affected by their male reference groups. According to Male Reference Group Identity Dependence (MRGID), differences in the ways that men define the characteristics of what it means to be male are formed in relation to their male reference group (Wade, 2014). The theory consists of four postulates of male reference group dependency statuses.
Postulate One states that “males identify with other males to the extent that they feel psychological relatedness to a particular group of males or type of males, or to all males” (Wade, 2014, p. 90). This postulate consists of three male reference group dependency statuses: No Reference Group, Reference Group Dependent, and Reference Group Non-dependent. In the no reference group status, boys feel no connection to any group or type of boys. Boys in the reference group dependent status feel connected to or identify with a specific group or characteristic type of boys. Boys in the reference group non-dependent status feel connected to or identify in a universalistic way with all boys.
Postulate Two states that the three levels of reference group dependency are related to three levels of ego identity. An undifferentiated or unintegrated identity is associated with the no reference group status. The conformist ego is associated with the reference group dependent status. The integrated identity is associated with the reference group non-dependent status.
Postulate Three states that “feelings of psychological relatedness to other males are associated with how males use reference groups for their gender role self-concept” (Wade, 2014, p. 90). The gender role status of boys in the no reference group status is undefined due to their lack of psychological relatedness ←65 | 66→to other males. The gender role status of boys in the reference group dependent status is dependent on the male reference group. The gender role status of boys in the reference group non-dependent status is not dependent on a male reference group due to having formed their own understandings (Wade, 2014).
According to Postulate Four, “how males use reference groups for their gender role self-concept is related to their gender-related attitudes and the quality of their gender role experiences” (Wade, 2014, p. 90). Boys in the no reference group status typically experience confusion, anxiety, and insecurity in their gender roles. Boys in the reference group dependent status are likely to keep strict adherence to gender roles, stereotypes, and attitudes; and have limited gender role experiences, behaviors, and in-group distinctions. Boys in the reference group non-dependent status experience gender role characteristics that are flexible, diverse, and unlimited.
Regarding peer groups, MRGID theory suggests that boys in the no reference group status have a greater likelihood of suffering from psychological distress. Boys who feel different or isolated from other boys have an increased likelihood of experiencing anxiety, depression, internal conflict, or confusion. Boys in the non-reference group dependent status, the model identity, generally feel comfortable with themselves as boys. Boys in the reference group dependent status also generally feel comfortable with themselves as boys, but that comfort may be less stable. They are likely to feel most at ease around boys who are like them. And they will need their male friends with them to feel at their most socially competent and comfortable in social situations.
It is typical for boys to be in the reference group dependent status. Thus, boys need to be guided into positive male reference groups that support them, and away from unhealthy ones. This is important because unhealthy peer groups (those involved in drug abuse, rejecting academics, engaging in violence or delinquency) can be attractive to young Black males by providing a strong sense of belongingness and identity. In many instances, a boys’ reference group may reject larger cultural norms. Boys need to be shown they share common characteristics with peers who are not involved in unhealthy and high-risk social behavior. For example, he may be musically talented but involved in a gang, and need to be shown other musically talented, non-gang affiliated boys who are benefiting from that identity (Wade, 2014). This requires that parents monitor their children’s whereabouts and know their friends. Typically, Black mothers engage in more child monitoring than Black fathers (Bulanda, 2010). Both mothers and fathers and other family associates must be strategic about shaping their sons’ reference groups.
Black Males’ Moral Development
A central issue to Black manhood is Black males’ values and morality. Wood and Hilton (2013) developed a non-linear, multidimensional conceptual model of Black male moral development. The model represents a continual cycle of moral development throughout Black males’ lives, with five stages: moral externality, moral experiment, moral consequence, moral negotiation, and moral internality. Wood and Hilton (2013) note that individuals will transition from self-centered perceptions of morality and a lack of social consciousness toward a morality of critique and a morality of Black community. The transition is influenced by Black culture and morality, identities (racial and gender), and the influence of stereotypical depictions of Black males as amoral and immoral (Wood & Hilton, 2013). Moral externality refers to the external regulation or moral norms and behaviors by authority figures such as family, community, and peers. In the moral experiment stage, individuals engage in a range of behaviors with a range of moral implications (e.g., partying, womanizing, restricting feelings). Directly connected to the previous stage, the moral consequence stage is when individuals develop their capacity to judge and evaluate the consequences of their moral choices and behaviors. In the moral negotiation stage, individuals question and negotiate their identities as a moral beings, along with identities as Black and male. In ←66 | 67→the final stage, moral internality, an individual’s revised moral identity is internalized. Wood and Hilton (2013) propose that this model be used to help understand Black male moral behavior and identity. The model may also be useful in the development of programs, interventions, and rites of passage that involve Black male moral development.
Black Male Gender Role Balance
The fundamental gender role conflict between Afrocentric and Euro-American (Eurocentric) cultures is that Afrocentric culture compels Black men to be cooperative and to work in the interest of the collective good, while Euro-American culture stresses individual success and economic achievement (Wester et al., 2006). However, Black males have never been aligned, in a general sense, with Euro-American manhood. According to Franklin (1994), Black men have been historically chided for not being competitive, aggressive, and emotionally stoic enough. According to Belgrave and Brevard (2015), as compared to other racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., African American male youth are more likely to hold gender role beliefs that have been referred to as androgynous (both masculine and feminine) from a Eurocentric perspective. It must be noted that these gender role beliefs are described as androgynous only when Euro-American manhood ideals are defined as the standard for manhood. For example, some studies show that African American men are more likely to engage in housekeeping and childcare as compared to White men (Willinger, 1993). Additionally, although prosocial behavior (behaviors intended to help others) is usually higher among girls, McMahon, Wernsman, and Parnes (2006) conducted a study which found African American boys engaged in more prosocial behavior than African American girls. While girls typically engage in more relational aggression (bullying or harming others by damaging their relationships), and boys tend to engage in more physical aggression, Sullivan, Helms, Kliewer, and Goodman (2010) found no difference in relational aggression among fifth- and eighth-grade boys as compared to same-grade girls in a predominantly African American sample. Although boys typically engage in more overt aggression, Esposito (2007) conducted a study that found no difference in overt aggression between participating African American boys and girls.
Black males have never fit cleanly within Eurocentric or Western notions of manhood and masculinity. These differences are in large part explained by parental socialization (Belgrave & Brevard, 2015). Mandara, Murray, et al. (2011) found that boys and girls living in homes without their fathers tend to have similar gender roles. One explanation is that boys in father-absent homes may be more likely to assume certain household responsibilities such as caring for a sibling, preparing meals, and responsibilities that emphasize nurturing. However, boys may also be encouraged to stand up for themselves and assume characteristics such as independence, assertiveness, and control. It must also be noted that males in father-present homes have
