Casey Erin A, Masters N Tatiana, Beadnell Blair, Wells Elizabeth A, Morrison Diane M, Hoppe Marilyn J
Social Work Program, University of Washington, 1900 Commerce, Box 358425, Tacoma, WA, 98402, USA.
School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA.
Arch Sex Behav. 2016 Jul;45(5):1039-50. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0616-z. Epub 2015 Oct 23.
Parallel bodies of research have described the diverse and complex ways that men understand and construct their masculine identities (often termed "masculinities") and, separately, how adherence to traditional notions of masculinity places men at risk for negative sexual and health outcomes. The goal of this analysis was to bring together these two streams of inquiry. Using data from a national, online sample of 555 heterosexually active young men, we employed latent class analysis (LCA) to detect patterns of masculine identities based on men's endorsement of behavioral and attitudinal indicators of "dominant" masculinity, including sexual attitudes and behaviors. LCA identified four conceptually distinct masculine identity profiles. Two groups, termed the Normative and Normative/Male Activities groups, respectively, constituted 88 % of the sample and were characterized by low levels of adherence to attitudes, sexual scripts, and behaviors consistent with "dominant" masculinity, but differed in their levels of engagement in male-oriented activities (e.g., sports teams). Only eight percent of the sample comprised a masculinity profile consistent with "traditional" ideas about masculinity; this group was labeled Misogynistic because of high levels of sexual assault and violence toward female partners. The remaining four percent constituted a Sex-Focused group, characterized by high numbers of sexual partners, but relatively low endorsement of other indicators of traditional masculinity. Follow-up analyses showed a small number of differences across groups on sexual and substance use health indicators. Findings have implications for sexual and behavioral health interventions and suggest that very few young men embody or endorse rigidly traditional forms of masculinity.
多个研究领域描述了男性理解和构建其男性身份(通常称为“男子气概”)的多样且复杂的方式,另外还描述了坚持传统男子气概观念如何使男性面临负面性健康和健康结果的风险。本分析的目的是将这两个研究方向结合起来。我们使用来自全国555名有异性性行为的年轻男性的在线样本数据,采用潜在类别分析(LCA),根据男性对包括性态度和行为在内的“主导型”男子气概的行为和态度指标的认同,来检测男子气概的模式。LCA确定了四种概念上不同的男子气概特征类型。两个组分别称为规范组和规范/男性活动组,占样本的88%,其特点是对与“主导型”男子气概一致的态度、性脚本和行为的认同程度较低,但在参与以男性为导向的活动(如运动队)的程度上有所不同。样本中只有8%的人具有与关于男子气概的“传统”观念一致的男子气概特征类型;由于对女性伴侣的性侵犯和暴力行为水平较高,这个组被标记为厌女组。其余4%构成了一个以性为重点的组,其特点是性伴侣数量较多,但对传统男子气概的其他指标的认同相对较低。后续分析显示,在性健康和物质使用健康指标方面,各组之间存在少量差异。研究结果对性健康和行为健康干预具有启示意义,并表明很少有年轻男性体现或认同严格的传统男子气概形式。