The Psychology of Men in Context

Addis, Michael E.; Hoffman, Ethan

doi:10.4324/9780429491719

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present paper, we approach masculinity as a multidimensional construct (Addis & Hoffman, 2019), and we assume that conformity to masculine norms is an essential conceptual framework for investigating masculinity and its correlates (Levant et al, 2020;Mahalik et al, 2003). The present work aims to adopt this framework and its tools (Levant et al, 2020) to assess masculinity in a sample of cisgender men and trans masculine individuals.…”

Section: Trans Masculinitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Masculinity and masculine norms are still relevant in the current social and clinical context (Addis & Hoffman, 2019;American Psychological Association, 2018). Literature and mainstream media have generally compared masculinity, in its gender roles and norms, to femininity, adhering to a strictly binary conceptualization of gender (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015), and depicting men and women as creatures from two different planets (Gray, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trans Masculinity: Comparing Trans Masculine Individuals’ and Cisgender Men’s Conformity to Hegemonic Masculinity

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Masculinity and masculine norms are still relevant in the current social context. Literature showed that some masculine norms could be considered protective health buffers, while traditional masculinity has negative consequences on men’s behaviors, relationships, and health. Methods In the present study, we aimed at investigating trans masculine and cisgender men’s levels of adherence to different dimensions of hegemonic masculinity. A total of 200 participants (100 trans masculine people and 100 cisgender men) took part in the study. Results Results exhibit that trans masculine individuals showed higher scores than cisgender men on the dimensions of emotional control and self-reliance, whereas cisgender men showed higher endorsement of norms such as heterosexual self-presentation and power over women. Conclusions Results are discussed in light of the minority stress model and masculinity threat theory. Policy Implications The present work should act as a reminder of the pressure that trans masculine people may feel to conform to certain aspects of hegemonic masculinity. This may have the adaptive function of protecting them from the discrimination and threats that they expect from others.

show abstract

Section: Trans Masculinitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trans Masculinity: Comparing Trans Masculine Individuals’ and Cisgender Men’s Conformity to Hegemonic Masculinity

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Current scholarship suggests a number of ways of conceptualizing masculinity, some overlapping and some mutually exclusive (Addis & Hoffman, 2019). Here are just a few examples:…”

Section: What Is Masculinity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing and/or Deconstructing Masculinity: A Commentary on the Case of "Tommy"

Hoffman¹,

Addis²

2020

PCSP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Men’s psychological well-being has in recent decades garnered increasing attention in research, clinical practice, and larger society. Dewey’s insightful case study provides an occasion for reflecting on the multiple conceptual lenses that can be used to understand and work with masculinity in psychotherapy. In this commentary, we discuss how these conceptualizations of masculinity facilitate different approaches to psychotherapy at the levels of treatment planning and intervention. We offer our own approach to masculine identity work, noting specific points of contrast with the approach illustrated by Dewey. Finally, we critically explore the clinical and societal implications of concepts like "toxic masculinity" and "healthy masculinity" in light of social justice pursuits for gender equality. Throughout, we emphasize the importance for clinicians to make deliberate choices about how masculinity is conceptualized and to consider the pragmatic consequences of these conceptual choices.

show abstract

“…This literature demonstrates a wide variety of theoretical approaches for clinical practice, ranging from psychodynamic (Pollack & Levant, 1998) to interpersonal (Mahalik, 2005a), cognitive (Mahalik, 2005b), and feminist (Silver et al, 2018). Beyond the context of psychotherapy, PSMM researchers and clinicians have made recommendations for public health campaigns, methods for marketing mental health to men, ways to engage men in pro-feminist antiviolence campaigns, and a coherent or explicitly articulated framework for thinking through the interrelationships between psychological science and social practice (Addis & Hoffman, 2019;Morawski, 2003). 1 Although theoretical diversity has at times been praised as evidence of PSMM's "big tent" inclusivity (Levant & Wong, 2017), it has also been identified as a cause for concern (Addis et al, 2010;Smiler, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite a longstanding focus on social change, research and practice in PSMM have proceeded largely in the absence of a coherent or explicitly articulated framework for thinking through the interrelationships between psychological science and social practice (Addis & Hoffman, 2019; Morawski, 2003). 1 Although theoretical diversity has at times been praised as evidence of PSMM’s “big tent” inclusivity (Levant & Wong, 2017), it has also been identified as a cause for concern (Addis et al, 2010; Smiler, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

To reconstruct or deconstruct? A fundamental question for the psychology of men and masculinities.

Hoffmann¹,

Addis²

2024

Psychology of Men & Masculinities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts at social change have long been central to the psychological study of men and masculinities (PSMM) as a field. However, these efforts have been hampered by the absence of a coherent, unifying philosophical framework linking science to social practice or explicitly articulated guiding values. In this article, we argue that current social change efforts in PSMM can be characterized as attempts to either reconstruct or deconstruct masculinities. Reconstruction consists of attempts to modify or create more prosocial meanings of masculinities. Deconstruction, in contrast, consists of attempts to reduce or attenuate the psychological impact of masculinities on human behavior. We describe their practical application and review research support for each approach-including relevant recent clinical science research on cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion. We then present functional contextualism as a coherent philosophy linking science to social practice that can be used by researchers and clinicians to evaluate when to pursue reconstructionist and/or deconstructionist approaches. We provide psychotherapy and public health campaign case examples to illustrate how researchers and clinicians might use a functional contextualist framework to evaluate the merits of reconstructionist and deconstructionist approaches, before closing by suggesting directions for future research. Public Significance StatementThis article describes two different approaches to science and practice focused on masculinities: efforts to reconstruct masculinities and efforts to deconstruct masculinities. The authors argue that the utility of these approaches is context-dependent and requires clarifying philosophical assumptions and guiding values.

show abstract

The Psychology of Men in Context

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Trans Masculinity: Comparing Trans Masculine Individuals’ and Cisgender Men’s Conformity to Hegemonic Masculinity

Trans Masculinity: Comparing Trans Masculine Individuals’ and Cisgender Men’s Conformity to Hegemonic Masculinity

Reconstructing and/or Deconstructing Masculinity: A Commentary on the Case of "Tommy"

To reconstruct or deconstruct? A fundamental question for the psychology of men and masculinities.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About