See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221688078

Identifying, affirming, and building upon male strengths: The

Positive Psychology/Positive Masculinity model of psychotherapy
with boys and men

Article  in  Psychotherapy Theory Research Practice Training · September 2010

DOI: 10.1037/a0021159 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

149 7,781

2 authors:

Mark S. Kiselica Matt Englar-Carlson

Pennsylvania State University California State University, Fullerton
46 PUBLICATIONS   1,597 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   926 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Matt Englar-Carlson on 30 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training
2010, Vol. 47, No. 3, 276 –287
IDENTIFYING, AFFIRMING, AND BUILDING UPON MALE
STRENGTHS: THE POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY/POSITIVE
MASCULINITY MODEL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
WITH BOYS AND MEN
MARK S. KISELICA
The College of New Jersey
The bulk of the extant literature on the
psychology of boys, men and masculin-
ity has been focused on the important
challenges of: a) creating an awareness
about the detrimental effects of con-
stricted forms of masculinity on boys
and men and their relationships with
others; and b) developing remedial ap-
proaches to psychotherapy that are de-
signed to help boys and men recover
from dysfunctional masculinity. The
purpose of this article is to expand this
literature by introducing the positive
psychology/positive masculinity (PPPM)
framework, which emphasizes male
strengths as the starting point for psy-
chotherapy with boys and men. The
central principles of the PPPM
framework are described, and the ap-
plication of the PPPM model with an
adult man in psychotherapy is pre-
sented. The implications of the PPPM
model for future practice and re-
search pertaining to boys, men, and
masculinity are discussed.
Keywords: masculinity, men, psycho-
therapy
Mark S. Kiselica, Department of Counselor Education, The
College of New Jersey; and Matt Englar-Carlson, Department
of Counseling, California State University–Fullerton.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Mark S. Kiselica, PhD, Department of Counselor
Education, 332 Forcina Hall, The College of New Jersey, P.O.
Box 7718, Ewing, NJ 08628-0718. E-mail: kiselica@tcnj.edu
276
© 2010 American Psychological Association
0033-3204/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021159
MATT ENGLAR-CARLSON
California State University–Fullerton
Throughout the 1990s and the early years of
the 2000s, much of the literature pertaining to the
psychology of boys, men and masculinity was
dominated by “The New Psychology of Men.”
According to Levant and Pollack (1995), the
“new psychology of men” (NPM) provides “a
framework for a psychological approach to men
and masculinity that questions traditional norms
for the male role, such as the emphases on com-
petition, status, toughness, and emotional sto-
icism,” and “views certain male problems (such
as aggression and violence, homophobia, misog-
yny, detached fathering, and neglect of health) as
unfortunate but predictable results of the male
socialization process” (p. 1).
The architects and proponents of the NPM
model have made many timely and valuable con-
tributions to the science and practice of psychol-
ogy with boys and men. NPM scholars have: (a)
raised awareness about the harsh male socializa-
tion process (Levant, 1995; Pollack, 1995), the
“dark side of masculinity” (Brooks & Silverstein,
1995, p. 280), the gender-related adjustment dif-
ficulties of boys and men, and the harmful effects
of men’s sexism and homophobia (e.g., Brooks &
Silverstein, 1995); (b) developed and examined
important psychological constructs in men, such
as gender role conflict (e.g., O’Neil, 2008); and
(c) suggested numerous potential solutions and
psychological interventions for men’s problems
(e.g., Good & Sherrod, 2001; Levant, Halter,
Hayden, & Williams, 2009).
Although the NPM model has provided psy-
chology with a much-needed gender-sensitive
lens through which to view boys and men, the
model has largely emphasized deficit models of
male development and a remedial approach to
psychotherapy that is designed to help men re-
cover from the damaging effects of constricted
masculinity on themselves and others (see
Kiselica, in press). More recently, several schol-
ars (Kiselica, 2007, in press; Kiselica, Englar-

Carlson & Fisher, 2006; Kiselica, Englar-
Carlson, Horne & Fisher, 2008) have introduced
a new framework proposing a positive psychol-
ogy of boys and men, which accentuates positive
aspects of masculinity, male development, and
the male socialization process, and the applica-
tion of positive psychology principles in psycho-
therapy with boys and men. A goal of this frame-
work is to help boys and men to learn and
embrace healthy and constructive aspects of mas-
culinity. The purposes of this article are to illus-
trate this new approach to psychotherapy through
an application of the positive psychology/positive
masculinity (PPPM) model with a troubled man,
and to explain how the PPPM model can serve as
useful complement to the NPM model.
This article begins with an overview of the
PPPM framework. Drawing from the emerging
literature on the psychology of human strengths
(Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003) and positive psy-
chology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000;
Snyder & Lopez, 2007), we describe a positive
psychology model of boys, men and masculinity
that accentuates noble aspects of masculinity, in-
cluding the following: male relational styles;
male ways of caring; generative fatherhood; male
self-reliance; the worker-provider tradition of
men; male courage, daring and risk-taking; the
group orientation of boys and men; fraternal hu-
manitarian service; male forms of humor; and
male heroism. The application of the PPPM
model with an adult man in psychotherapy is
presented, and the implications of this model for
future practice and research pertaining to boys,
men, and masculinity are discussed. We conclude
this article by proposing how the PPPM frame-
work can complement the NPM model, thereby
recognizing the important contributions of each
model toward our understanding of masculinity
and boys and men and their development.
The Positive Psychology/Positive
Masculinity Framework
Historically, deficit models of psychology fo-
cused on understanding and treating psychopa-
thology have dominated the literature and prac-
tice of applied psychology. Although this
emphasis has provided psychologists with a great
deal of knowledge about what can go wrong with
people and how to help them with their adjust-
ment difficulties and symptoms, it has resulted in
little attention being devoted to the study and
Special Section: Positive Masculinity
promotion of “positive emotion, character
strengths, and human virtues” (Hogan, 2005, ¶ 2).
However, over the past several years, there has
been an increased interest in positive psychology,
which emphasizes the fostering of wellbeing and
resiliency in people. Although it is beyond the
scope of this article to provide in an in-depth
analysis of the positive psychology movement,
there are two central assumptions of the positive
psychology perspective that underlie our PPPM
framework, which considers the many beneficial
features of traditional masculinity. First, positive
psychology emphasizes the study of strengths
and virtue over disease, weakness, and damage.
Second, positive psychology is focused on build-
ing in people what is right rather than fixing what
is wrong (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Selig-
man & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
Consistent with a positive psychology perspec-
tive, Kiselica, Englar-Carlson and their col-
leagues (Kiselica, 2007, in press; Kiselica et al.,
2006; Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne, & Fisher,
2008) have proposed that studying male strengths
and promoting the following positive aspects of
traditional masculinity can enhance our understand-
ing of, and clinical work with, boys and men:
1. Male relational styles. Boys and men tend to
have fun and develop friendships and intimacy
with each other through shared activities (Buhrm-
ester, 1996; McNelles & Connolly, 1999), which
are often instrumental (Clinchy & Zimmerman,
1985; Surrey, 1985) and have a high action ori-
entation (Kiselica, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2006),
such as playing a sport or an electronic game, or
working together on a project.
2. Male ways of caring. In psychologically
healthy families and communities, boys and men
are raised with the expectation that they must
care for and protect their loved ones and friends
(Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne, & Fisher,
2008). They also demonstrate high levels of ac-
tion empathy, which is the ability to take action
based on how a person sees things from another’s
point of view (Levant, 1995).
3. Generative fatherhood. Men who are good
parents engage in positive father work, or gener-
ative fathering, which refers to the way a father
responds readily and consistently to his child’s
developmental needs over time with an eye to-
ward helping the next generation lead a better life
(Dollahite & Hawkins, 1998. Through generative
fathering, men foster the positive emotional, ed-
277
Kiselica and Englar-Carlson
ucational, intellectual, and social growth of their
children (see Kiselica, 2008).
4. Male self-reliance.Boys and men are social-
ized to use their own resources to confront life’s
challenges (Levant, 1995). A boy or man with a
healthy dose of self-reliance considers the input of
others with regard to problems, yet he remains “his
own man” and does not allow others to force their
decisions on him (Hernandez, 2002). At the same
time, he expresses his self-reliance in relation to
others, considering their needs and how he can
serve them (Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne, &
Fisher, 2008).
5. The worker/provider tradition of men. There
is a cultural expectation that a man will work, so
engaging in work helps a men to feel that he has
achieved one of society’s criteria for manhood (Sk-
ovholt, 1990). Earning an income through employ-
ment allows a man to fulfill his culturally prescribed
role as a provider for his loved ones (Bernard, 1981;
Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001; Loscocco, 2007).
In addition, work provides men with a sense of
purpose and meaning. For all of these reasons,
being a worker and a provider is a central compo-
nent of male identity and self-esteem (Axelrod,
2001; Heppner & Heppner, 2001).
6. Male courage, daring, and risk-taking. Boys
and men display many forms of daring, and the
courage they muster while taking worthwhile
risks—such as facing peril to protect others, com-
pleting dangerous but necessary jobs, or pushing
themselves to their limits during athletic
competitions—is admirable. Boys and men with
good judgment are able to distinguish between sen-
sible risks and foolhardy and reckless behaviors, the
latter of which they learn to avoid (Kiselica, Englar-
Carlson, Horne, & Fisher, 2008).
7. The group orientation of boys and men.
Boys and men are oriented toward banding together
to achieve a common purpose, and they have par-
ticipated in groups (e.g., athletic teams, Boy Scouts,
work crews, and social clubs) for centuries (An-
dronico, 1996). Research has shown that males
spend more time in coordinated group activity, and
females engage in longer episodes of dyadic inter-
action (Benenson, Apostoleris, & Parnass, 1997).
Baumeister (2007) also observed that if you look at
list of activities conducted in groups you are likely
to find things men tend to enjoy more than women.
Thus, it appears that boys and men tend to feel
comfortable in and value groups, which can provide
them with important sources of identity and com-
278
munity (Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne, & Fisher,
2008).
8. The humanitarian service of fraternal orga-
nizations. Throughout history, men have formed
humanitarian organizations, such as the Shriners
and 100 Black Men of America, whose primary
missions are to provide service to others through
benevolent activities. Involvement in male service
organizations such as these provides opportunities
and experiences for boys and men to develop social
interest, which can be defined as a sense of belong-
ing and participating with others for the common
good, and includes the notion of striving to make
the world a better place (Carlson, & Englar-Carlson,
2008).
9. Men’s use of humor. Many boys and men
use humor as a vehicle to attain intimacy
(Kiselica, 2003b), as a means of having fun and
creating happy experiences with other boys, as a
foundation for building and supporting a friend-
ship, as a way to demonstrate that they care about
others, and as a strategy to reduce tension and
manage conflicts (Kiselica, 2001). Also, research
indicates that boys and men use humor as a
healing and coping tool in times of stress and
illness (Brooks & Goldstein, 2001; Chapple &
Ziebland, 2004; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). Male
humor is often characterized by exchanges of
good-natured ribbing whereby boys and men
“bust each other’s butt,” and in the process, ex-
press a cloaked form of affection with each other
(Kiselica, 2010).
10. Male heroism. Throughout the ages, count-
less boys and men have exemplified the positive
qualities of traditional masculinity through their
heroic lives. Heroic boys and men use many or all
of the previously mentioned qualities to demon-
strate exceptional nobility in the way they lead
their lives, overcoming great obstacles and mak-
ing great contributions to others through extraor-
dinary efforts (Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne,
& Fisher, 2008). Heroic men include the monu-
mental male figures in history, such as Abraham
Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, and
Harvey Milk, or every day heroes, such as hard-
working, devoted fathers.
In a prior discussion of their PPPM model,
Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne, & Fisher (2008)
noted that the 10 male strengths listed above is a
representative rather than an exhaustive inven-
tory of male assets and that they overlap to some
degree. For example, certain forms of male risk-
taking, such as the history of men sacrificing their

lives to save loved ones from harm, are examples
of male caring. Furthermore, it is prudent to con-
sider how cultural and contextual factors may
influence the definition and development of male
strengths. For example, a man raised in a Cauca-
sian American culture may view male self-
reliance and autonomy as a strength, whereas a
man raised in a more collectivist environment
may see self-reliance as undermining of the com-
munity, and therefore place more value in fulfill-
ing collective obligations. Therefore, a sensitive
and flexible assessment of male strengths begins
with each male client clarifying his individual
and cultural definitions of male strengths.
Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne, & Fisher
(2008) also acknowledged that these 10 strengths
are social constructions. Furthermore, they are
neither male-specific (e.g., many women have
worker-provider roles) nor biologically deter-
mined (although they are influenced by biology).
However, boys and men are socialized to develop
and demonstrate these positive qualities and be-
haviors, which are then modeled for other boys
and men and passed down from generation to
generation through male-particular rituals and re-
sult in their being expressed in male-specific
ways (Pleban & Diez, 2007; Snarey, 1993;
Thomas, 1994). In other words, positive male
socialization teaches boys and men to express
these strengths in a manner that is different from
the way that girls and women express these at-
tributes. This positive male socialization process
is rarely discussed in the psychological literature
on boys, men, and masculinity, with the possible
exception of the generative fatherhood work,
which accentuates how fathers and grandfathers
care for the next generation and has found a niche
in the literature (see Brotherson & White, 2007;
Dollahite & Hawkins, 1998; Hawkins & Dolla-
hite, 1996). Because so much of the literature on
boys, men, and masculinity has been focused on
constricted masculinity and its harmful effects,
positive masculinity has been a largely untapped
resource. Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne, &
Fisher (2008) suggested that mental health pro-
fessionals can consider the characteristics of pos-
itive masculinity as building blocks for “promot-
ing wellness and honorable manhood” in boys
and men (p. 32).
The intentional focus on positive activities and
interventions has been shown to be effective for
increasing happiness and reducing depression
(see Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005 for
Special Section: Positive Masculinity
a review). In terms of clinical practice, the PPPM
model is aligned with theoretical traditions in
psychotherapy that have elevated the role of cli-
ent strengths and available resources as a focal
point of intervention (see Duncan, Miller, &
Sparks, 2004). Erickson (1954) used the term
utilization to note the importance of allowing
clients to use whatever strengths they brought
with them to therapy (e.g., their humor, interper-
sonal style, social relationships and networks,
work and life experiences), whether or not these
strengths were recognized by the client or others
as such. Utilization has become the cornerstone
of many solution-focused, constructivist, and nar-
rative therapies (Hoyt, 1998). From this perspec-
tive, psychotherapy becomes a place where only
not troubles are discussed, but where strengths
are discovered or remembered (Rashid, 2009).
It is important to note that the PPPM frame-
work does not suggest that other models or ap-
proaches to working with men are negative. Most
people naturally remember more negative expe-
riences and emotions than positive ones (Nesse,
1991). Rather, by accentuating the positive we
are helping boys and men shift their attention and
memory to the parts of themselves that are good,
creative, successful, kind, and capable. Further,
strengths can be used to help clients understand
their areas of growth. Encouragement skills can
be used to demonstrate genuine respect for and
confidence in men, to help male clients generate
alternatives for maladaptive beliefs, and con-
stantly focusing on progress and effort (Watts,
2000). This strategy means building “courage,”
and this emerges when men become aware of
their strengths, feel they belong, and have hope
(Carlson & Englar-Carlson, 2008). In the case
study that follows, we demonstrate how we uti-
lized our strength-based, positive masculinity
framework in our work with a client named Clif-
ford.1
Affirming and Promoting Positive
Masculinity With Clifford: A Case
Illustration of the PPPM Model
Clifford T., a 38-year-old Caucasian man with
a middle class background who was employed as
1
In keeping with ethical standards, we have changed the
names and key identifying information pertaining to the client
and his family to protect their privacy.
279
Kiselica and Englar-Carlson
a clerk in a hardware store, had been referred to
Dr. K., the senior author of this article, for psy-
chological services by a local minister, Fr. M.
Clifford had sought Fr. M.’s advice after a de-
moralizing course of psychotherapy with another
psychologist. Clifford had sought the services of
the other psychologist for help resolving conflicts
with his wife, Alice (age 37), and his daughter,
Elaine (age 16). Clifford reported to Fr M. that
the psychotherapy sessions with the other psy-
chologist had only made matters worse between
Clifford and his family. In addition, Clifford
complained that the prior psychologist “was hell
bent on pointing out everything wrong with me”
and “made me feel like I was a useless.” He
turned to Fr. M. in desperation, fearing that his
marriage and his family were about to fall apart.
Clifford knew that he and his family needed help,
but he no longer trusted mental health profession-
als. Recognizing that Clifford needed the assis-
tance of a professional who was competent at
working with men in psychotherapy, Fr. M. rec-
ommended that Clifford contact Dr. K. Although
Clifford was reluctant to do so because of his
upsetting experience with the prior psychologist,
he trusted Fr. M.’s judgment, and Fr. M. con-
vinced him to give Dr. K. a try.
During the first session with Clifford, Dr. K.
noticed that Clifford was extremely guarded and
suspicious. So, he immediately said to Clifford,
“Look Clifford, I realize you had a bad experi-
ence with the last psychologist you saw. So, tell
me what happened to you with him, and then tell
me whatever else might be on your mind.” Clif-
ford called his insurance provider and decided to
set up an appointment with a psychologist who
was an approved provider with the insurance
company. Although Clifford agreed to participate
in therapy for the sake of trying to help his
family, he immediately felt uncomfortable with
the first psychologist because “the guy didn’t talk
to me, and when he did speak up, he made these
little comments like ‘that’s interesting,’ and then
he didn’t say anything different to me until about
three sessions later, when he said that he had
completed his analysis of our family and had
decided that the whole root of our family prob-
lems was because I was ‘a typical man.’ He
accused me of not knowing how to show that I
cared for my family after my wife complained to
him that I am not romantic enough and my
daughter complained that I’m ‘always at work,’
and that my time at work is why I don’t know a
280
thing about her. He also said that I ‘feared inti-
macy’ because I liked to tell a joke here and there
when things got really tense, and then he told me
I was out of touch with my feelings and had to
work on that. When he said that crap to me, I was
through with him, and I never went back to him.
I know damn well how to care for my family, and
I certainly know what my feelings are! He really
got me pissed off by saying that bullshit to me!
And the whole time, he didn’t do a damn thing to
advise us about our daughter, and she continued
to stay out at all hours of the night, sneak drinks
with her friends, and talk snotty to me and her
mother. After going through that bullshit, I de-
cided I would never go to a shrink again. But Fr.
M. convinced me to give you a try, so that’s why
I’m here. But I’m not dragging my wife and kid
in here until I’m sure you’re the real deal that Fr.
M. says you are.”
After listening to Clifford, Dr. K. realized that
the first psychologist had made some crucial mis-
takes. First, he had failed to fit his psychotherapy
approach to Clifford’s male action orientation,
instead limiting himself to a passive, analytic
mode that made Clifford uncomfortable. Second,
the psychologist appeared to operate from a def-
icit perspective about men, which was conveyed
in a judgmental fashion through his comments
about Clifford being a typical man and not know-
ing how to show care for his family. Third, the
first psychologist demonstrated the common bi-
ased assumption among therapists that men are
hypoemotional (see Heesacker et al., 1999;
Vogel, Epting & Wester, 2003) by stating Clif-
ford was not in touch with his feelings, even
though that was not necessarily the case. Fourth,
he viewed Clifford’s use of humor as a dysfunc-
tional attempt to avoid intimacy, rather than re-
alizing that Clifford was actually trying to help
manage the tension in the family. Fifth, he had
made no effort to look for, affirm, and build upon
Clifford’s existing male strengths. In light of
these mistakes, it is not surprising Clifford felt
alienated.
Dr. K. thanked Clifford for sharing this story
and responded by saying, “I’m sorry you had
such a disappointing experience with the last
therapist. And I think it would be a good idea if
I told you a little about me and how I do things.
First, I promise not to mess with your head, and
I will tell you what’s on my mind as I am think-
ing it. That way you won’t be wondering what’s
going through my mind while you’re working

with me. Second, I promise to talk with you man
to man—so you can be straight with me and I will
be straight with you. Is that OK with you?”
“Sounds OK to me” was Clifford’s response.
Then, using male-friendly language, Dr. K.
replied, “Good, because I really want you and me
to be on the same team so we can get to working
on your family problems together.” These state-
ments established a friendly, active, and work-
oriented relationship that many men find appeal-
ing. Dr. K. then added, “So how about if you tell
me more about what’s happening between you
and your wife and your daughter.”
Clifford described in more detail the opposi-
tional-defiant behavior of Elaine and the associ-
ated arguments between him and Alice. Both
problems had steadily grown worse over the past
two years and he was fed up with all of the
fighting going on in his family. Clifford ex-
pressed his outrage that he had “to go through all
this stress” and that he deserved better because he
“worked hard to provide for my family and I
really want my wife and my kid and me to be
happy.” He was especially worried about Elaine
because he felt she was jeopardizing her future by
“getting involved with the wrong crowd.” He
shared an account of one particularly troubling
night during which he drove around for hours
until he found Elaine partying with some other
delinquent teens in a local park. After locating
her, he jumped out of his car and pushed his way
past two young men who threatened to “beat the
shit out of me” if he tried to remove his daughter.
Undaunted by their threats, Clifford grabbed his
intoxicated daughter, dragged her to his car, and
drove her home. Although he preferred to figure
out family problems on his own, he felt
“stumped” about how to get Elaine “back to
being a good kid again,” and he realized he
needed somebody to give him “some really use-
ful advice, not psychobabble” about how to han-
dle matters. He professed that he was “willing to
bust my ass” to help his family, adding, “I’ll do
whatever it takes.” Currently, he wanted to put
Elaine in a drug and alcohol rehab program, but
Alice opposed this move, preferring that they see
a family psychotherapist together. This particular
disagreement was just one of the many arguments
Clifford and Alice had about Elaine, and it
prompted their visits to the first psychologist.
Because the work with the first psychologist had
been so unsuccessful and his family situation had
continued to deteriorate, Clifford lamented, “I am
Special Section: Positive Masculinity
at my rope’s end” and “something has to give
soon or we all might lose it.”
Dr. K. made a mental note of Clifford’s many
male strengths, and he acknowledged these after
Clifford had finished telling his story. He told
Clifford how much he genuinely admired him for
all the ways he cared for his family, adding that
he noticed right away that Clifford was willing to
do anything for the sake of his family (Strength
2 – Male Ways of Caring). He empathized with
the frustration and fear Clifford felt with regard
to Elaine and her defiant and dangerous behavior,
and praised him for his courage for not only
finding her and standing up to the gang of delin-
quent youth in the park that night, but also for
coming to see two different psychologists for the
sake of his family (Strength 6: Male Courage,
Daring and Risk-Taking). “It takes real guts to do
what you’ve done, and you deserve a lot of credit
for your desire to be a good husband and to want
your daughter to have a successful future
(Strength 3: Generative Fathering).” He told Clif-
ford that he understood and respected his need to
be self-reliant (Strength 4: Male Self-Reliance),
and he assured Clifford that there are times when
even the most self-reliant of men need guidance
to handle challenges when they become over-
whelming. He concluded by stating he felt con-
fident the two of them could work together
(Strength 1: Male Style of Relating) to resolve
the issues between Clifford and Alice and Elaine,
and invited Clifford back for some follow-up
sessions, promising Clifford that they would
come up with a plan of action by the end of the
second session (Strength 2: Male Style of Relat-
ing). Clifford accepted this invitation, and left the
first session looking noticeably relieved and
hopeful.
Dr. K. opened the second session with a light
joke as he shook Clifford’s hand: “Well, I can see
I didn’t scare you off yet, but just give me a
chance, and in no time you’ll want to handle me
the same way you took care of those tough kids in
the park that night” (Strength 9: Male Humor).
Clifford reacted with a chuckle and then replied,
“That’s right Doc, I guess I’m gonna’ have to
kick your ass too!” Dr. K. and Clifford shared a
few more humorous exchanges, before Dr. K.
asked Clifford to give him an update on what had
occurred at home since the last session. Clifford
reported that things were still tense at home be-
cause Elaine was “moody and snotty to me and
my wife, just as she always is. And she tried her
281
Kiselica and Englar-Carlson
old tricks again one night, but I stopped her from
leaving the house, and she stormed back to her
room, screaming at me the whole time. Alice
started to cry, and the two of us complained to
each other about how we worry Elaine will never
change. But you know something, Doc— even
though that was a bad scene and it really pissed
me off, I felt a little better because I kinda felt
like I had you in my corner. Ever since we had
that first session, I just felt I had to do whatever
was necessary to take charge of the situation with
Elaine. And things just seem a little bit better.”
Dr. K. again praised Clifford for his swift action
with Elaine (Strength 2: Male Ways of Caring)
and his determination that he help her to become
a responsible, respectful person (Strength 3: Gen-
erative Fatherhood). He then asked Clifford if
they could strategize about the next steps they
should take together, and he asked Clifford if he
would be comfortable bringing Alice to the next
session so that the two of them could discuss
what they would like to do about Elaine. Dr. K.
also mentioned to Clifford that he had recalled
Clifford’s comment about Alice feeling he was
not romantic enough, and informed Clifford that
it would be necessary to hear all of Alice’s con-
cerns in order for him to be effective in helping
the entire family. Clifford agreed, again stating,
“I’ll do whatever it takes, Doc.”
At this moment, Dr. K. decided to switch top-
ics for a moment and asked Clifford to tell him
more about his job and the hours he puts in at
work. This request brought a smile to Clifford’s
face, and he proceeded to describe with pride his
duties at the hardware store, where he had devel-
oped quite a bit of expertise in many areas of
home repairs, especially regarding painting
projects (Strength 5: Male Worker/Provider Tra-
dition). He expressed joy at serving customers
and on keeping the painting department “in tip-
top shape.” He reported that he took advantage of
any opportunities to work overtime so that he
could “earn a few extra bucks to spend on my
family” (Strength 2: Male Ways of Caring;
Strength 5: Male Worker/Provider Tradition). Dr.
K. thanked Clifford for telling him more about
his work, and told Clifford that he reminded Dr.
K. of his own father, who had been a painter and
a hard worker, too. Dr. K. stated that he had a lot
of respect for his father and for Clifford because
they were everyday heroes who went about com-
pleting their duties without any fanfare (Strength
10: Male Heroism). This self-disclosure by Dr. K.
282
prompted Clifford to say, “I know a lot of good
guys like that Doc. A bunch of guys I know
recently got together to help this divorced woman
who had been stiffed by some bullshitting con
artist who promised to do all of these home
repairs for her, but then took off to Florida with
her money without ever doing the work. All of
the guys—a couple of carpenters, an electrician, a
plumber and me—we all pitched in to help her
out.” Dr. K. reacted by saying all of these men
deserved credit for their good deeds (Strength 8:
Male Humanitarian Service). He then told Clif-
ford that he noticed how proud and upbeat Clif-
ford appeared to be while talking about this ex-
perience with these other men, adding that he
wondered if it might be good for Clifford to be
around guys from time to time. Clifford agreed,
and said that he had once been on a bowling
team, but gave up participating on the team when
things got really bad with Elaine, feeling that he
had to stay at home to monitor her. Again, Dr. K.
praised Clifford for the sacrifices he made for his
family (Strength 2: Male Ways of Caring), while
affirming Clifford’s desire to be with other men
on the bowling team. The two of them agreed it
would be a good idea to make his return to the
team or some other type of regular activity with
other men another goal of therapy (Strength 7:
The Group Orientation of Men).
Sensing that he had fully earned Clifford’s
trust, Dr. K. decided to switch topics again, this
time focusing on some of the common gender
role conflicts that appeared to be present in Clif-
ford’s life. For example, Dr. K. talked with Clif-
ford about some of the marital and family prob-
lems that can occur when men place too much
emphasis on being a provider. The two men then
talked a bit about the stress a man can experience
when financial difficulties requiring the need for
additional income and demands from employers
to work extra hours can conflict with the needs of
family members for the man to be home more.
Dr. K. expressed his empathy to Clifford about
this conflict, admitting that he had experienced
the same dilemma at various times in his life. He
then asked Clifford if he would like help trying to
resolve this dilemma with Alice, and Clifford
agreed that would be a good idea. Clifford also
agreed with another suggestion offered by Dr.
K.—that it might be helpful to make a very
concerted effort to express affection to Alice so
that she can clearly see that he wants to be
considerate of her and her needs.

Dr. K. saw Clifford and his wife for seven
more sessions spread out over a 4-month period.
During that time, Dr. K. moved back and forth
between continuing his affirmation of Clifford’s
strengths, and helping Alice to express her needs
and encouraging the couple to address each oth-
er’s concerns. They both committed to employing
some child management principles with Elaine,
which included identifying and providing re-
wards to her for rule-abiding and respectful be-
havior, and consequences for delinquent actions.
Because they were working on helping Elaine
with a local therapist, rather than having Elaine
sent to a rehab center, Alice began to feel much
better and hopeful, so she fully invested herself in
the therapy. Gradually, the focus of therapy
shifted from the problems with Elaine to the
unmet needs of Alice and Clifford. Clifford made
consistent efforts to create more romantic mo-
ments with Alice and to spend three or four fewer
hours per week at work, and she supported his
return to the bowling team. When the couple
terminated counseling with Dr. K., Elaine was
still moody and at times snippy with her parents,
but her behavior had greatly improved so that
both parents were feeling less worried about her
future. In addition, Alice and Clifford felt more
united as parents, and this change had brought
them closer together. They agreed to return for
therapy should then ever need assistance again.
Case Discussion
This case illustrates the tremendous power of
affirming and building upon male strengths, and
the harm that can occur when these strengths are
ignored, dismissed, and invalidated. The first psy-
chologist that had worked with Clifford adhered
to a deficit perspective about the psychological
make-up of men, and these biases and the manner
in which he conveyed them to Clifford destroyed
any chances of forming a therapeutic alliance
with his client. By comparison, Dr. K. looked for
and found the healthy and adaptive male qualities
in Clifford, and using these as a starting point in
therapy, was able to form an instant connection
with Clifford, which then became the foundation
for all of the successes that followed. Dr. K.
encouraged Clifford to take pride in himself as a
man, and that helped Clifford to develop the
courage to invest himself in therapy, to look at
some of his male gender role conflicts, and to
take proactive steps in improving his relation-
Special Section: Positive Masculinity
ships with Alice and Elaine. Those efforts, com-
bined with the parent management training and
marital counseling, had positive, systemic ripple
effects for the family, as evidenced by the im-
provements that occurred in both the marital sub-
system, and between the parent and child sub-
systems in the family. In short, employing the
PPPM framework appeared to play a crucial role
in effecting a dramatic, positive turn-around for
Clifford and his family.
Implications for Practice and Research
We contend that positive masculinity should
be the central focus, rather than an afterthought,
of clinical practice and psychological research
pertaining to boys and men. Much more attention
should be focused on studying those aspects of
masculinity that are worthy of emulation
(Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, & Horne, 2008). In
addition, the teaching of positive masculinity in
psychoeducational groups and classes should be
an important form of primary prevention de-
signed to enhance the development of boys and
men. Furthermore, talking about masculine
strengths rather than deficits should be the start-
ing point of psychotherapy with boys and men.
We believe that the PPPM model complements
the NPM framework. Echoing the prior com-
ments of Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne and
Fisher (2008), we suggest that both models rep-
resent important perspectives regarding the psy-
chology of boys, men, and masculinity. The
PPPM framework provides investigators and
practitioners with a taxonomy of male strengths
to study in psychological research and to apply in
psychotherapy with boys and men. Several major
research projects examining psychological and
social service outreach work have demonstrated
that PPPM-type approaches are successful in es-
tablishing and maintaining rapport with hard-to-
reach populations of boys and men, such as ad-
olescent and young adult fathers. 2 Central
components of each of these projects included
identifying, confronting, and working to reduce
2
Citations for these projects include: Achatz &
MacAllum, 1994; Brown, 1990; Hendricks, 1988; Klinman,
Sander, Rosen, Longo, & Martinez, 1985; and Romo, Bel-
lamy & Coleman, 2004. Space limitations for this article
prevent us from providing an in-depth description and refer-
ences for these sources, but both are provided in Kiselica
(2008).
283
Kiselica and Englar-Carlson
and eliminate deficit and pejorative biases about
young fathers, looking for and affirming male
strengths, and delivering male-oriented services
(for a review of these studies, see Kiselica, 2008).
These prior findings lend empirical support to our
contention that the PPPM model has tremendous
potential as a rapport- and alliance-building
framework with boys and men in psychotherapy.
However, it is apparent that the PPPM model
does not provide a complete answer to our un-
derstanding of boys and men and their problems.
As Rashid (2009) noted, “a central premise of
any positive intervention is that we cannot under-
stand positives without comprehending nega-
tives” (p. 463). This is where we believe a bridge
between the PPPM model and NPM framework
can be made. The NPM framework has generated
a wide body of theoretical, anecdotal and empir-
ical information about the gender-related issues
of boys and men, such as gender role conflict,
homophobia, hyper-competitiveness, misogyny,
and reluctance to seek help for psychological
difficulties (for a pertinent review, see Englar-
Carlson, 2006). We recommend that psycholo-
gists and other mental health professionals know
the major assumptions of both models and apply
both in their work with boys and men.
Ideally, and as was illustrated in Dr. K.’s work
with Clifford, this merging of the two traditions
would involve using the PPPM model as a way to
join with men, and after it is clear that a strong
working alliance has been established, to gradu-
ally bridge to addressing the types of problems
that have been accentuated in the NPM model
with boys and men who show evidence of those
problems in their lives. Throughout this process,
the goal should be to identify and build upon
existing male strengths as a way to replace the
counterproductive male beliefs and behaviors
that are characteristic of constricted forms of
masculinity. As Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne,
& Fisher (2008) suggested, promoting the well-
being of boys and men involves helping them to
distinguish healthy forms of masculinity from
unhealthy ones by teaching them “noble forms of
masculinity while steering them away from tra-
ditional notions of masculinity that can do them
harm” (p. 32).
Dr. K.’s work with Clifford also illustrates that
the PPPM model can be integrated with other
theoretical approaches to help boys and men and
the significant people in their lives. For example,
Dr. K. melded the PPPM model with the family
284
systems model through his attempts to strengthen
the marital/parent subsystem, and with the behav-
ioral model through his teaching behavioral child
management techniques to Clifford and Alice.
The successful blending of these different models
with Clifford and Alice supports Englar-
Carlson’s (2006) suggestion that the effective-
ness of applying many different models of psy-
chotherapy with men can be enhanced when they
are delivered in a male-sensitive manner.
We recognize that the PPPM model is new and
requires further development, research, and re-
finement. In their separate critiques of the first
version of the PPPM model that was developed
by Kiselica et al. (2006); Wester (2006) and
Rochlen (2006) applauded the creation of the
model, stating that a positive framework for
studying, understanding, and helping boys and
men was long overdue, and that it has great
potential for clinical work with these populations.
However, both scholars noted that empirical sup-
port for the components of positive masculinity
suggested by Kiselica et al. (2006) was lacking.
They also recommended that a measure of posi-
tive masculinity based on the PPPM framework
be developed so that the construct could be mea-
sured in basic research studies. We add to this
latter suggestion the recommendation that the
results of such research should be compared with
the construct of positively valued masculinity,
which has been identified by Spence and her
colleagues (Spence, 1993; Spence, Helmreich &
Holohan, 1979) in their empirical investigations
regarding the multifactorial dimensions of gen-
der. In another critique of the PPPM framework,
which involved focus group interviews with a
culturally diverse group of elderly men who had
been identified as admired leaders and role mod-
els in their communities, the participants agreed
with all of the characteristics proposed by
Kiselica et al. (2006), but they also felt that three
other key components of positive masculinity
were missing: being a good husband, serving
one’s country, and demonstrating devotion to
God or one’s religious beliefs (Kiselica, 2009).
With regard to the latter, we wonder if the qual-
ities mentioned by these men represent a gener-
ational expression of values that were important
to men who were raised during the World War II
era, and that they may overlap with the construct
of humanitarian service that was mentioned ear-
lier. Clearly, all of these suggestions and issues
are worthy of future research.

The field also needs to devote more attention to
consider the benefits of a combining the PPPM
and NPM models, as we have proposed here.
Related to that idea, Stevens (2006) has designed
a model for psychotherapy that merges both per-
spectives and is consistent with our point of view.
Stevens (2006) proposed that acknowledging tra-
ditional male strengths can serve as an inroad to
addressing gender role conflicts and other detri-
mental effects of constricted masculinity. The
literature on psychotherapy with boys and men
could benefit from the publication of Stevens’
model and others like it.
In closing, we believe that the PPPM model is
an exciting new development in the psychology
of men and masculinity. At its core, the PPPM
model encourages clinicians to begin their work
with male clients by asking “what is right with
you as a man” (adapted from Rashid, 2009, p.
465). We encourage colleagues with an interest in
the subject to join in the growing movement to
develop and refine an approach to studying and
helping boys and men that is based on male
strengths.
References
ANDRONICO, M. P. (1996). Introduction. In M. P. An-
dronico (Ed.), Men in groups: Insights, interventions,
and psychoeducational work (pp. xvii – xxiv). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
ASPENWALL, L. G., & STAUDINGER, U. M. (2003). A
psychology of human strengths: Some central issues of
an emerging field. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M.
Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths:
Fundamental questions and future directions for a pos-
itive psychology (pp. 9 –22). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
AXELROD, S. D. (2001). The vital relationship between
work and masculinity: A psychoanalytic perspective.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 117–123.
BAUMEISTER, R. F. (2007, August). Is there anything good
about men? Invited address, Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
BENENSON, J. F., APOSTOLERIS, N. H., & PARNASS, J.
(1997). Age and sex differences in dyadic and group
interaction. Developmental Psychology, 33, 538 –543.
BERNARD, J. (1981). The good-provider role: Its rise and
fall. American Psychologist, 36, 1–12.
BROOKS, G. R., & SILVERSTEIN, L. B. (1995). Under-
standing the dark side of masculinity: An interactive
systems model. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.),
A new psychology of men (pp. 280 –333). New York:
Basic Books.
BROOKS, R., & GOLDSTEIN, S. (2001). Raising resilient
children. Chicago: Contemporary Books.
BROTHERSON, S. E., & WHITE, J. M. (Eds.). (2007). Why
father’s count: The importance of fathers and their in-
Special Section: Positive Masculinity
volvement with children. Harriman, TN: Men’s Studies
Press.
BUHRMESTER, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal
competence and the developmental contexts of early
adolescent friendship. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. New-
comb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep:
Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 158 –185).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
CARLSON, J. D., & ENGLAR-CARLSON, M. (2008). Adle-
rian therapy. In J. Frew & M. Spiegler (Eds.), Contem-
porary psychotherapies for a diverse world (pp. 93–140).
Boston: Lahaska Press.
CHAPPLE, A., & ZIEBLAND, S. (2004). The role of humor
for men with testicular cancer. Qualitative Health Re-
search, 14, 1123–1139.
CHRISTIANSEN, S., & PALKOVITZ, R. (2001). Why the
“good provider” role still matters: Providing as a form
of paternal involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 22,
84 –106.
CLINCHY, B., & ZIMMERMAN, C. (1985). Growing up
intellectually: Issues for college women. (Work In
Progress, No. 19). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College,
Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies.
DOLLAHITE, D. C., & HAWKINS, A. J. (1998). A concep-
tual ethic of generative fathering. The Journal of Men’s
Studies, 7, 109 –132.
DUNCAN, B. L., MILLER, S. D., & SPARKS, J. A. (2004).
The heroic client: A revolutionary way to improve effec-
tiveness through client-directed, outcome-informed ther-
apy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ENGLAR-CARLSON, M. (2006). Masculine norms and the
therapy process. In M. Englar-Carlson & M. S. Stevens
(Eds.), In the room with men: A casebook of therapeutic
change (pp. 13– 47). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
ERICKSON, M. H. (1954). Special techniques of brief psy-
chotherapy. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp-
nosis, 2, 109 –129.
GOOD, G. E., & SHERROD, N. B. (2001). Men’s problems
and effective treatments: Theory and empirical support.
In G. R. Brooks & G. E. Good (Eds.), The new hand-
book of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A
comprehensive guide to settings, problems, and treat-
ment approaches (pp. 22– 40). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
HAWKINS, A. J., & DOLLAHITE, D. C. (Eds.). (1996).
Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
HEESACKER, M., WESTER, S. R., VOGEL, D. L., WENTZEL,
J. T., GOODHOLM, JR., C. R., & MEJIA-MILLAN, C. M.
(1999). Gender based emotional stereotyping. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 46, 483– 495.
HEPPNER, M. J., & HEPPNER, P. P. (2001). Addressing the
implications of male socialization for career counseling.
In G. R. Brooks & G. E. Good (Eds.), The new hand-
book of psychotherapy and counseling with men (pp.
369 –386). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
HERNANDEZ, R. (2002). Fatherwork in the crossfire: Chi-
cano teen fathers struggling to take care of business.
(Report No. JSRI-WP-58). East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University, Julian Samora Research Institute.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. Ed. 471
926).
HOGAN, M. (2005). The way of the positive psychologists: A
285
Kiselica and Englar-Carlson
review of “An introduction to positive psychology” by
William C. Compton. PsychCRITIQUES, 50, No. 44, Ar-
ticle 2. Retrieved online at http://PsycINFO.apa.org/
psyccritiques/display/?artid!2005205012
HOYT, M. F. (1998). Introduction. In M. F. Hoyt (Ed.),
The handbook of constructive therapies (pp. 1–27). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
KISELICA, M. S. (2001). A male-friendly therapeutic pro-
cess with school-age boys. In G. R. Brooks and G.
Good (Eds.), The handbook of counseling and psycho-
therapy with men: A guide to settings and approaches.
(Vol. I; pp. 43–58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
KISELICA, M. S. (2003a). Male-sensitive counseling with
boys. Counselling in Education, 16 –19.
KISELICA, M. S. (2003b). Transforming psychotherapy in
order to succeed with boys: Male-friendly practices.
Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 59, 1225–
1236.
KISELICA, M. S. (2006, August). Contributions and limi-
tations of the deficit model of men. In M. S. Kiselica
(Chair), Toward a positive psychology of boys, men,
and masculinity. Symposium presented at the Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, New Orleans, LA.
KISELICA, M. S. (2007, March). Keynote address: A pos-
itive psychology of boys, men and masculinity: A
strength-based perspective on engaging males. Annual
conference of the American Men’s Studies Association,
Kansas City, MO.
KISELICA, M. S. (2008). When boys become parents: Ad-
olescent fatherhood in America. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
KISELICA, M. S. (2009). Positive masculinity: Viewpoints
from highly respected elderly, male models. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
KISELICA, M. S. (in press). Promoting positive masculin-
ity while addressing gender role conflicts: A balanced
approach to clinical work with boys and men. In C.
Blazina & D. S. Shen Miller (Eds.), An international
psychology of men: Theoretical advances, case studies,
and clinical innovation. New York: Routledge.
KISELICA, M. S., ENGLAR-CARLSON, M., & FISHER, M.
(2006, August). A positive psychology framework for
building upon male strengths. In M. S. Kiselica (Chair),
Toward a positive psychology of boys, men, and mas-
culinity. Symposium presented at the Annual Conven-
tion of the American Psychological Association, New
Orleans, LA.
KISELICA, M. S., ENGLAR-CARLSON, M., & HORNE, A. M.
(2008). Preface: The struggles and strengths of boys and
how we can help them. In M. S. Kiselica, M. Englar-
Carlson, & A. M. Horne (Eds.), Counseling troubled
boys: A guidebook for practitioners (pp. xi-xviii). New
York: Routledge.
KISELICA, M. S., ENGLAR-CARLSON, M., HORNE, A. M., &
FISHER, M. (2008). A positive psychology perspective
on helping boys. In M. S. Kiselica, M. Englar-Carlson,
& A. M. Horne (Eds.), Counseling troubled boys: A
guidebook for practitioners (pp. 31– 48). New York:
Routledge.
KISELICA, M. S. (2010, June). Accentuating positive mas-
culinity: A new foundation for psychotherapy with boys
and men. Keynote address, 2nd National Psychother-
apy with Men Conference, Austin, TX.
286
LEVANT, R. F. (1995). Toward the reconstruction of mas-
culinity. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new
psychology of men (pp. 229 –251). New York: Basic
Books.
LEVANT, R. F., HALTER, M. J., HAYDEN, E., & WILLIAMS,
C. (2009). The efficacy of Alexithymia Reduction
Treatment: A pilot study, Journal of Men’s Studies, 17,
75– 84.
LEVANT, R. F., & POLLACK, W. S. (1995). Introduction. In
R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology
of men (pp. 1– 8). New York: Basic Books.
LOSCOCCO, K. (2007). Gender patterns in provider role
attitudes and behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 28,
934 –954.
MCNELLES, L., & CONNOLLY, J. (1999). Intimacy between
adolescent friends: Age and gender differences in inti-
mate affect and intimate behaviors. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 9, 143–159.
NESSE, R. M. (1991). What good is feeling bad? The
Sciences, 31, 30 –37.
O’NEIL, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research
on men’s gender role conflict using the Gender Role
Conflict Scale: New research paradigms and clinical
implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 358 –
445.
PLEBAN, F. T., & DIEZ, K. S. (2007). Fathers as mentors:
Bridging the gap between generations. In S. E. Broth-
erson & J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count: The
importance of fathers and their involvement with chil-
dren (pp. 307–318). Harriman, TN.
POLLACK, W. S. (1995). No man is an island: Toward a
new psychoanalytic psychology of men. In R. F. Levant
& W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp.
33– 67). New York: Basic Books.
RASHID, T. (2009). Positive interventions in practice.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 461– 466.
ROCHLEN, A. (2006, August). Discussant’s comments. In
M. S. Kiselica (Chair), Toward a positive psychology of
boys, men, and masculinity. Symposium presented at
the Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, New Orleans, LA.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P., & CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (2000).
Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psy-
chologist, 55, 5–14.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P., STEEN, T. A., PARK, N., & PETERSON,
C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical valida-
tion of interventions. American Psychologist, 61, 615– 623.
SKOVHOLT, T. (1990). Career themes in counseling and
psychotherapy with men. In D. Moore & F. Leafgren
(Eds.), Men in conflict (pp. 39 –53). Alexandria, VA:
American Association for Counseling and Develop-
ment.
SNAREY, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next genera-
tion: A four-decade study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
SNYDER, C. R., & LOPEZ, S. J. (2007). Positive psychol-
ogy: The scientific and practical explorations of human
strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Inc.
SPENCE, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender
ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624 – 635.
SPENCE, J. T., HELMREICH, R. L., & HOLAHAN, C. K.
(1979). Negative and positive components of psycho-

logical masculinity and femininity and their relationship
to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–
1682.
STEVENS, M. A. (2006, August). Engaging men and psy-
chotherapy: Respect and challenge. In M. S. Kiselica
(Chair), Toward a positive psychology of boys, men,
and masculinity. Symposium presented at the Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, New Orleans, LA.
SURREY, J. L. (1985). Self-in-relation: A theory of wom-
en’s development. (Work In Progress, No. 13). Welles-
ley, MA: Wellesley College, Stone Center for Develop-
mental Services and Studies.
THOMAS, J. L. (1994). Older men as fathers and grand-
View publication stats
Special Section: Positive Masculinity
fathers. In E. H. Thompson (Ed.), Older men’s lives
(pp. 197–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
VOGEL, D. L., EPTING, F., & WESTER, S. R. (2003). Coun-
selors’ perceptions of female and male clients. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 81, 131–141.
WATTS, R. E. (2000). Entering the new millennium: Is
individual psychology still relevant? Journal of Individ-
ual Psychology, 56, 21–30.
WESTER, S. (2006, August). Discussant’s comments. In
M. S. Kiselica (Chair), Toward a positive psychology of
boys, men, and masculinity. Symposium presented at
the Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, New Orleans, LA.
WOLIN, S. J., & WOLIN, S. (1993). The resilient self. New
York: Villard.
287