A Multicultural Investigation of Masculinity Ideology and Alexithymia Ronald F. Levant and Katherine Richmond Nova Southeastern University Richard G. Majors University of Glasgow and Manchester University Jaime E. Inclan Roberto Clemente Guidance Center Jeannette M. Rossello University of Puerto Rico Martin Heesacker University of Florida George T. Rowan Michigan State University Alfred Sellers Nova Southeastern University The aims of this study were to investigate the social constructionist proposition that masculinity varies according to social context and the relationship, in men, between masculinity ideology and alexithymia. Women tended to endorse a less traditional view of masculinity than did men, and European Americans tended to endorse a less traditional view of masculinity than did African Americans, with Hispanics from the Caribbean and the United States in the middle. A relationship between masculinity ideology and alexithymia in men was established, and, even after controlling for demographic variables, masculinity ideology accounted for unique variance in alexithymia in men. Gender roles have an enormous influence on how individuals function both intra- and interpersonally (Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002; Silverstein, Auerbach, & Levant, 2002). Pleck (1981) postulated that the gender role identity paradigm, which domi- nated research on gender from 1930 to 1980, does not adequately account for the formation of gender roles. According to the gender role identity paradigm, gen- der roles develop as a result of an inner psychological need to have a sex-appropriate gender role identity, and optimal personality development depends on the construction of sex-appropriate gender role identity (Pleck, 1981). In contrast to the gender role identity paradigm, the new psychology of men relies on the gender role strain paradigm, a social constructionist perspective, to account for the formation of gender roles. In this view, prevailing gender ideologies, which vary according to psychological, historical, so- cial, and political contexts, serve to influence parents, teachers, and peers, who, in turn, socialize children according to the prevailing gender role ideologies. The gender role strain paradigm recognizes bio- logical differences between men and women but ar- gues that concepts of “masculinity” and “femininity” are not constructed by biology (Levant, 1996b; Le- vant & Pollack, 1995). Rather, gender roles are formed to serve particular purposes within any given society; namely, gender roles maintain the system of power relations between males and females in a so- cial group. Traditional gender role socialization serves to uphold patriarchal codes by requiring that males adopt dominant and aggressive behaviors and function in the public sphere, while requiring that females adopt adaptive and nurturing behaviors and function in the private sphere of the family (Levant, 1996b). Although not as prevalent, nontraditional constructions of gender appear to serve equalitarian purposes. For example, the people of Tahiti in French Polynesia and the Semai of Malaysia represent two Ronald F. Levant, Katherine Richmond, and Alfred Sell- ers, Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University; Richard G. Majors, Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and Department of Psychology, Manchester University, Manchester, En- gland; Jaime E. Inclan, Director, Roberto Clemente Guid- ance Center, New York, New York; Jeannette M. Rossello, Department of Psychology, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico; Martin Heesacker, Department of Psy- chology, University of Florida; George T. Rowan, Depart- ment of Psychology, Michigan State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Ronald F. Levant, Center for Psychological Stud- ies, Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. E-mail: rlevant@aol.com Prod #: 02-003 Psychology of Men & Masculinity Copyright 2003 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2003, Vol. 4, No. 2, 91–99 1524-9220/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.4.2.91 91 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.