Citation

Wong YJ, Owen J, Shea M. J. Couns. Psychol. 2012; 59(1): 176-183.

Affiliation

Department of Education and Counseling Psychology.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/a0026206

PMID

22229799

Abstract

How are specific dimensions of masculinity related to psychological distress in specific groups of men? To address this question, the authors used latent class regression to assess the optimal number of latent classes that explained differential relationships between conformity to masculine norms and psychological distress in a racially diverse sample of 223 men. The authors identified a 2-class solution. Both latent classes demonstrated very different associations between conformity to masculine norms and psychological distress. In Class 1 (labeled risk avoiders; n = 133), conformity to the masculine norm of risk-taking was negatively related to psychological distress. In Class 2 (labeled detached risk-takers; n = 90), conformity to the masculine norms of playboy, self-reliance, and risk-taking was positively related to psychological distress, whereas conformity to the masculine norm of violence was negatively related to psychological distress. A post hoc analysis revealed that younger men and Asian American men (compared with Latino and White American men) had significantly greater odds of being in Class 2 versus Class 1. The implications of these findings for future research and clinical practice are examined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Language: en