perceptions of people’s stereotypes about Asian American men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 13(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022800

65.

Zosuls

K. M.

Field

R. D.

Martin

C. L.

Andrews

N. C. Z.

England

D. E.

(2014). Gender-Based relationship efficacy: Children’s self-perceptions in intergroup contexts. Child Development, 85(4), 1663–1676. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12209

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB