A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Masculinity and Relationships in Men From Turkey,Norway,and the United States

Abstract

Masculinity ideology is the endorsement of a set of culturally based male role norms that influences gender-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. However, masculinity research has been criticized for not being inclusive enough of different cultures. This study explored the cultural and relational components of masculinity by comparing 564 Turkish, Norwegian, and U.S. men’s endorsement of masculinity ideology and examining the associations between masculinity ideology and interpersonal attitudes and behavioral competencies with romantic partners and work colleagues separately for the three groups of men. Norwegian men had significantly lower scores on a measure of masculinity ideology than both Turkish and U.S. men. Canonical correlation analyses revealed that all three groups of men had significant associations between male role norms and interpersonal relationship variables, but the patterns of association differed by country. Generally, endorsement of traditional male role norms was associated with poorer interpersonal competencies for men in all three countries, although the associations were much stronger for the Norwegian sample. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

gender/sex roles interpersonal relationships cultural psychology

As researchers study gendered behavior in men’s lives, recent attention has focused on the construct of masculinity. The social constructionist perspective considers masculinity as “a culturally based ideology scripting gender relations, attitudes, and beliefs” (Thompson & Pleck, 1995, p. 130). Masculinity is defined as the combination of the practices, ideologies, and historical norms that cultures use to define what it means to be a man (Levant, 2008). The understanding of masculinity ideology is rooted in a particular cultural group’s perspectives of gender and may differ by culture (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993), but masculinity research has been criticized for not being inclusive enough of different cultural perspectives (Whorley & Addis, 2006).

Constructions of what is termed as traditional masculinity ideology are often based in a Western perspective of hegemonic masculinity that emphasizes the dominant position of men over women and other men who do not adhere to the culturally defined conventional masculinity (e.g., those who identify as gay, non-White, non-Western) (Gerami, 2005; Hatty, 2000). This hegemonic masculinity may not be the most commonly enacted masculinity, but it is the socially normative pattern of masculinity requiring that all men in the particular culture position themselves in relation to it (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Characteristics associated with traditional U.S. hegemonic masculinity include the restriction of emotion; being tough, aggressive, or self-reliant; emphasis on the achievement of status; and above all, an avoidance of all things deemed feminine (Levant, 1996). Behaviors such as help-seeking, emotional connection and support, compromise, empathic understanding, and emotionality are devalued as effeminate despite the fact that they are optimal in developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships (Johnson et al., 2005; Mirgain & Cordova, 2007). Therefore, it is likely that adherence to traditional masculinity may affect men’s interpersonal attitudes and interactions.

However, since there are multiple patterns of masculinity that differ by cultural and institutional setting, the associations between masculinity and interpersonal attitudes and interactions may also differ by culture. This study focused on the cultural and relational components of masculinity in three very different cultural contexts. It had goals of (1) exploring differences in Turkish, Norwegian, and U.S. men’s endorsement of a traditional hegemonic masculinity ideology and (2) gaining a deeper understanding of the associations between traditional masculinity ideology and perceived interpersonal competencies and attitudes with romantic partners and work colleagues among men from the three countries.

Turkish Culture and Gender Roles

Turkish culture has been characterized as predominantly collectivist and patriarchal (Kağıtçıbaşı, 1996). The Turkish population is more than 95% Muslim and the influence of the Islamic religion can be seen in the ideologies of honor around gender and hierarchical family social structures. Turkey is also experiencing a rapid modernization process resulting in economic, technological, and demographic changes (Çileli, 2000), and it is unclear how much these changes are altering the traditional gender roles for men and women. Turkey had a female prime minister from 1993 to 1996, and recent empirical studies on gender roles suggest that Turkish society is experiencing a transition to more egalitarian gender roles (Aycan, 2004; Aycan & Eskin, 2005; Özkan & Lajunen, 2005). Turkey’s efforts to become a member of the European Union are also influencing gender roles. During the membership process, Turkey has undergone numerous social, economic, and political reforms, including altering the Civil Code to increase gender equality in the country (Çileli, 2000). Among the more educated, progressive segments of society, there is a change toward gender egalitarianism, especially among women (Kağıtçıbaşı, 1996; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, 2004). Despite these changes, Turkey is still considered to be low in gender egalitarianism (Aycan, 2004; Dökmen, 1991; Fikret-Paşa, Kabasakal, & Bodur, 2001; Kağıtçıbaşı, 1987; Kandiyoti, 1987). Sakallı and her colleagues have noted that gender traditional beliefs (men as protectors, women as subordinate and morally pure) continue to be prevalent, even among college educated young adults (Sakallı, 2001; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Glick, 2003; Sakallı-Uğurlu, Yalçın, & Glick, 2007).

The laws and regulations in Turkey have changed to encourage equal work and pay opportunities for men and women. However, change in the workplace has been gradual and women comprise only about 11% of the workforce (Wasti, Bergman, Glomb, & Drasgow, 2000). Tabak (1997) found that there was a significant difference in the proportion of men and women at each hierarchical level in 80 organizations in Turkey. As the level in the organizational hierarchy increased, the proportion of women decreased. Furthermore, Tabak reported that only 14% of managers and 2% of top managers in the manufacturing industry in Istanbul were women. Istanbul is the fifth largest city in the world, and these percentages are likely to be even lower in less urban areas of the country. Tabak suggested that these findings reflect the continuing prevalence of traditional male role norms that serve to inhibit women’s advancements in organizations.

Although Tezer and Demir (2001) reported that competition between males is one of the socially acceptable ways of protecting the male image in Turkish culture, Turkish culture has traditionally been seen as a collectivist culture or a “culture of relatedness” (Kağıtçıbaşı, 1996). Even with the recent changes to a more individualistic orientation, Turkish people have retained an emphasis on relatedness (Imamoğlu, 2003), and Western gender role norms of success and competition may not have the same meaning as they do in more individualistic cultures like the United States or Norway.

The literature is equivocal on whether the tremendous social changes occurring in Turkey have altered traditional masculine role norms and interpersonal relations among men and women. Comparisons of Turkish men’s masculinity ideology with that of Norwegian and U.S. men allows for the examination of the degree to which Turkish men from a patriarchal and collectivist culture are endorsing a traditional masculinity ideology. Similarly, examining associations among male role norms and interpersonal attitudes during this time of political transition provides greater understanding of the meaning of Turkish masculinity in the context of interpersonal interactions.

Norwegian Culture and Gender Roles

Historically, the harsh physical environment and the prevalence of sea-faring occupations in Norway contributed to a cultural set of gender norms that valued hard work by all (Murray, 1998), but with a clear demarcation along gender lines. Men engaged in dangerous and physically demanding work to provide for their families and women cared for family and property while men were absent from the home (Kringlen, 2005). This history created cultural values for the self-sufficiency, independence, and courage of men as well as emphasizing the contribution of women, which established the foundation for the egalitarianism that characterizes Norway’s gender relations today.

The dawn of industrialization gave women more roles outside of the home, but often at lower wages and in less prestigious positions. However, the historical importance of self-sufficiency and women’s contributions to the family lead to early debates about equality and egalitarianism. The Norwegian government’s focus on eliminating gender differences in educational and workforce settings began in the early 1900s (Emblem, Libaek, Stenersen, & Syvertsen, 2006). Women obtained the right to vote in 1913 and a female prime minister was elected in 1981 (Emblem et al., 2006). The government passed a resolution in 2006 that set aside 40% of management positions for women employed in publicly traded companies. These official positions have signified a steady transition to greater female participation in civic life. For the last four years, Norway has been ranked in the top three countries in the Global Gender Gap Index assessing how well countries divide their resources and opportunities between their male and female populations (Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2009). In contrast, the United States and Turkey ranked 31st and 129th, respectively.

Although many Norwegian men have supported these efforts, adapting to the resulting changes in the workplace and at home can create role conflict for some men (Holter & Olsvik, 2000). Norwegian men may receive discrepant messages about appropriate masculine behavior. Are they to adhere to traditional, cultural values of independence, strength, and risk-taking, or should they support continued development toward equality? Up to 70% of Norwegian men view gender equal status as having been achieved and that further active efforts toward equality are unnecessary (Holter & Olsvik, 2000). Some popular news media have featured Norwegian men who feel a loss or devaluing of their traditional masculine roles (Døving, 2006).

With the historic emphasis on independence, self-sufficiency, and emotional stoicism in Norway, traditional male role norms valuing toughness and emotional restriction might be highly valued. On the other hand, the social and legal emphasis on gender egalitarianism in Norwegian culture could reduce the level of adherence to a traditional hegemonic masculinity ideology. In light of these conflicting positions and the potential discontent of men who may perceive that their identity as men is being lost, it is important to provide information on the adherence to traditional masculinity ideology in Norwegian men and study the associations between masculine ideology and interpersonal competencies for Norwegian men in comparison with those associations for men from other distinct cultural regions.

Masculinity and Perceived Interpersonal Competencies With Romantic Partners and Work Colleagues

Researchers have reported that adherence to traditional Western masculine ideology restricts emotional expressiveness and the development of intimacy (Levant et al., 2003; Maxton, 1994). Suppressing male emotionality was related to poorly developed emotional empathy and alexithymia (Levant, 1996). Men who had higher levels of emotional restriction reported more relationship problems than men who were less emotionally restricted (Blazina & Watkins, 2000). Men who strongly adhered to traditional male gender roles frequently reported that they were unsatisfied in their romantic relationships (Campbell & Snow, 1992; Ickes, 1993), as did their female partners (Burn & Ward, 2005).

Despite research showing that adherence to traditional male role norms is associated with decreased relationship satisfaction and functioning, the associations between male role norms and interpersonal behavioral competencies have not been investigated. Communication skills, the ability to achieve emotional closeness and intimacy, emotional support of others, and conflict management are all interpersonal competencies that impact relationship quality (Lawrence et al., 2008). Developing and maintaining these interpersonal competencies is recognized as an important contributor to physical and psychological well-being and relationship functioning (Diener, 1984; Lamke, Sollie, Durbin, & Fitzpatrick, 1994; Laursen, Furman, & Mooney, 2006; Straits-Tröster et al., 1994).

Emotional expression is thought to play a particularly important role in interpersonal competence, in that it provides access to the intimate, inner world of the other person (Bruch, Berko, & Haase, 1998; Taylor & Altman, 1987). The traditional masculine ideology demanding emotional restriction and toughness appears to work against the development of interpersonal competencies of disclosure, emotional support, and open communication. Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, and Reis (1988) found that men reported feeling less competent in their ability to listen to and discuss another person’s feelings (i.e., emotional support). As adequate conflict management skills and emotional sharing have been related to increased satisfaction in intimate relationships, it is important to investigate the relationship between adherence to masculine role norms and interpersonal competencies with romantic partners.

Interpersonal competencies are not limited to romantic relationships. The potential associations between masculinity and interpersonal competencies with coworkers must also be considered (Riggio & Lee, 2007). Performance in the workplace is a defining characteristic for many men and occupational success is closely associated with self-esteem (Heppner & Heppner, 2001; Skovholt, 1990). Men spend a significant amount of time interacting with coworkers and accomplishments at work provide tangible measures of men’s value and status as “real men.” Aspects of the traditional masculinity ideology may be both adaptive and maladaptive in work settings. For example, controlling one’s emotions or emphasizing prestige and status could help men enhance their job performance and achieve subsequent success. However, an emphasis on status or power could contribute to limited emotional support and poor conflict management skills, leading to difficulty in coworker relationships. Martin and Bergmann (1996) argued that in the United States, male-male competition might be used to save face and protect one’s male image, especially when no equitable resolution to the situation is anticipated. Another potential consequence of adherence to traditional male gender roles is an emphasis on independence at the expense of interpersonal relationships (Aylor & Dainton, 2004; Levant, 1996; Sanderson & Karetsky, 2002). Executives higher in dominance, but lower in cooperativeness, may experience conflicts with subordinates, colleagues, and supervisors (Sperry, 1997).

Although the centrality of work in men’s lives is well known, there is a paucity of research examining masculinity and relationships with coworkers. Getting along with colleagues is often a necessary component of success at work. Research on gender and leadership styles suggests that male managers were more likely to criticize their supervisees and have a removed, “hands-off” style of interacting (APA Psychology Matters, 2006). Heppner and Heppner (2008) pointed out the need for greater understanding of male gender role conflict in the workplace. We would suggest a similar need to understand how adherence to traditional male gender roles is associated with coworker relationships, paying particular attention to cultural variation.

The vast majority of research on masculinity has focused on North American men, and is situated in the hegemonic cultural beliefs about gender that affect social relational contexts in the United States. As noted earlier in the article, the social construction of masculinity suggests that its meaning is derived from the particular culture’s definition of what it is to be a man (Levant, 2008; Thompson & Pleck, 1995). While Mahalik et al. (Mahalik, Lagan, & Morrison, 2006; Mahalik, Levi-Minzi, & Walker, 2007) found similar associations between masculinity and health behaviors in Australian, U.S., and Kenyan men, masculinity is culturally constructed (e.g., Abreu, Goodyear, Campos, & Newcomb, 2000; Harris, Torres, & Allender, 1994; Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Levant et al., 2003; Levant, Graef, Smalley, Williams, & McMillan, 2008), and different associations between masculinity and interpersonal behaviors may occur for Turkish, U.S., and Norwegian men.

The current study examined levels of endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology (assessed by the Male Role Norms Scale; Thompson & Pleck, 1986) in the United States, Turkey, and Norway. In addition to examining differences in masculinity ideology in different countries, we conducted canonical correlation analyses (CCA) to examine the associations between sets of masculinity ideology and interpersonal competency and attitude variables. Based on the cultural emphasis on gender egalitarianism in Norway, we hypothesized that Norwegian men would endorse a traditional masculine ideology less strongly than Turkish and U.S. men. Turkey’s ranking in the Global Gender Gap Index and paternalistic culture suggest that Turkish men will endorse a traditional masculinity ideology similar to U.S. men, although the collectivist nature of Turkey might decrease the emphasis on the competitive aspects of masculinity. We also hypothesized that traditional masculinity ideology would be associated with perceived interpersonal competencies and attitudes with both relationship partners and work colleagues such that a more traditional ideology would be negatively related to emotional support, disclosure, and intimacy, but positively related to assertiveness. We expected the patterns of the relationships identified in the CCA to differ by country, but made no specific hypotheses.

Method

Participants

Participants were 170 Norwegian, 125 Turkish, and 269 U.S. men. Ninety U.S. men reported their race/ethnicity as African American (33.5%), 161 as Caucasian (59.9%), 5 as Hispanic (1.9%), 1 as Asian American (0.4%), 5 as Native American (1.9%), 3 as biracial (1.1%), 3 described themselves as other (1.1%), and 1 participant did not report race/ethnicity. Turkish and Norwegian men were not asked to report racial group membership. For the U.S. men, the mean age was 27.90 (SD = 11.27). The Turkish men had a mean age of 21.62 (SD = 1.41), and the Norwegian men had a mean age of 29.79 (SD = 10.72). The Turkish participants were students at Middle East Technical University (METU), and the U.S. and Norwegian participants included both university students and nonstudents. As some questionnaire items asked specifically about heterosexual relationships, participants who reported no current or previous heterosexual relationships were not included in the data set. Additional descriptive information is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Information for the Norwegian (N = 170), Turkish (N = 125), and U.S. (N = 269) Participants

	Norwegian		Turkish		US
Variables	N	%	N	%	N	%
Educational status
Freshmen	3	1.8	18	14.4	51	20.1
Sophomore	19	11.2	4	3.2	46	17.1
Junior	58	34.1	78	62.4	38	14.1
Senior	15	8.8	23	18.4	32	11.9
Graduate student	8	4.7	—	—	29	10.8
Not a student	67	39.4	—	—	73	27.1
Relationship status
Married	40	23.5	0	0	62	23
Engaged	8	4.7	2	1.6	48	17.8
Steady relationship	58	34.1	50	40	28	10.4
Casual dating	10	5.9	—	—	17	6.3
Not in a relationship	54	31.8	69	55.2	114	42.3
Divorced	—	—	1	0.8	—	—
Other	—	—	3	2.4	—	—
Work status
Part-time	53	31.2	16	12	105	39
Full-time	105	61.8	3	2.4	76	28.3
Not currently working	12	7.1	106	84.8	86	32
SES
Upper class	16	9.4	5	5.0	17	6.3
Middle-class	154	90.6	89	71.2	217	80.7
Lower class	0	0	31	24.8	29	10.8

Instruments

The Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS; Thompson & Pleck, 1986) is a 26-item measure commonly used to assess masculinity ideology. The MRNS is composed of three subscales: Status (11 items), Toughness (8 items), and Antifemininity (7 items). Items are assessed on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Scores for the subscales are formed by averaging the responses for items associated with each subscale. Higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of the role norms that comprise masculinity ideology. Original alpha scores reported by Thompson and Pleck (1986) were .81 (Status), .74 (Toughness), and .76 (Antifemininity), respectively. Alpha coefficients for the current study ranged between .70 and .82 for the U.S. sample, between .71 and .82 for the Turkish sample, and between .91 and .94 for the Norwegian sample. Sinn (1997) reported evidence for the structural, discriminant, and predictive validity of the MRNS. Turkish participants completed a translated and adapted version of the MRNS (see Lease, Çiftçi, Demir, & Boyraz, 2009, for translation process), while Norwegian and U.S. participants completed the instruments in English.

The Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ; Buhrmester et al., 1988) measures perceived interpersonal competence with a 40-item inventory consisting of five specific relationship domains (initiating relationships, asserting displeasure with another’s behavior [Negative Assertion], self-disclosure, providing emotional support, and managing interpersonal conflict). Common interpersonal situations (e.g., “being able to say and do things to support my romantic partner when she or he is feeling down”) are presented to respondents, who then respond using a 5-point scale (1 = poor at handling this situation, 5 = extremely good at this, could handle this situation). Higher scores suggest perceptions of greater competency in interpersonal situations.

Participants¹ completed assessments for both romantic partners and coworkers. For romantic partners, participants rated how they would handle the situation based on current or past romantic partners. Scores were obtained on four of the five subscales (Negative Assertion, Disclosure, Emotional Support, and Conflict Management) for romantic partners. The Relationship Initiation subscale was not used, as it does not address ongoing relationships. Alpha coefficients reported by Buhrmester et al. (1988) ranged from .77 to .87. In the current sample, alpha coefficients ranged between .78 and .95 for the romantic partner subscales.

Wording on the ICQ was adjusted to reflect interpersonal competence in work relationships by substituting the word coworker for romantic partner in the items and instructing participants to respond based on present or past coworkers if they were or had been employed or student colleagues if they had not been employed. Interpersonal competence in work situations was assessed on the subscales of Negative Assertion, Emotional Support, and Conflict Management. The Relationship Initiation and Disclosure subscales were not used for work colleagues because they assess situations that are less relevant for workplace relationships. In the current sample, alpha coefficients ranged between .77 and .93 for the coworker subscales. Buhrmester et al. (1988) showed that specific domain competencies were differentially related to hypothesized social skills.

The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR; Schaefer & Olson, 1981) assesses five specific areas of intimacy in relationships: emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, and recreational. Participants rate their relationship in terms of how intimate they perceive it to be by responding to items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The current study used the six-item Emotional Intimacy subscale that addresses intimacy through shared feelings. We chose this subscale as it is the best predictor of other marital scores (Olson & Schaefer, 1987) and is likely to be sensitive to masculine norms regarding emotional restraint. An item example is “I can state my feelings without my girlfriend getting defensive.” Subscale items are averaged for a score, and higher scores on the subscale indicate greater emotional intimacy in partnered relationships. Participants were instructed to respond based on current romantic partners or their most recent partner if not currently in a relationship. A recent analysis of several intimacy measures reported an alpha reliability of .81 for items on the PAIR (Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley, 2003). Alpha coefficients ranged between .74 and .87 for the Turkish, U.S., and Norwegian participants.

The Work Relationship Questionnaire assessed the importance of working as a team member, working independently, problematic relationships with colleagues, and having high status among peers. Research team members developed items for this instrument based on a review of the literature on interpersonal conflict at work; items were written to apply to working relationships with academic peers or coworkers. A panel of faculty with experience in vocational relationship issues provided feedback on the items during the item construction process. Using a subsample of the data set (Turkish participants), the 16 items were analyzed with principal axis factoring analysis and submitted to Velicer’s MAP and parallel analysis to determine the number of factors to retain. Parallel analysis suggested two strong components and the possibility of two trivial ones, while Velicer’s MAP test suggested retaining two factors. We conducted analyses extracting two, three, and four factors using oblique rotation. Using the criteria of retaining those items with significant weights (factor loadings of |.40| or greater) on the designated factor and small loadings (≤ |.30|) on the other factors, only the three-factor solution was interpretable. Three items did not have clear loadings and were not included on the final scales. The first factor was named Teamwork and was comprised of six items that accounted for 23% of the variance. The second factor contained five items and was named Poor Work Relations. It accounted for 13.6% of the variance. The third factor had only two items and was named Independent Work; it did not have adequate reliability and was not used in the analyses. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL was conducted with the remaining U.S. and Norwegian participants. Although the chi-square was significant (123.09, p < .05), other fit statistics indicated adequate fit (RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .045, CFI = .96). Cronbach reliabilities were .77 and .66 for Teamwork and Poor Work Relations. An example of a Teamwork item is “It is important for me to get along with my fellow coworkers/classmates.” Participants indicated their agreement on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). High scores on Poor Work Relations indicate more negative work relationship behaviors (arguing with or ignoring work colleagues). High scores on Teamwork indicate a stronger emphasis on working as part of a team.

The Relationship Questionnaire (RQ)² assessed men’s perceptions of the importance of their relationships with romantic female partners, communicating around emotional issues, and mutual decision-making. Research team members developed items based on a review of the literature on relationship intimacy, satisfaction, and quality. Items were evaluated for wording and clarity by the research team members. Unclear items were reworded. Participants indicated their agreement on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Using a subsample of the data set again (Turkish participants), the 15 items were analyzed with principal axis factoring analysis. Parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP tests were used to determine the number of factors to retain. Based on the parallel analysis, MAP test, and interpretability, two four-item factors were identified. As before, we retained only those items with significant weights (factor loadings of |.40| or greater) on the designated factor and small loadings (≤ |.30|) on the other factors. The first factor was labeled Emotional Investment and accounted for 34% of the variance. The second factor was labeled as Emotional Distance and accounted for 19% of the variance. Item examples are “I don’t share my thoughts with my girlfriend” (Emotional Distance) and “My relationship with my girlfriend adds many positive things to my life” (Emotional Investment). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL was conducted with the remaining U.S. participants. Although the chi-square was significant (35.79, p < .05), other fit statistics indicated adequate fit (RMSEA = .057, SRMR = .047, CFI = .97). Cronbach alpha coefficients were .71 (Emotional Investment) and .66 (Emotional Distance).

Demographic data included participants’ age, socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, sexual orientation, year in school, work status, number of years worked, and information about current or past relationships.

Procedure

Data were collected in three separate waves (data from Turkey were collected first, then U.S. data; data collection started in Norway before U.S. data collection was completed). Following approval from the institutional review board, research team members worked with faculty at METU, Ankara, Turkey, who collected data from currently enrolled students. Norwegian contacts collected data at a university in a medium-sized Norwegian city and in workplaces in the same city. U.S. research team members collected data from student groups on a mid-South university campus, through friendship and workplace networks, and via an online questionnaire.

Results

Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine whether the groups differed on the descriptive variables of age, SES, or years worked. There was a significant multivariate effect for age, F(2, 559) = 26.92, p < .001. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the Turkish sample was significantly younger than the U.S. and Norwegian samples, which did not differ from each other. There was a significant multivariate effect for SES, F(2, 555) = 4.86, p < .01. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the Turkish sample self-identified as having a higher SES than the U.S. sample. A two sample (Norway and U.S.) analysis was conducted on the variable of number of years worked. There was a significant effect with the Norwegian men having worked more years than the men in the U.S. sample.

To address the first research question of whether American, Norwegian, and Turkish men differed on the three subscales of the MRNS (Antifemininity, Status, and Toughness), a three-group multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted with age and SES as the covariates. There was a significant multivariate effect for country, F(6, 1,102) = 28.64, p <.001, partial eta-squared = .14, and age, F(3, 551) = 5.201, partial eta-squared = .03. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated significant differences by country on all three MRNS subscales of Toughness, F(2, 553) = 52.89, p < .001, Status, F(2, 553) = 60.04, p < .001, and Antifemininity, F(2, 553) = 6.06, p < .01. Partial eta-squared values ranged from .02 to .18. Comparisons indicated that Norwegian men scored significantly lower than both Turkish and U.S. men on all three subscales. Turkish and U.S. men did not differ from each other on any of the three male role norm subscales. Table 2 displays the adjusted means and standard deviations on the MRNS subscales.

Table 2.

Summary of Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations on the Male Role Norms Scales by Country

	Norway		Turkey		U.S
MRNS subscale	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Toughness	3.24	.08	4.33	.10	4.27	.07
Status	3.31	.09	4.36	.10	4.47	.07
Antifemininity	3.33	.09	3.80	.11	3.68	.08

Canonical Correlation Analyses

Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) is a multivariate technique used to explore the relationships between sets of multiple independent and dependent variables. The current study examined the relationships between the set of male role norm scales and the set of interpersonal competency and relationship scales. The sets of observed variables are combined together to form a latent variable termed a canonical variate and the relationships between these variates are examined. CCA allows for the calculation of multiple optimal linear combinations of independent and dependent variables; each combination is termed a canonical function and is expressed as a correlation between the two canonical variates. The canonical correlation between the two variates is analogous to a multiple R in regression. There will be as many functions as there are variables in the smaller variable set. Each successive function explains the maximal amount of variance after the previous variance is accounted for. Only functions that explain a reasonable amount of variance between the variable sets are interpreted. There is no established definition of reasonable variance so we chose to interpret only those functions that explained more than 5% of the variance. The strength of CCA is in its ability to identify the optimum dimensions in each variable set to maximize the relationship between the two sets.

Six separate canonical correlation analyses were conducted: two each for U.S., Norwegian, and Turkish men examining both personal and work relationships. Because of differences in data collection times, the sets of variables differed slightly for the three different groups. For the personal relationships analysis in the U.S. sample, the four ICQ subscales, the Emotional Intimacy subscale of the PAIR, and the Relationship Questionnaire subscales of Emotional Distance and Emotional Investment served as the set of dependent variables and the three MRNS subscales served as the set of independent variables. The Turkish men did not have the ICQ subscales and the Norwegian men did not have the Relationship Questionnaire subscales. For the work relationship analyses, the three ICQ subscales modified for coworkers and the two Work Relationship subscales of Teamwork and Poor Work Relations served as the set of dependent variables and the three MRNS subscales again served as the set of independent variables. The Turkish men did not have the modified ICQ subscales.

U.S. Men

In examining U.S. men in their personal relationships, the analyses yielded three functions with squared canonical correlations of .118 and .083 and .024 for each successive function. Collectively, the full model was statistically significant (Wilks’ λ =.789), F(21, 744.26) = 3.049, p < .001. Because Wilks’ λ represents the variance unexplained by the model, 1 – λ provides the full model effect size. Thus, for the set of three canonical functions, the r² type effect size was .211, indicating that the full model explained about 21% of the variance shared between the two variable sets. Examination of the dimension reduction analysis and the amount of variance explained by the functions indicated that the first two functions could be considered significant. The third function was not interpreted. To identify what variables were contributing to the relationship between the variable sets, a cut off of |.40| was used when examining the structure coefficients. The first function was characterized by strong to moderate positive loadings on all three of the MRNS subscales and a moderate positive loading on the Emotional Distance subscale. Participants who had a stronger endorsement of the traditional male role norms also endorsed more aspects of emotional distance in their personal relationships. A moderate negative loading on Status, a moderate positive loading on Antifemininity, and moderate to strong negative loadings on Negative Assertion, Disclosure, Emotional Support, Conflict Management, and Emotional Investment characterized the second function. This suggests that a combination of a lower endorsement of the status norm and higher endorsement of an antifemininity norm is related to decreased self-perceived competence in being assertive in negative situations, self-disclosure, being emotionally supportive, and managing conflict. It was also related to decreased emotional investment in their personal relationships. Table 3 presents the structure coefficients for the interpretable canonical functions in the romantic relationship and coworker analyses for all three countries.

Table 3.

Canonical Solution for Male Role Norms Predicting Romantic and Coworker Relationship Competencies and Attitudes

		U.S. Men		Norwegian Men	Turkish Men
		Function 1	Function 2	Function 1	Function 1	Function 2
		r_s	r_s	r_s	r_s	r_s
Relationship Partners	Tough	.628	.124	.997	–.842	.072
	Status	.876	–.477	.946	–.886	.392
	Antifem.	.837	.543	.917	–.810	–.566
	$R_{c}^{2}$ (%)	12.50	8.30	77.20	14.40	8.00
	Neg. Assert	.356	–.675	.372	NA	NA
	Disclosure	−.376	–.696	–.928	NA	NA
	Support	−.300	–.750	–.867	NA	NA
	Conflict	−.139	–.649	–.884	NA	NA
	PAIR	.338	−.077	–.784	.071	.764
	Invested	.169	–.454	NA	–.426	.896
	Distance	.485	.051	NA	–.685	–.725
Coworkers	Tough	.805	–.502	.998	–.716	−.235
	Status	.303	–.859	.938	–.965	.263
	Antifem.	.865	.007	.934	–.735	–.653
	$R_{c}^{2}$ (%)	13.80	7.80	57.60	18.00	6.80
	Neg. Assert	−.176	–.691	.358	NA	NA
	Support	–.690	–.440	–.955	NA	NA
	Conflict	–.747	−.194	–.963	NA	NA
	Teamwork	.391	–.568	–.788	–.667	.745
	Poorwork	.792	−.290	.686	–.612	–.791

Note. Significant canonical loadings indicated in bold font. Antifem. = Antifemininity; Neg. Assert = Negative Assertion; Support = Emotional Support; Conflict = Conflict Management; PAIR = Emotional Intimacy subscale of the PAIR; Invested = Emotional Investment; Distance = Emotional Distance; Poorwork = Poor Work Relations.

In examining U.S. men in their work relationships, the analyses yielded three functions with squared canonical correlations of .140, .078, and .036 for each successive function. Collectively, the full model was statistically significant (Wilks’ λ = .765), F(15, 720.91) = 4.90, p < .001, and explained about 24% of the variance shared between the two variable sets. Examination of the dimension reduction analysis and the amount of variance explained by the functions indicated that the first two functions could be considered significant. The first function was characterized by strong positive loadings on the MRNS subscales of Toughness and Antifemininity and strong negative loadings on the work versions of Emotional Support and Conflict Management subscales, in addition to the positive loading on the Poor Work Relations subscale. This suggests that stronger endorsements of toughness and antifemininity norms are related to lower perceived competency in supporting work colleagues and resolving conflict appropriately in work relationships and an increase in poor work relationships. The second function was characterized by moderate negative loadings on Status and Toughness and on Negative Assertion, Emotional Support, and Teamwork. This second function suggests that weaker endorsement of the combination of status and toughness norms is associated with lower competencies in negative assertion and supporting colleagues, and valuing teamwork in their work relationships.

We calculated redundancy coefficients to measure the percentage of the variance in the original set of dependent variables that may be predicted from the first canonical variate of the independent set. The redundancy coefficients for the romantic relationship and coworker relationship variables were .077 and .068, respectively, indicating that the independent canonical variates of the masculinity subscales predicted only small percentages of variance in the relationship subscales.

Norwegian Men

In examining Norwegian men in their personal relationships, the analyses yielded three functions with squared canonical correlations of .772, .122, and .038 for each successive function. Collectively, the full model was statistically significant (Wilks’ λ = .192), F(15, 447.61) = 24.386, p < .001, and the full model explained about 81% of the variance shared between the two variable sets. Examination of the dimension reduction analysis and the amount of variance explained by the functions indicated that the first two functions could be considered significant. However, because the first function accounted for such a large amount of variance and included all but one of the variables, the second function was deemed uninterpretable. Strong positive loadings on Toughness, Status, and Antifemininity and strong negative loadings on the interpersonal competency subscales of Disclosure, Emotional Support, Conflict Management, and Emotional Intimacy (PAIR) characterized the canonical function. This indicates that stronger endorsements of the male role norms were associated with lower levels of perceived competence in self-disclosure, providing emotional support to others, and managing conflict, as well as lower levels of emotional intimacy in romantic relationships.

With regard to Norwegian men’s work relationships, the analyses yielded three functions with squared canonical correlations of .576, .101, and .001 for each function. As a whole, the full model was statistically significant (Wilks’ λ = .381), F(15, 447.61) = 12.48, p < .001, and the full model explained about 62% of the variance shared between the two variable sets. Examination of the dimension reduction analysis and the amount of variance explained by the functions indicated that the first two functions could be considered significant. Similar to the analysis of personal relationships, the second function was not interpretable. The first canonical function was characterized by strong positive loadings on all three male role norms subscales, strong negative loadings on Emotional Support, Conflict Management, and Teamwork, and a moderately strong positive loading on Poor Work Relations. A stronger endorsement of the male role norms variables was associated with decreased levels of valuing teamwork in relationships, lower perceived competencies in providing emotional support to colleagues and resolving conflict at work, and higher levels of poor work relationships in the workplace. The redundancy coefficients for the romantic relationship and coworker relationship variables were .70 and .53, respectively, indicating that the independent canonical variates of the masculinity subscales predicted large percentages of variance in the relationship subscales.

Turkish Men

When looking at Turkish men in their interpersonal relationships, the analyses yielded three functions with squared canonical correlations of .144, .080, and .005 for each successive function. As a whole, the full model was statistically significant (Wilks’ λ = .784), F(9, 289.77) =3.39, p < .001, and the full model explained about 22% of the variance shared between the two variable sets. Examination of the dimension reduction analysis and the amount of variance explained by the functions indicated that the first two functions could be considered significant. The first canonical function was characterized by strong negative loadings on all three male role norms of Toughness, Status, and Antifemininity and on both the Emotional Distance and Investment Relationship subscales. This indicates that lower scores on the male role norms variables were associated with lower levels of emotional distance in relationships (as theoretically expected), but also decreased levels of emotional investment in the romantic relationship.

The second significant function was characterized by a moderate negative loading on Antifemininity, strong positive loadings on Emotional Investment and Emotional Intimacy (PAIR), and a strong negative loading on Emotional Distance. Thus, a lower endorsement of the antifemininity norm was related to greater emotional investment and intimacy and less emotional distance.

For Turkish men in their work relationships, the analyses yielded two functions with squared canonical correlations of .180 and .068 for each function. The full model was statistically significant (Wilks’ λ = .764), F(6, 240) = 5.755, p < .001, and explained about 24% of the variance shared between the two variable sets. Examination of the dimension reduction analysis and the amount of variance explained by the functions indicated that the two functions could be considered significant. The first canonical function was characterized by strong negative loadings on Toughness, Status, and Antifemininity and moderate negative loadings on the Teamwork and Poor Work Relations subscales. Lower scores on the male role norms variables were associated with decreased levels of valuing teamwork in relationships (theoretically unexpected) and also decreased levels of poor work relationships in the workplace.

A moderate negative loading on Antifemininity, a strong positive loading on Teamwork, and a strong negative loading on the Poor Work Relations scale characterized the second significant function. Thus, lower adherence to antifemininity was related to a greater value on teamwork and lower scores on poor work relationships with coworkers. The redundancy coefficients for the romantic relationship and coworker relationship variables were .10 and .12, respectively, indicating that the independent canonical variates predicted only small percentages of variance in the relationship variables.

Discussion

The current study’s investigation of cultural differences in endorsement of traditional male role norms was grounded in the need to improve and expand the understanding of masculinity ideology from a cultural perspective (see Whorley & Addis, 2006). Multivariate analyses found significant differences among Norwegian, Turkish, and U.S. men’s endorsement of traditional male role norms with Norwegian men having significantly lower scores on traditional masculinity scales compared to Turkish and U.S. men. The results affirm the understanding that masculinity is socially constructed (Levant, 2008; Thompson & Pleck, 1995) and that cultures proscribe different sets of gender role attitudes and behaviors for their members. Norway is culturally characterized as having broad gender equality (Emblem et al., 2006) and egalitarianism (Hearn et al., 2002). The feminist movement in Norway focused on men as companions and equal partners in parenthood who should perform their share of family work (Halsaa, Predelli, & Thun, 2008). Perhaps as a result of the Norwegian feminist initiative, Norwegian men support fluid gender norms in the home and society for men and women (Holter & Olsvik, 2000) and this can be seen in the Norwegian participants’ lower endorsements of status, antifemininity, and toughness norms in defining their masculinity.

In comparison, Turkey has been documented as having strong gender demarcations and traditional beliefs about gender (Sakallı, 2001; Sakallı-Uğurlu & Glick, 2003; Sakallı-Uğurlu et al., 2007), but experiencing changes toward gender egalitarianism. Similarly, gender role norms in the United States are seen as changing while the stratification that ranks men above women remains intact (Lorber, 2007). Analysis of multivariate differences indicated that Turkish and U.S men did not differ significantly based on their endorsements of traditional male role norms. Hofstede (1980, 2001) studied country cultural values across several dimensions including masculinity versus femininity. Countries with higher masculinity scores are characterized by a higher degree of gender role differentiation and tend to value assertiveness and competitiveness. Turkey and the United States showed more similar (though not equal) masculinity dimension scores (45 and 62, respectively), while Norway revealed a much lower masculinity score of 8 (Hofstede, 2001). Country group differences on the measure of male role norms suggest that unique cultural values play a role in defining what is seen as appropriate masculinity for members of that culture.

Relationships With Romantic Partners

In addition to cultural differences in levels of endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology, we were interested in cultural differences in the associations between masculinity and interpersonal attitudes and perceived competencies. Cultural differences in how masculinity is constructed could result in differences in how masculinity and relationship variables are related in the three data sets. In examining the relations between masculinity and interpersonal variables in personal relationships, the canonical correlation analyses revealed that there were significant associations between male role norms and interpersonal relationship variables, but the patterns of association differed somewhat among the three countries. Stronger endorsements of male role norms were related to lower perceived interpersonal competencies for Norwegian and, to a lesser extent, U.S. men. Emotional intimacy was also negatively related to masculinity ideology for Norwegian men, while it only approached the .40 criterion level for U.S. men.

The structure coefficients for the Norwegian men were very high and the redundancy analyses indicated that the independent canonical variate explained 70% of the variance in the original set of relationship variables compared to approximately 8% and 10% for the U.S. and Turkish samples, respectively. This indicates that the association between traditional male roles norms and lower perceived interpersonal competencies was very strong in Norway. Norway is characterized by social equality between the two genders, and the Norwegian participants had the lowest mean scores on the masculinity scales. A traditional hegemonic masculinity understands gender as hierarchically structured such that femininity is subordinate to masculinity. Perhaps endorsing a traditional masculinity ideology in relationships violates the Norwegian societal expectations for gender relations and results in lower perceived interpersonal competencies. It is also likely that a masculinity ideology that endorses the dominance of one group over another violates the unofficial Scandinavian Jante law, which is based on believing that no one is more special or talented than another. Violating Jante law can meet with social condemnation (Norwegian Culture and Etiquette, Kwintessential, n.d.) across interpersonal contexts.

For U.S. men, the stronger first function indicated an association between endorsing male role norms and having a more emotionally distant relationship, a variable not assessed in the Norwegian sample, but included in the Turkish data. The association between masculinity ideology and decreased relationship functioning and satisfaction is well-documented (Blazina & Watkins, 2000; Burn & Ward, 2005; Campbell & Snow, 1992). The status role norm did not follow this typical pattern in U.S. men’s relationships. Stronger endorsements of Status, in combination with lower endorsements of Antifemininity, were associated with increased interpersonal competency. A similar positive association between Status and interpersonal competency was seen for U.S. men in their work relationships. This suggests that the status role norm, which includes aspects of respect and self-reliance, might facilitate positive interactions with partners and coworkers in the United States, but not in Norway or Turkey.

Similar to U.S. men, findings for the Turkish men showed an association between endorsement of male role norms and emotionally distant relationships. In contrast to U.S. men, there was also a positive association between male role norms and emotional investment in relationships for the Turkish men. Of the three countries, Turkey is the most collectivist culture. Collectivism has been defined as a “sense of harmony, interdependence, and concern for others” (Hui & Triandis, 1986, p. 244). Although recent studies have documented an increased individualism in Turkey, this has not equated with a decreased valuing of relationality (Imamoğlu & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, 2004). Thus, in Turkey, aspects of masculinity are associated with collectivist and relational values of protecting and being satisfied with one’s intimate partner as well as the more traditional definition of masculinity as emotionally distant (individualist).

Relationships With Colleagues

White (2006) examined relationships between work values and culture and found that culture can impact work. Quek and Knudson-Martin (2006) indicated that collectivist cultures are more likely to encourage equality among genders, open communication when experiencing conflict, and internal self-reflection. Turkish men receive messages that masculinity is associated with being part of the “brotherhood” and standing together (Gopalan, Kavas, & Nelson, 2005). Additionally, Turkey has a paternalistic culture in which people in authority are expected to nurture those in subordinate positions in order to guide them in their professional lives (Aycan, 2006). These cultural perspectives could explain the association on the first canonical function for Turkish men that associated high endorsements of all three traditional masculinity subscales with high endorsements of teamwork. In contrast, for Norwegian men, whose culture is classified as individualistic, male role norms were negatively associated with teamwork. The pattern was more complex for U.S. men. When toughness and antifemininity contributed to the function, teamwork did not. However, when toughness and status contributed (second function), then teamwork also contributed in such a way that endorsing toughness and status norms together was associated with greater valuing of teamwork in addition to some domains of interpersonal competence. As noted previously, the endorsement of status for U.S. men, this time in conjunction with toughness, has positive associations with relationship competencies and attitudes that are not seen in the Norwegian and Turkish participants.

The association between antifemininity and lower value on teamwork is echoed in the Turkish second function. The antifemininity norm, which is the most closely aligned with the hegemonic perspective of masculinity, appears to be the most detrimental of the three norms to collaborative relationships. This suggests that endorsement of differing combinations of male role norms may be particularly relevant to collaborative working relationships.

Endorsement of male role norms was associated with poorer working relationships for men in all three countries and lower competencies in managing conflict and providing emotional support in the Norwegian and U.S. samples. Nilsson and Larsson (2005) found that men have a more direct communication style and are more oriented towards technical matters in the workplace instead of focusing on relationships with colleagues. Similar to the romantic relationship analyses, the redundancy coefficient indicated that the set of male role norms explained a much larger percentage of variance in work relationship functioning for the Norwegian sample (53%) than for the U.S. (7%) or Turkish samples (12%). The magnitude of the relationship for Norwegian participants between male role norms and interpersonal interactions with colleagues again suggests the importance of gender egalitarianism in Norwegian society.

Although not the main purpose of the study, it was interesting to examine how the associations between masculinity ideology and relationship competencies differed by interpersonal context. Dailey and Rosenzweig (1988) reported that men’s sex-role self-perception varied as a function of contextual (work, social, sexual) demands. Deaux and Major (1987) suggested that men and women display gender-related behaviors as a function of their own beliefs about gender, the characteristics of the other person (target) in the interaction, and the characteristics of the interaction situation. Thus, men’s gendered normed behaviors might differ depending on whether the context was personal or work related and the gender of their interaction partners. Smiler and Kubotera (2010) reported men’s differing expectations of dating partners versus female work colleagues, and that this finding was more pronounced for men defined as more traditional, but their study did not address men’s own behaviors.

Norwegian and Turkish men had very similar patterns regardless of whether they were responding about romantic or coworker relationships. In contrast, the patterns of association for U.S. men differed by context. Antifemininity, in combination with lower endorsements of status, was associated with decreased interpersonal competencies in romantic relationships, but was associated with decreased competencies in work relationships only when toughness was also endorsed. Toughness was not associated with any of the interpersonal competency subscales in romantic contexts, but was for competencies in the workplace. Perhaps given the competitive nature of the U.S. workplace and the emphasis on success, endorsement of the toughness norm was more likely to be present in interactions with workplace colleagues. Future research should continue to examine the context of the interactions and specify the gender of the target in the interactions.

Implications

There is little empirical study of gender role influences on interpersonal interactions with work colleagues, and the current findings contribute to knowledge about how masculinity may affect men’s interpersonal relationships on the job. This information will be helpful for clinicians working within Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) or other types of human resources settings. EAPs benefit organizations when they improve interpersonal work relationships, promote more effective supervision, and foster employee morale (Warley, 2004). Discussing how aspects of masculinity ideology are related to poorer interpersonal competencies provides the opportunity to evaluate the cultural and personal meanings of masculinity and may result in improved work interactions.

Similarly, these findings will help men who present with relationship issues to consider the role of masculinity ideology in their interactions with their partners. Indeed, because work and family life interact, improvements in intimate relationships may result in improved work relationships also. EAP utilization reports show that the most common presenting problems are marital/family-related relationship concerns that create stress at work (Cope, Inc, n.d.; EAP Presenting Problems–2008, n.d.).

Masculinity was not associated with the same interpersonal variables across the three groups. This finding suggests that what are seen as appropriate ways for men to interact differs by the cultural values of that country. It is important that clinicians are able to incorporate cultural information when working with an increasingly globally diverse population. The extremely large amount of variance in the perceived interpersonal competencies of Norwegian men explained by masculinity ideology highlights the particular relevance gender equality has in relation to interpersonal interactions in Norway. Thus, discussions of gender role norms may be especially relevant when addressing interpersonal concerns with Norwegian men.

The unexpected findings indicating relationships between masculinity and both positive and negative aspects of relationships for Turkish men may underscore the role that collectivism plays in their cultural definition of masculinity. While masculinity is often linked with dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors, a cultural understanding of masculinity may suggest more positive relationships. This information could be relevant for Western individuals who travel to Turkey for business ventures or for Turkish men who work in the United States or other Western countries.

Limitations and Future Research

As with any research, the limitations should be noted. First, the Turkish men who participated in the study were significantly younger in age than the U.S. and Norwegian men. The age difference could affect the extent of their experiences in personal and work relationships, as well as the development of a masculine ideology (although post hoc analyses of correlations between age and the MRNS subscales indicated small r coefficients, ranging between .00 and –.02, .02 and –.18, and –.09 and –.25 for the Norwegian, Turkish, and U.S. men, respectively). Despite this age difference, the U.S. and Turkish men were very similar in their levels of endorsement of the male role norms scales. The Turkish participants were all currently enrolled as students, and their responses referred to their school colleagues as opposed to work colleagues. The construct of teamwork might have a different connotation in a school setting as opposed to a work setting.

Second, the same set of instruments was not used for all three samples. Due to differences in the time of data collection, the interpersonal competencies items were not administered to the Turkish men and the Norwegian men did not complete the relationship scale. This limits some of the cross-group comparisons. Despite these limitations, this study is one of the few to examine masculinity in men from different nationalities living in their home countries. Masculinity research has been criticized for its reliance on younger White American samples (Whorley & Addis, 2006; Wong, Steinfeldt, Speight, & Hickman, 2010), and this study sought to address this deficit. This study also examined the associations between masculinity and interpersonal competence, contributing to our understanding of how masculinity may be enacted across different cultures and in different interpersonal contexts.

An additional limitation is that participants were not asked to specify the gender of their coworker when responding to the interpersonal competencies questions. Prokos and Padavic (2002) investigated masculinity among police training academy cohorts and found that, in the presence of female recruits, men amplified their traditionally masculine traits due to feeling challenged by the presence of women training for work in a male-dominated field. Associations between masculinity and interpersonal interactions at work might differ based on coworker gender. Future research could address that issue. Data were self-report and participants responded with their perceived competence in a number of interpersonal situations. Without direct observation of these behaviors or data from additional sources, the accuracy of those perceptions is not known.

Finally, the Norwegian participants were restricted to those who were fluent in English and answered the questions in English, whereas the Turkish and U.S. men answered the questions in their native languages. Although the internal consistencies coefficients for the instruments were well within the expected ranges for the Norwegian participants, it is possible that they might have experienced language difficulties in responding to the questions.

Future studies can expand this study’s scope by including measures of cultural identity or collectivism that might influence the internalization of cultural definitions of masculinity. Especially in light of Turkey’s rapid cultural changes, examining differences in masculinity by age, educational level, or rural versus urban location might contribute to a greater understanding of how masculinity is culturally constructed.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Kristie Fleming-Norwood is now completing a postdoctoral experience at the Hampton VA Medical Center, Hampton, VA. We acknowledge Dr. Ayhan Demir for his assistance in collecting the data in Turkey.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abreu

J. M.

Goodyear

R. K.

Campos

Newcomb

M. D.

(2000). Ethnic belonging and traditional masculinity ideology among African Americans, European Americans, and Latinos. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1, 75-86.

APA Psychology Matters. (2006). When the boss is a woman. Psychology Matters. Retrieved October 19, 2008 from http://psychologymatters.org/womanboss.html

Aycan

(2004). Key success factors for women in management in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 453-477.

Aycan

(2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In Yang

K. S.

Hwang

K. K.

Kim

(Eds.), Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies: Empirical, philosophical, and cultural contributions (pp. 445-466). London: Cambridge University Press.

Aycan

Eskin

(2005). Childcare, spousal, and organizational support in predicting work-family conflict for females and males in dual-earner families with preschool children. Sex Roles, 53, 453-471.

Aylor

Dainton

(2004). Biological sex and psychological gender as predictors of routine and strategic relational maintenance. Sex Roles, 50, 689-697.

Blazina

Watkins

C. E.

(2000). Separation/individuation, parental attachment, and male gender role conflict: Attitudes towards the feminine and the fragile masculine self. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 126-132.

Bruch

M. A.

Berko

E. H.

Haase

R. F.

(1998). Shyness, masculine ideology, physical attractiveness, and emotional inexpressiveness: Testing a mediational model of men’s interpersonal competence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 84-97.

Buhrmester

Furman

Wittenberg

M. T.

Reis

H. T.

(1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991-1008.

10.

Burn

S. M.

Ward

A. Z.

(2005). Men’s conformity to traditional masculinity and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 254-263.

11.

Campbell

J. L.

Snow

B. M.

(1992). Gender role conflict and family environment as predictors of men’s marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 84-87.

12.

Çileli

(2000). Change in value orientations of Turkish youth from 1989 to 1995. Journal of Psychology, 134, 297-306.

13.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829-859.

14.

Cope

Inc

. (n.d.). Problems commonly addressed by the EAP. Retrieved from http://ohp.nasa.gov/cope2/problems.html

15.

Dailey

D. M.

Rosenzweig

(1988). Variations in men’s psychological sex role self-perceptions as a function of work, social, and sexual life roles. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 14, 225-240.

16.

Deaux

Major

(1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389.

17.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 542-575.

18.

Dökmen

Z. Y.

(1991). Bem Cinsiyet Rolü Envanterinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Reliability and validity studies of the Bem Sex Role Inventory]. Dil Tarih ve Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 81-89.

19.

Døving

(2006, September 14). Mannskap for likestilling [Male struggle for equality]. Aftenposten, p. C6.

20.

EAP Presenting Problems–2008. (n.d.). County of Santa Clara EAP presenting problem fact sheet. Retrieved from: http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/eap

21.

Emblem

Libaek

Stenersen

Syvertsen

(Eds.). (2006). Norge 2. Oslo, Norway: J. W. Cappelens Forlag.

22.

Fikret-Paşa

Kabasakal

Bodur

(2001). Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 559-589.

23.

Gerami

(2005). Islamist masculinity and Muslim masculinities. In Kimmel

M. S.

Hearn

Connell

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities (pp. 448-457). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

24.

Gopalan

Kavas

Nelson

(2005). Gaining a perspective on Turkish value orientations: Implications for expatriate managers. Journal of International Business Research, 4, 43-56.

25.

Halsaa

Predelli

L. N.

Thun

(2008). Women’s movements: Constructions of sisterhood, dispute and resonance: The case of Norway (FEMCIT Working Paper No. 4). Retrieved from Femcit website: http://www.femcit.org/files/WP4_WorkingpaperNo4.pdf

26.

Harris

Torres

J. B.

Allender

(1994). The responses of African American men to dominant norms of masculinity within the United States. Sex Roles, 31, 703-719.

27.

Hatty

S. E.

(2000). Masculinities, violence, and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

28.

Hausmann

Tyson

L. D.

Zahidi

(2009). The global gender gap report 2009. Retrieved from World Economic Forum website: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2009.pdf

29.

Hearn

Pringle

Müller

Olesky

Lattu

Chernova

. . .Tallberg

(2002). Critical studies on men in ten countries: (1) The state of academic research. Men and Masculinities, 4(4), 380-408.

30.

Heppner

M. J.

Heppner

P. P.

(2001). Addressing the implications of male socialization for career counseling. In Brooks

G. R.

Good

G. E.

(Eds.), The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A comprehensive guide to settings, problems, and treatment approaches, Vol. 1 & 2 (pp. 369-386). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Heppner

P. P.

Heppner

M. J.

(2008). The gender role conflict literature: Fruits of sustained commitment. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 455-461.

32.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

33.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

Holter

O. G.

Olsvik

(2000). Norway national report on research on men’s practices: Workpackage 1. Retrieved from Chrome EU Network at: http://www.cromenet.org/

35.

Hook

Gerstein

Detterich

Gridley

(2003). How close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(4), 462-472.

36.

Hui

C. H.

Triandis

H. C.

(1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 222-248.

37.

Ickes

(1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587-610.

38.

Imamoğlu

E. O.

(2003). Individuation and relatedness: Not opposing but distinct and complimentary. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129, 367-402.

39.

Imamoğlu

E. O.

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün

(2004). Self-construals and values in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130, 277-306.

40.

Johnson

M. D.

Cohan

C. L.

Davila

Lawrence

Rogge

R. D.

Karney

B. R.

. . .Bradbury

T. N.

(2005). Problem-solving skills and affective expressions as predictors of change in marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 15-27.

41.

Kağıtçıbaşı

(1987). Individual and group loyalties: Are they compatible? In Kağıtçıbaşı

(Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 94-103). Lisle, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlingler.

42.

Kağıtçıbaşı

(1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

43.

Kandiyoti

D. A.

(1987). Emancipated but unliberated? Reflections on the Turkish case. Feminist Studies, 13, 317-338.

44.

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün

(2004). Self, identity, and emotional well-being among Turkish university students. Journal of Psychology, 138, 457-478.

45.

Kringlen

(2005). A history of Norwegian psychiatry. History of Psychiatry, 15, 259-283.

46.

Kwintessential. (n.d.). Norway—Norwegian culture and etiquette. Retrieved from the Kwintessential website: http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/norway-country-profile.html

47.

Lamke

L. K.

Sollie

D. L.

Durbin

R. G.

Fitzpatrick

J. A.

(1994). Masculinity, femininity and relationship satisfaction: The mediating role of interpersonal competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 535-554.

48.

Laursen

Furman

Mooney

K. S.

(2006). Predicting interpersonal competence and self-worth from adolescent relationships and relationship networks: Variable-centered and person-centered perspectives. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 52, 572-600.

49.

Lawrence

Pederson

Bunde

Barry

R. A.

Brock

R. L.

Fazio

. . .Hunt

(2008). Objective ratings of relationship skills across multiple domains as predictors of marital satisfaction trajectories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 445-466.

50.

Lease

S. H.

Çiftçi

Demir

Boyraz

(2009). Structural validity of Turkish versions of the Gender Role Conflict Scale and Male Role Norms Scale. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 10, 273-287.

51.

Levant

R. F.

(1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology, 27, 259-265.

52.

Levant

R. F.

(2008). How do we understand masculinity? An editorial. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9, 104.

53.

Levant

R. F.

Cuthbert

Richmond

Sellers

Matveev

Mitina

. . .Heesacker

(2003). Masculinity ideology among Russian and U.S. young men and women and its relationship to unhealthy lifestyle habits among young Russian men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 26-36.

54.

Levant

R. F.

Graef

S. T.

Smalley

K. B.

Williams

McMillan

(2008). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent (MRNI-A). Thymos, Journal of Boyhood Studies, 2, 46-59.

55.

Lorber

(2007). “Night to his day”: The social construction of gender. In Rothenberg

P. S.

(Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study (7th ed., pp. 54-65). New York: Worth Publishers.

56.

Mahalik

J. R.

Lagan

H. D.

Morrison

J. A.

(2006). Health behaviors and masculinity in Kenyan and U.S. male college students. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 191-202.

57.

Mahalik

J. R.

Levi-Minzi

Walker

(2007). Masculinity and health behaviors in Australian men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 240-249.

58.

Martin

G. E.

Bergmann

T. J.

(1996). The dynamics of behavioral response to conflict in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 69, 377-388.

59.

Maxton

R. A.

(1994). How do men in mid-life conceptualize masculinity, and how do these conceptualizations related to intimacy? (Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, B4432.

60.

Mirgain

S. A.

Cordova

J. V.

(2007). Emotion skills and marital health: The association between observed and self-reported emotion skills, intimacy, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 26, 983-1009.

61.

Murray

(1998, April). Psychology just North of the Arctic Circle. APA Monitor, 29. Retrieved October 9, 2005 from http://www.apa.monitor/apr98/arctic.html

62.

Nilsson

Larsson

U. S.

(2005). Conceptions of gender: A study of female and male head nurses’ statements. Journal of Nursing Management, 13, 179-186.

63.

Olson

D. H.

Schaefer

M. T.

(1987). Personal assessment of intimacy in relationships. In Fredman

Sherman

(Eds.), Handbook of measurements for marriage and family therapy (pp. 201-213). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.

64.

Özkan

Lajunen

(2005). Masculinity, femininity and the Bem Sex Role Inventory in Turkey. Sex Roles, 52, 103-110.

65.

Pleck

J. H.

Sonenstein

F. L.

L. C.

(1993). Masculinity ideology and its correlates. In Oskamp

Constanzo

(Eds.), Gender issues in social psychology (pp. 85-110). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

66.

Prokos

Padavic

(2002). “There oughtta be a law against bitches”: Masculinity lessons in police academy training. Gender, Work, and Organization, 9, 439-459.

67.

Quek

K. M.

Knudson-Martin

(2006). A push toward equality: Processes among dual-career newlywed couples in collectivist culture. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 56-69.

68.

Riggio

R. E.

Lee

(2007). Emotional and interpersonal competencies and leader development. Human Resources Management Review, 17, 418-426.

69.

Sakallı

(2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44, 599-610.

70.

Sakallı-Uğurlu

Glick

(2003). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 296-302.

71.

Sakallı-Uğurlu

Yalçın

Z. S.

Glick

(2007). Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empathy as predictors of Turkish students’ attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 57, 889-895.

72.

Sanderson

C. A.

Karetsky

K. H.

(2002). The influence of intimacy goals on coping with conflict in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 323-343.

73.

Schaefer

M. T.

Olson

D. H.

(1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of Martial and Family Therapy, 7, 47-60.

74.

Sinn

J. S.

(1997). The predictive and discriminant validity of masculinity ideology. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 117-135.

75.

Skovholt

T. M.

(1990). Career themes in counseling and psychotherapy with men. In Moore

Leafgren

(Eds.), Problem solving strategies and interventions for men in conflict (pp. 39-53). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

76.

Smiler

A. P.

Kubotera

(2010). Instrumental or expressive? Heterosexual men’s expectations of women in two contexts. Men and Masculinities, 12, 565-574.

77.

Sperry

(1997). Leadership dynamics: Character and character structure in executives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 49, 268-280.

78.

Straits-Tröster

K. A.

Patterson

T. L.

Semple

S. J.

Temoshok

Roth

P. G.

McCutchan

J. A.

. . . Grant

(1994). The relationship between loneliness, interpersonal competence, and immunologic status in HIV-infected men. Psychology & Health, 9, 205-219.

79.

Tabak

(1997). Women’s upward mobility in manufacturing organizations in Istanbul: A glass ceiling initiative? Sex Roles, 36, 93-102.

80.

Taylor

Altman

(1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In Roloff

M. E.

Miller

G. R.

(Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 257-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

81.

Tezer

Demir

(2001). Conflict behaviors toward same-sex and opposite-sex peers among male and female late adolescence. Adolescence, 36, 525-533.

82.

Thompson

E. H.

Pleck

J. H.

(1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531-543.

83.

Thompson

E. H.

Pleck

J. H.

(1995). Masculine ideologies: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinities. In Levant

R. F.

Pollack

W. S.

(Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 129-163). New York: Basic Books.

84.

Warley

(2004). Assessment in an EAP setting: By more thoroughly assessing presenting problems and linking clients with appropriate resources, EA professional can greatly improve treatment outcomes and help demonstrate their value to work organizations. The Journal of Employee Assistance, January. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PLP/is_1_34/ai_n17206881/?tag=content;col1

85.

Wasti

S. A.

Bergman

M. E.

Glomb

T. M.

Drasgow

(2000). Test of the cross-cultural generalizability of a model of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 766-778.

86.

White

(2006). Towards an understanding of the relationship between work values and cultural orientations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25, 699-715.

87.

Whorley

Addis

(2006). Ten years of psychological research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant methodological trends. Sex Roles, 55(9), 649-658.

88.

Wong

Y. J.

Steinfeldt

J. A.

Speight

Q. L.

Hickman

S. J.

(2010). Content analysis of Psychology of Men & Masculinity (2000–2008). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 170-181.