The present study examined the extent to which youth who endorse emo subculture reject the traditional masculine norm of restrictive emotionality. It also examined the relationships between endorsement and rejection of emo subculture and traditional masculine and feminine norms and masculine gender role conflict. In Study 1 (N = 13) three focus groups were conducted to create the mixed methods Emo Culture Questionnaire (ECQ). In Study 2 (N = 164) exploratory factor analysis of the quantitative part of the ECQ resulted in a 15-item, 4-factor scale; however, due to low reliabilities, only two scales were used in the analyses. Three hypotheses were mostly supported. The endorsement of emo subculture by men was negatively associated with their Restrictive Emotionality subscale scores of both the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R) and Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS). The endorsement of emo subculture by women was negatively associated with their MRNI-R Restrictive Emotionality scores but was not positively associated their Femininity Ideology Scale (FIS) Emotionality scores. Negative views of the emo subculture by both men and women were positively correlated with their MRNI-R Restrictive Emotionality scores. An exploratory question found that the endorsement of emo subculture had significant negative correlations with three additional MRNI-R subscales and the total scale for men and with five MRNI-R subscales and the total scale for women. In addition, the endorsement of emo subculture had significant negative correlations with two FIS subscales, and with two additional GRCS subscales and the total scale for men. Qualitative results from the ECQ indicated that while the label “emo” may not function as a personal identifier, the music, fashion, and behavior thus identified remain popular.
Noah N. Allooh, Christina M. Rummell, and Ronald F. Levant
Ronald F. Levant, Stephen T. Graef, K. Bryant Smalley, Christine Williams, and Neil McMillan
Data were collected on samples of American (N = 172) and Scottish (N = 264) adolescents to evaluate the scale reliability and construct validity of an adolescent version of Levant et al.’s (1992) Male Role Norms Inventory. Results indicate that the MRNI-A showed good overall internal consistency for the scale as a whole in both samples; results for the subscales were less robust. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed with the U.S. sample. Results indicated adequate convergent validity for the MRNI-A for both boys and girls, and adequate discriminant validity for girls. Results for the discriminant validity of the MRNI-A for boys were not as conclusive. Consistent with research on adults, females in both samples endorsed less traditional views of masculinity than did males. Scottish adolescents endorsed less traditional views of masculinity than did Americans.
Judy Y. Chu, Murray Drummond, Peter Redman, Gary Alan Fine, Robert Morrell, Amanda Keddie, Neill Korobov, Diederik F. Janssen, Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli, Mary Jane Kehily, Sami Timimi, Murray Pomerance, and Ronald F. Levant
The following are responses to a request to the members of our editorial board and contributors to Thymos on the theme of the status of boyhood studies. The twelve contributions take quite different perspectives on the topic. They raise very different questions and present distinctive interests. All have trained their scholarly eye on what boyhood studies means today. Each points to an area of scholarly work that demands the attention of those of us interested in boyhood and the lives of boyhood—as we determine just what these notions mean. Suggestions for further reading offered by the contributors are given at the end (p. 147).