The development of gender, especially masculinity.

My research on gender examines the ways in which individuals define, adhere to, and learn about gender-related cultural expectations from adolescence through older age. Accordingly, this research examines both group level differences and individual differences. Further, in order to effectively understand how individuals acquire and maintain adherence to these culturally prescribed practices, I examine the influence of cultural components such as media inputs and extracurricular activities.

One component of my research focuses explicitly on the ways in which gender is defined. In a review of the psychological literature, I examined the assumptions that underlie different conceptualizations and measurement approaches to masculinity. One paradigmatic difference was related to the relative positioning of femininity and masculinity; they were independent constructs for androgyny theorists (e.g., Bem, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) but masculinity ideology theorists (e.g., David & Brannon, 1976) argued that masculinity includes an anti-femininity component (Smiler, 2004). More recently, I collaborated with two historians to examine portrayals of masculinity in the Sunday magazine of the Hearst press between World War I and World War II. Shifts included decreased discussion of men’s (inherent) superiority over women, a move away from men expressing their “passions” and their emotions, and a greater focus on men’s role as breadwinner (Smiler, Kay, & Harris, in press). These changes in definition highlight the constructed nature of gender and the variety of approaches to studying it. Accordingly, to further explore this diversity, I made sure to recruit contributors form a variety of disciplines and theoretical perspectives when I was given the honor of guest editing a special issue of Sex Roles on “Manifestations of Masculinity” (Smiler, 2006b). I have also begun a collaboration with cognitive developmentalist Susan Gelman to explore the extent to which individuals view gender as inherently- (“essential”) or environmentally- (“constructed”) based. Our examination of undergraduates at two universities indicated that men were more essentializing than women and both women and men essentialized male-oriented terms more than female-oriented terms (Smiler & Gelman, in press).

A second component of my gender research focuses on the ways in which individuals selectively enact aspects of femininity and masculinity. Data from a sample of 688 adults aged 18-83 revealed age group/cohort differences in the endorsement of masculine norms. Undergraduate men and women, for example, reported greater conformity to norms of risk-taking and pursuit of status than did adults aged 30-49 and 50-83 (Smiler, 2006a). A colleague and I are currently seeking funding to examine national differences in masculinity scores among Israeli and American young men (Smiler & Rubinstein, under review). Data from the sample of 688 also revealed that an individual’s choice of social identity (e.g., “jock,” “tough”) was related to her/his enactment of masculinity; self-identified jocks reported greater conformity to norms of homophobia, sexism, violence, and competition, whereas self-identified toughs offered greater endorsement or norms regarding dominance, emotional control, self-reliance, and violence (Smiler, 2006c). I am currently expanding on these findings with a sample of adolescents (n=263), undergraduates (n=202), and adults (n=200). Preliminary analyses of the adolescent data indicate that identity choices are related to extracurricular activity participation, media preferences, and dating and sexual behaviors. These findings suggest that identity choices may reflect developmental trajectories. A newly funded project will use this approach in an examination of adolescent boys’ strengths (Savin-Williams & Smiler, 2007).

A third component of my gender research examines non-parental influences on gender development and maintenance during adolescence and adulthood. Media are one factor, and I am currently exploring the ways in which both television and internet website browsing contribute to different aspects of masculinity (Smiler, under review). I have argued that extracurricular activities are another factor. Athletic activities explicitly promote competition, even among teammates, whereas performing arts and service-type activities promote cooperation (Smiler, in press). Preliminary findings from the 263 adolescents (mentioned previously) support this argument. More compelling findings are emerging from 143 parent-child dyads; these participants are a subsample of Smiler, 2006a, 2006c. Preliminary analyses suggest that family structure variables (e.g., percentage of male children) and media inputs may have fairly strong relations to undergraduates’ masculinity scores but parents’ scores may be weakly related (Smiler & Chuick, in preparation).

For a list of all publications, click here.

Back to Andrew Smiler's main research page.

Back to Andrew Smiler's home page.