The key starting point from the perspective of embodied cognition is that the belief systems about masculinity found in the culture-at-large are all based on the structure and functions of the male body–which are biologically determined–and social forces which shape and condition beliefs about what it means to be a man. Masculinity is embodied and, as will be seen further on in the series, the key is muscularity. Next, and also part of the biological make-up of the male, is the male brain. Finally, there is the world-at-large in which a male interacts with various social experiences that affect his masculine identity and how it is expressed. Masculinity is a product of brain-body-environment. This system encompasses social interactions and conditioning as well as personality, reasoning, and freely willed, choice-making.
The above Venn diagram illustrates that somatopsychic experience—such as being engendered—is created and molded by three major forces: the biological, social, and intrapsychic. This is important to bear in mind as it means that even though every male may be considered masculine, every male will experience it in his own unique manner. Biology, however, is the rock-bottom foundation while omnipresent and relentless sociocultural pressures massage and refine gender identity, but exert slightly less power.
Masculinity Ideologies
Masculinity ideology is defined as the “endorsement and internalization of cultural belief systems about masculinity and the male gender, rooted in the structural relationship between the two sexes” (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993, p. 88). Masculinity is a concept which encapsulates the sociocultural norms and rules governing what a male is allowed or forbidden to be. Given that gender is partially determined by explicit and implicit social rules on the one hand, and by body form and functioning on the other, it stands to reason that both femininity and masculinity are experientially-unstable states that must be occasionally—or quite often depending—confirmed or bolstered within social situation with other men or women. Males, unlike females, have no definitive somatic or developmental milestones such as menarche, menstruation, childbirth, and menopause—which includes public affirmation (and occasional negation)—which confirms their gender identity. So, men have historically been driven to affirm their masculinity in other ways. The usual avenues for this are demonstrations of physical strength and agility, creative production using tools, aggression and violence, or sexuality. Here I also add demonstrations of mental prowess to create, build, or fix things especially in a competitive manner. The most exaggerated example of the masculine ideal may be found in the form of the rigidly patriarchal, hyper-masculinized, and sexually violent cultures such as those in the Middle East or in hyper-masculine communities such as the military (Wentzell & Inhorn, 2011).
Gender is an omnipresent social category as well as a fundamental psychological category. Again, one is experientially male or female based on how he or she experiences their bodies although biological structure does not always coincide with that experience. Connell (1995) gives an abstract definition of gender as the ways in which reproductive abilities organize behaviors at all levels of society starting with personal identity and extending to large institutions. Interesting, but not very useful. Gender is a categorical distinction with several functional features. It is a social space in which people interact. It is a set of behaviors identified with a specific gender type. And the embodiment of these behaviors have sociocultural effects (Schippers, 2007).
There are two ways of looking at gender. The first is the trait approach that conceptualizes gender as a set of socially-approved traits or dispositions. The other is the normative approach which sees gender as culturally constructed by social interactions which enforce cultural rules with approval or disapproval (Thompson & Pleck, 1995). Other researchers see gender “acted out” or practiced in conformance to social rules (see “doing gender” further below). The trait approach is based on social and psychological factors. The normative approach is based on a kind of social behaviorism. These models are powerful and useful, but the sociological perspective upon which they are based neglects the biological approach.
Masculinity and femininity are usually defined by the traditional characteristics of physical differences, personality traits, personal interests, and specific behaviors considered typical of men only and women only. It is best to bear in mind that the differences between women and men are real, but are relatively limited. Women and men are more similar than different on most psychological traits according the Gender Similarities Hypothesis (Shibbley-Hyde, 2005). Traits associated with masculinity are aggression, competence, and instrumentality—although women possess them as well albeit in a different style—while feminine ones are expressive communication, warmth, and empathy and men are capable of these feelings too (Kachel, Steffens, & Niedlich, 2016).
Social Role Theory predicts changes in the male-female role relationship because sex differences have been eroding over the past century with a blurring of male and female roles. This results in the female stereotype becoming more dynamic because of greater broadening in the roles of women which have relentlessly encroached into areas and functions that were traditionally and exclusively masculine (Thompson & Bennett, 2015).
Traditional Masculinity
Masculinity is defined as “the constellation of cultural and individual meanings attached to men and boys that are attributed to the self as well as to people, concepts, and objects, embedded in situational cues, performed as social practices, and distributed through ecological influences” (Wong & Wang, 2022, p. 2). Masculinity, like femininity, is a complex, dynamic construction that intersects with race, class, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). A particular set of norms associated with masculinity has been identified as dominant within cultural values in the United States. These values are referred to as Traditional Masculinity (American Psychological Association, 2018; Chu, Porche, & Tolman, 2005). There are two general ideas currently in contemporary psychology underlying Traditional Masculinity. First, it affirms the idea that “real men” should substantially differ from women and be exclusively heterosexual. The other is that masculinity is hierarchically layered with “real men” being at the top and increasingly less masculine men occupying lower levels. Their essential value system is that they must maintain emotional control, exercise independent thinking and movement, be impulsively unafraid of risks, succeed at work and any other competitive environment, and dominate relationships when needed (Krivoshchekov, Gulevich, & Blagov, 2022; Thompson & Bennett, 2015; Wong & Wang, 2022).
Ideas of gender come about naturally in the toddler and early childhood years and then coalesce in adolescent identity formation. One study of American adolescents’ ideas of what it means “to be a man” include three main components:
- avoidance of femininity, rejecting characteristics and expressions associated with women or with femininity;
- showing resilient physical and emotional strength with an emotionally-detached dominance;
- taking control, authority, and power while exhibiting stoic indifference (Levant et al., 2012).
A later study adults identified 11 key factors of masculinity (Gattario et al., 2015).
- Competitive drive
- Dominance
- Emotional restriction
- Heterosexual appearance
- Interpersonal force
- Promiscuity without emotional commitment
- Risk-taking
- Self-reliance
- Hierarchical status seeking
- Potential violence
- Work achievement
Additional related masculine traits to consider include manual ability, mechanical problem-solving, physical power, support of hierarchy, assertiveness and impulsivity. I include these because I have seen these rewarded in social spheres and in the world of organizations. In fact, all of the above behaviors are usually rewarded by society or the man can be socially sanctioned for not having them. Some of these traditional characteristics are practical for basic situations of survival, warfare, and competition, but self-defeating in everyday social interactions and intimate relationships. Yet, many of the characteristics already given have extremely positive value and are very useful in most contexts. Our society has forgotten about the positive male virtues in its condemnation of the negative ones.
Doing Gender
When a man demonstrates specific masculine behaviors—and their successful execution then confirms his masculinity—there are certain meanings connected to his identity as a man. In other words, gender behaviors and roles are practiced. This is known as doing gender. This leads to a theory in sociology called Doing Gender meaning gender is not something that is inherent to an individual. Rather, gender is something that a person does in interaction with other people (West & Zimmerman 1987).
The point is that we are born with a certain biological substrate and this substrate throws us toward certain ways of being, but a good portion of it needs to be behaviorally explored and assimilated. It is an already created state based on somatic form, but it requires some further revision based on gender rules and ideals. In other words, and rather oddly, being engendered takes practice.
One small example of this is a qualitative study of 11 Canadian men which found that they all “produced” masculinity through their bodily activities. They worked out, lifted weights, and practiced healthy dieting. They did these purposely to be more physically attractive, gain respect from their peers, and attain social popularity. These behaviors overtly affirmed their masculinity, but they also engaged in less obvious behaviors to attain the same effect. These were comparing their bodies to those of other men, moderating their speech to reflect a masculine personality, and projecting a masculine demeanor while hiding the fact they had appearance anxiety (Beagan & Saunders, 2005).
It is important to keep in mind that this concept is a principle drawn from Social Constructionism—currently a dominant perspective in Sociology and Social Philosophy. It is a powerful model, but ultimately, in my opinion, inherently defective because it ignores somatic reality. To me, it is just Behaviorism in a new set of clothing albeit one bereft of a body. Neurobiology determines gender identity and sexual orientation for the most part. Part of my evidence comes from the tragic case of David Reimer (1965-2004) who was accidentally castrated during a routine circumcision. He parents then acted on erroneous mental health advice to raise him as a girl. This ultimately failed and David reestablished his male identity, but not without severe psychological consequences and eventual suicide (Colapinto, 2001; Gaetano, 2017). Likewise with the quack psychotherapy known as “Conversion Therapy” which claims to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. Unfortunately, this method is a proven failure and was condemned by the American Psychology Association in 1998 (American Psychology Association, 2009, 2018b; Haldeman, 2022)
On the other hand, while Social Constructionism disregards somatic reality, it does shed light on the intrapsychic and interpersonal forces which shape gender. It demonstrates that gender is something one “rehearses” before assimilating the behaviors which then become habits which then form identity. Doing gender successfully results in social affirmation—also sometimes called social capital or social credit—from others. Men may be able to affirm their masculinity by being competent in one area such as sports or automobile repair which then compensates for their apparent lack of masculinity in other areas such as home decoration. Anderson (2002) found that openly gay male athletes were able to come out because their sporting success gave them masculinity insurance which shields them from negative social opinions and judgements.
Men often demonstrate of their competence in health-related areas to compensate for other non-masculine behaviors as revealed in a series of group discussions with men 18 to 21 living in London, England (De Visser, Smith, & McDonnell, 2009). Their analysis showed how competence produces masculine “capital,” which can be used to compensate for non-masculine behavior in other areas. These aspects of masculine competence deal with physical prowess, lack of vanity, sexual ability, and resistance to alcohol consumption.
The Evolution of Contemporary Masculinity
The conceptualization of masculinity has evolved over the past several decades (Bridges & Pascoe, 2018; Britten, 2001; Elliott, 2019). The variables of class, race, gender, and sexuality all contribute to how masculinity is perceived in specific settings and under specific conditions. It is the combination of these elements that leads to the emergence of new masculinities regarding how men should behave (Britten, 2001; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Messerschmidt & Messner, 2018; Whitehead & Barrett, 2001).
A literature search of 10 databases for key words commonly used to identify various contemporary masculinities resulted in 33 studies possessing four key elements of men’s descriptions of contemporary masculinity (Connor et al., 2021). The majority of participants in the studies were middle-class men between the ages of 16 and 25. These four elements are (a) inclusivity, (b) emotional intimacy, (c) physicality, and (d) resistance.
Inclusivity
This research indicates that heterosexual males are becoming more accepting of their homosexual peers even though they often must make clear their own sexual preference. Other men are more accepting of household responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning, and childcare.
Emotional Intimacy
Men are becoming more open expressing the more vulnerable feelings especially with their heterosexual peers. They are more willing to express physical comfort to an injured peer as with a hug and being more expressive with their children. (The issue of emotions will be discussed further in Part Five.)
Physicality
The theme of physicality refers to the participants demonstrating increased levels of intentional touching. Hugs and other physical gestures of comfort and support are more willingly expressed, but kissing among heterosexuals is still forbidden except in exceptionally exuberant circumstances such as one team member to another after a big score has been achieved.
Resistance
Resistance refers to the participants’ rejection of orthodox masculinity and traditional masculinity norms. More secondary and college sports such as soccer are actively toning down the physical violence and injury. Some men are purposely rejecting traditionally masculine behaviors—such as being an uncaring or distant father—while others who practice vegan lifestyles are more open to expressing compassion and empathy which have been two traditionally feminine emotions.
The findings show that young, middle-class, heterosexual men in Western cultures–while still deeply seated in traditional masculinity—seem to be opening up more to some aspects of alternative masculinities. Such accommodations of less masculine features into traditional gender role schemas result in alternate masculinities as given in new theories of masculinity such as Hybrid Masculinities (Demetriou, 2001) and Inclusive Masculinity Theory (Anderson, 2009). The concept of hybrid masculinities emerged at the turn of this century with Demetriou’s (2001) observations that white heterosexual men in positions of social power were slowly opening up to some aspects of the so-called marginalized masculinities. The integration of new elements from outside of traditional masculinity results in a hybrid male identity of both strength and sensitivity (Arxer, 2011; Barber, 2016; Bridges & Pascoe, 2018; Messerschmidt & Messner, 2018; Pfaffendorf, 2017).
The Essence of Masculinity: Instrumentality and Gender Contingency
Masculinity and femininity may be defined by traditional characteristics of physical differences, personality traits, interests, and behaviors considered typical of men and women. Standard masculine traits are aggression, competence, and instrumentality and feminine ones are expressiveness, warmth, expressivity, and empathy (Kachel, Steffens, & Niedlich, 2016). These roles of governed by cultural rules and expectations which influence identity and behavior. The two most common gender traits of women are self-expression and communality while men are known for their agency (power to act) and industriousness. This is the essence of instrumentality.
Instrumentality
Strongly related to a sense of well-being (Sharpe, Heppner, & Dixon, 1996).
Men who express their instrumentality are more authentic in their self-expression and have a positive body image (Gillen & Lefkowitz, 2006).
Instrumentality is a highly approved trait which brings social and economic affirmation as well as ego-reinforcement and positive identity confirmation. But what other the other traits of men and women?
Gender Contingency
Conventional heterosexual masculinity exists in relationship with conventional heterosexual femininity and other alternative masculinities. When a man proves his masculine competence via desirable and defining masculine attitudes and behaviors, he receives social approval and validation for being a man.
Being competent in your gender role is rewarded with social capital. Men may be able to affirm their masculinity by being competent in one area such as sports or automobile repair which then compensates for their apparent lack of masculinity in other areas such as home decoration. Other areas of masculine competence deal with physical prowess, lack of vanity, sexual ability, and resistance to alcohol consumption. Men often demonstrate their competence in health-related and other areas to compensate for other non-masculine behaviors. In a series of group discussions with men 18 to 21 living in London, England revealed how competence produces masculine “capital” which can be used to compensate for non-masculine behavior in other areas (Devisser, Smith, & McConnell, 2009).
What this means is that masculine identity is contingent—it is a state of “it depends”—in males must continually prove and affirm their masculinity on an almost daily basis especially in the areas of work, competition, and perceived threat. This unfortunately leads to men doing a lot of dumb things and possibly shortening their own life spans. Social situations that threaten a male’s sense of maleness often provoke him to engage in compensatory actions such as binge drinking or reckless driving or picking fights with other men (Fowler & Greens, 2017).
And Finally, A Few Words About “Hegemonic Masculinity”
The term, hegemonic masculinity, arises out of feminist sociopolitical theorizing that the majority of males ascribe to a traditional masculine role identity and so this is the dominant form which automatically oppresses not just femininity, but sexual minorities who ascribe to a more flexible definition of being a male. What the feminists have so conveniently overlooked, or purposely ignored, is that heterosexual women in general desire a strong, healthy masculine male. Hegemonic implies some kind of sociopolitical malevolence—it is neither a scientific term nor is there any good science behind it—which makes it a loaded term and one that needs careful contemplation. I myself prefer the terms normative or traditional masculinity.
Closing Thoughts
Overall, while normative masculinity has been attacked, pilloried, drawn-and-quartered and then dismissed as a joke in Western culture for many decades, it remains that it possesses more virtues than vices although admittedly those vices can be abhorrently bad. The masculine psyche is continuing to evolve—even though it has been driven to do so under the lash of sociopolitical criticism—and that may be a good thing in the long run as long it does not lead to emasculation. The masculine experience in today’s world is turning out to be a process and where that process is headed remains uncertain, but I am very hopeful.
This multi-part series encompasses many of the essential aspects of masculine somatic identity. The first and most fundamental aspect of male embodiment is that it is a system of brain-body-environment meaning it is a holistic experience and formed by the physical body, sociocultural forces, and psychological dynamics. The somatopsychic experience of “being a man” is wrapped in a second belief system regarding the nature of masculinity, the rules that shape its role on the social stage, along with various identity traits and psychological stresses. Traditional Masculinity has been the dominant form of maleness up until the last 20 years and this is the constellation of conventional beliefs and rules regarding what constitutes heterosexual masculinity. These deal with eschewing being identified as being feminine; being emotionally strong and restrained; being in control and exerting power in the sense of accomplishing things; a free-wheeling sex life; and competitiveness in work and play. These values and behaviors are acquired in childhood and adolescence and incorporated into one’s somatopsychic identity through practice, experimentation, and repetition. This traditional perspective has been slowly changing in recent times with the influx of non-traditional beliefs and behaviors regarding how males are allowed to be.
We will be returning to some of these ideas in the following blog-lectures. In Part Two, I will take a closer look at the male brain including how it functions and some of its idiosyncratic features within the context of being a man.
Paul Shane, Ph.D., LMT
Masculine Somatic Identity, Part 2: The Average Guy’s Brain and Other Points of Interest
Director, Academic Content
References
American Psychological Association (2009). Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
—– (2018a). APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
—– (2018b). Position Statement on Conversion Therapy and LGBTQ Patients. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment. Gender & Society 16, p. 860-877.
—– (2009). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of masculinities. Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.
Andreasson, J. & Johansson, T. (2014). The fitness revolution: Historical transformations in a global gym and fitness culture. Sport Science Review 23(3-4), p. 91-112.
Arxer, S. (2011). Hybrid masculine power: Reconceptualizing the relationship between homosociality and hegemonic masculinity. Humanity & Society 35(4), p. 390–422.
Barber, K. (2016). Styling masculinity: Gender, class and inequality in the men’s grooming industry. New Brunswick–Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, p. 577-660.
Beagan, B. & Saunders, S. (2005). Occupations of masculinity: Producing gender through what men do (and don’t do). Journal of Occupational Science 12(3), p. 161-169.
Blashill, A. (2011). Gender roles, eating pathology, and body dissatisfaction in men: A meta-analysis. Body Image 8, p. 1-11.
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75, p. 1-28.
—– (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, p. 1-28.
Botammini, G. & St.-Marie, D. (2006). Male voices on body image. International Journal of Men’s Health 5(2), p. 109-132.
Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. (2018). On the elasticity of gender hegemony: Why hybrid masculinities fail to undermine gender and sexual inequality. In J. Messerschmidt, P. Martin, M. Messner, & R. Connell (Eds.), Gender Reckonings, New York, NY: New York University Press, pp. 254–274.
Brierly, M., Brooks, K., Mond, J., Stevenson, R., & Stephen, I. (2016). The body and the beautiful: Health, attractiveness and body composition in men’s and women’s bodies. PLoSONE 11(6), doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0156722.
Britten, A. (2001). Masculinities and masculinism. In S. Whitehead, & F. Barrett (Eds.), The Masculinities Reader. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, pp. 51–71.
Buxton, R. (2004). The Complete World of Greek Mythology. London, England: Thames & Hudson.
Casasanto, D. (2008). Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? Memory & Cognition 36, p. 1047-1056.
—– (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology 138(3), p. 351-367.
—– (2014). Bodily relativity. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition, London, England: Routledge, pp. 108-117.
Casasanto, D. & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition 106, p. 579-593.
Casasanto, D. & Dijkstra, K. (2009). Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition 115, p. 179-185.
Chu, J.., Porche, M., & Tolman, D. (2005). The Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale: Development and validation of a new measure for boys. Men and Masculinities 8, p. 93–115.
Clayton, J. (2016). Studying both sexes: a guiding principle for biomedicine. FASEB Journal 30(2), p. 519-524.
Colapinto, J. (2001). As Nature Made Him. The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Connell, R. & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society 19(6), p. 829–859.
Connor, S., Edvardsson, K., Fisher, C., & Spelten, E. (2021). Perceptions and interpretation of contemporary masculinities in Western culture: A systematic review. American Journal of Men’s Health 1-17, DOI: 10.1177/15579883211061009.
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin 80, p. 389–407.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology 122, p. 371-396.
Demetriou, D. (2001). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society 30, p. 337–336.
Demos (2013). Britain’s crisis of masculinity. A Demos twentieth birthday lecture delivered by Diane Abbott MP. From http://www.demos.co.uk/files/DianeAbbottspeech16May2013.pdf.
De Visser, R., Smith, J., & McDonnell, E. (2009). ‘That’s not masculine’: Masculine capital and health-related behaviour. Journal of Health Psychology 14, p. 1047-1058.
Dodge, B., Herbenick, D., Fu, T., Schick, V., Reece, M., Saunders, S., & Fortenberry, J. (2016). Sexual behaviors of U.S. men by self-identified sexual orientation: Results from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 13, p. 637-649.
Dudgeon, M. & Inhorn, M. (2003). Gender, masculinity, and reproduction: Anthropological perspectives. International Journal of Men’s Health 2(1), p. 31-56.
Feldman, J. (2006). From Molecules to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fisher, M. & Cox, A. (2009). The influence of male facial attractiveness on women’s receptivity. The Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology 3(1), p. 49-61.
Fournier, V. & Smith, W. (2006). Scripting masculinity. University of Leicester. Journal contribution. https://hdl.handle.net/2381/
Fowler, S. & Geers, A. (2017). Does trait masculinity relate to expressing toughness? The effects of masculinity threat and self-affirmation in college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 18(2), p. 176-186.
Gaetano, P. (2017). David Reimer and John Money Gender Reassignment Controversy: The John/Joan Case. The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reimer-and-john-money-gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case.
Gangestad, S., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. (2010). Fertility in the cycle predicts women’s interest in sexual opportunism. Evolution and Human Behavior 31(6), p. 400-411.
Gattario, K., Frisén, A., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., Ricciardelli, L., Diedrichs, P., Yager, Z., Franko, D., & Smolak, L. (2015). How is men’s conformity to masculine norms related to their body image? Masculinity and muscularity across Western countries. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 16(3), p. 337-347.
Giaccardi, S., Ward, L., Seabrook, R., Manago, A., & Lippman, J. (2016). Media and modern manhood: Testing associations between media consumption and young men’s acceptance of traditional gender ideologies. Sex Roles 75, p. 151-163.
Gillen, M. & Lefkowitz, E. (2006). Gender role development and body image among male and female first year college students. Sex Roles 55, p. 25-37.
Glassenberg, A., Feinberg, D., Jones, B., Little, A., & Debruine, L. (2010). Sex-dimorphic face shape preference in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39(6), p. 1289-1296.
Goldstone, R. & Barsalou, L. (1998). Reuniting cognition and perception: The perceptual bases of rules and similarities. Cognition 65, p. 231-262.
Grammer K. & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 108, p. 233-242.
Haldeman, D. (Ed.) (2022). The Case Against Conversion “Therapy.” Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harris, C. (2013). Shifts in masculinity preferences across the menstrual cycle: Still not there. Sex Roles 69, p. 507-515.
Johnston. V., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for a hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior 22, p. 251-267.
Jones, B., Little, A., Penton-Voak, I., Tiddeman, B., Burt, D., & Perrett, D. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a `good genes’ explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior 22, p. 417-429.
Jones, B., Porcheron, A., Sweda, J., Morizot, F., & Russell, R. (2016). Coloration in different areas of facial skin is a cue to health: The role of cheek redness and periorbital luminance in health perception. Body Image 17, p. 57-66.
Kachel, S., Steffens, M., & Niedlich, C. (2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: Validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology 7, doi.10.3389/fsyg.2016.00956.
Király, A., Szabó, N., Tóth, E., Csete, G., Faragó, P., Kocsis, K., Must, A., Vécsei, L., & Tamás Kincses, Z. (2015). Male brain ages faster: The age and gender dependence of subcortical volumes. Brain Imaging and Behavior DOI 10.1007/s11682-015-9468-3
Kotzé, J. & Antonopoulos, G. (2019). Boosting social capital: Maintaining masculinity, aesthetic pleasure and instrumental utility through the consumption of steroids. Journal of Consumer Culture 21(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540519846.
Krivoshchekov, V., Gulevich, O., & Blagov, I. (2022). Traditional masculinity and violence against women: A meta-analytic examination. Psychology of Men & Masculinities 24(4), p. 346-364.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Levant, R., Rogers, B., Cruickshank, B., Rankin, T., Kurtz, B., Rummell, C., Williams, C., & Colbow, A. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis and construct validity of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent-revised (MRNI-A-r). Psychology of Men and Masculinity 13, p. 354–366.
Little, A. (2011). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 366, p. 1638-1659.
Little, A. & Hancock, P. (2002). The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgements of human male facial attractiveness. British Journal of Psychology 93, p. 451-464.
Little, A., Jones, B., Burt, D., & Perrett, D. (2007). Preferences for symmetry in faces change across the menstrual cycle. Biological Psychology 76, p. 209-216.
Little, A., Jones, B., & DeBruine, L. (2008). Preferences for variation in masculinity in real male faces change across the menstrual cycle: Women prefer more masculine faces when they are more fertile. Personality and Individual Differences 45, p. 478-482.
Lucas, R. (1998). Dragging it out: Tales of masculinity in Australian cinema, from “Crocodile Dundee” to “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.” Journal of Australian Studies 56, p. 138–146.
Mahalik, J., Levi-Minzi, M., & Walker, G. (2007). Masculinity and health behaviors in Australian men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 8(4), p. 240-249.
Meier, B. & Robinson, M. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science 15(4), p. 243-247.
Messerschmidt, J. & Messner, M. (2018). Hegemonic, nonhegemonic, and “new” masculinities. In J. Messerschmidt, P. Martin, M. Messner, & R. Connell (Eds.), Gender Reckonings. New York, NY: New York University Press, pp. 35–56.
Mills, J. & D’Alfonso, S. (2007). Competition and male body image: Increased drive for muscularity following failure to a female. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 26, p. 505-518.
Perrett, D., Lee, K., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D., & Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394(6696), p. 884-887.
Perrett, D., Burt, D., Penton-Voak, I., Lee, K., Rowland, D., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior 20, p. 295-307.
Pfaffendorf, J. (2017). Sensitive cowboys: Privileged young men and the mobilization of Hybrid Masculinities in a therapeutic boarding school. Gender & Society 31(2), p. 197–222.
Pleck, J., Sonenstein, F., & Ku, L. (1993). Masculinity ideology and its correlates. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender Issues in Social Psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 85-110.
Rhodes, G., Hickford, C., & Jeffrey, L. (2000). Sex-typicality and attractiveness: Are supermale and superfemale faces super-attractive? British Journal of Psychology 91, p. 125-140.
Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., & Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science 10, p. 52-58.
Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., & Akamatsu, S. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception 30, p. 611-625.
Rudman, L., Moss-Racusin, C., Phelan, J., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice toward female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48, p. 165–179.
Scheyd, G., Garver-Apgar, C., & Gangestad, S. (2008). Physical attractiveness: Signals of phenotypic quality and beyond. In C. Crawford & D. Krebs (Eds.), Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology, New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 239-259.
Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theoretical Sociology 36, p. 85-102.
Schoenberg, M. (1993). Growing Up Male: The Psychology of Masculinity. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey
Schubert, T. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89, p. 1-21.
Shane, P. (2023). Principles of Somatic Psychology: An Evidence-Based, Transdisciplinary Approach for the Holistic Healthcare Professions. Brecksville, OH: Center for Bodymind Education.
Sharpe, M. Heppner, P., & Dixon, W. (1995). Gender role conflict, instrumentality, expressiveness, and well-being in adult men. Sex Roles 33, p. 1-18.
Shibbley-Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60(6), p. 581-592.
Tang, Q., Li, T., & Fang, J. (2021). Body Specificity Hypothesis: Different bodies develop correspondingly different brains and minds. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research 615, p. 198-206.
Thompson, E. & Bennett, K. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 16(2), p. 115-133.
Thompson, J., Heinberg, L., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Thin-ideal idealization: Mounting evidence for a new risk factor for body-image disturbance and eating pathology. In J. Thompson (Ed.), Exacting Beauty: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment of Body Image Disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Thompson, E. & Pleck, J. (1995). Masculinity ideologies: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities. In R. Levant & W. Pollack (Eds.), A New Psychology of Men. New York, NY: Basic Books, pp. 129-163.
West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1987). ‘Doing gender.’ Gender and Society 1, p. 125-151.
Wentzell, E. & Inhorn, M. (2011). Masculinities: The male reproductive body. In F. Mascia-Lees (Ed.), A Companion to the Anthropology of the Body and Embodiment, Cichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Williams, L. & Bargh, J. (2008). Keeping one’s distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science 19, p. 302-308.
Whitehead, S. & Barrett, F. (2001). The sociology of masculinity. In S. Whitehead, & F. Barrett (Eds.), The Masculinities Reader. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, pp. 1-26.
Wong, Y. & Wang, S.-Y. (2022). Toward an integrative psychology of masculinities. Psychology of Men & Masculinities 23(3), p. 285–298.
Updated 06-29-26