Gender Norms and Culture in Asian-Canadian Adolescent Boys’ Anticipating Dating Relationships

Abstract

Adolescent romantic experiences can have profound developmental significance and may be predictive of future romantic relationships. Despite such potential significance, little is known about the challenges that confront teenage boys when navigating dating relationships. The present study sought to understand how masculine gender norms influence boys’ attitudes and behaviors and the influence of cultural expectations as they anticipate prospective dating relationships. Focus-group discussions were held with adolescent boys (N = 23), ranging in age from 14 to 18 years, from a multicultural Canadian city. Grounded Theory methodology was used to analyze discussion responses. The Central Category of the grounded theory was Anticipating Getting Experience in Dating, while communicating and benefiting from relationships were subcategories. Masculine Gender Norms arose as the major Contextual Category. The findings demonstrate how these boys attempted to maintain a socially approved masculine status while coincidingly struggling with confidence and the demands of this status. Contextual factors involving peer expectations, social/digital media culture, multicultural context, and parents’ expectations additionally contribute to their navigational struggles. Implications for boys’ relational development, in light of masculine gender norms, are addressed. Interventions are suggested to support boys in their development of confidence in romantic communications.

The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence can be profound (Furman, 2002; Smiler & Heasley, 2016; Way, 2013). Adolescent romantic experiences are associated with a variety of psychosocial factors and outcomes, such as communication skills (Baker & Carreño, 2016), friendship quality (J. Connolly et al., 2000, 2004), relationships with parents (Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004), and future romantic relationships (Meier & Allen, 2009). Aversive dating trajectories have been associated with negative psychosocial outcomes, including internalizing and externalizing problems (J. Connolly et al., 2013) and higher rates of victim or perpetrator dating-violence experiences (J. A. Connolly & Josephson, 2007; Giordano et al., 2010; Haberyan & Kibler, 2008).

This paper contributes to an understanding of adolescent boys’ anticipation of navigating dating relationships. The majority of the current study’s participants were East-Asian boys living in a North American city, who enriched a grounded theory of rural Canadian boys’ personal relationship navigation (Dmytro et al., 2013) by considering them in their multicultural urban context. The navigational process of dating relationships is defined in this study as a set of procedural processes directed toward the formation of an intimate interpersonal relationship with a romantic interest that is influenced by the individual’s ecological environment. Although diverse theories have been proposed to guide research regarding adolescent relationships and the obstacles that accompany this aspect of development, and despite the potential developmental significance of adolescent romantic relationships, little is known about the specific concerns and conflicts that adolescent boys face in their anticipation of navigating dating relationships, or how they address these challenges (Berger et al., 2005; Collins et al., 2009; Volpe et al., 2014).

Cultural Influences

Cultural expectations and norms are socially prescribed to provide critical ideologies around social appropriateness. Bronfenbrenner (1977) designated these social influences as macro-influences. Research can examine adolescent boys’ anticipation and navigation of prospective romantic relationships within multicultural contexts to consider how cultural norms may influence this process. For instance, traditional Chinese culture expects men to provide for the family and continue the family lineage (G. Song & Hird, 2014; Zhou, 2006). Among other East-Asian cultures, Japanese masculine norms promote an idealized image of the “salaryman”—the white-collar man who thrives in the workplace and provides for the whole family—which pressures Japanese young men to pursue career goals and fulfill familial duties (Dasgupta, 2017). Such masculine gender norms as self-reliance, risk-taking, emotion control, and dominance, by contrast, predominate as adolescents in the West embark on dating relationships (De Meyer et al., 2017). Thus, the influence of Western adolescents’ desire for autonomy and Eastern adolescents’ recognition of familial obligations, respectively, can drive navigational differences in the way in which Western and Eastern adolescents anticipate and engage in dating and seek to achieve intimacy (J. Connolly et al., 2013; Li et al., 2010). Of note, Eastern adolescents typically anticipate engaging in dating at a later age than do Western adolescents (A. Cameron et al., 2017; Li et al., 2010). In East-Asian cultures, dating typically leads exclusively to marriage, placing potential significance on the onset of romantic involvement. Thus, Asian adolescents often delay their engagement in dating until they are considered more socioeconomically mature (Lau et al., 2009).

Theoretical Considerations

Gender norms significantly influence the cultural environment and development of many adolescents. Gender norms serve as “blueprints” for informal, implicit ideologies (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) and are socially prescribed, socially enforced, commonly accepted beliefs regarding which activities, behaviors, characteristics, and appearances are deemed culturally appropriate for boys and girls (Kane, 2012; Kirch, 2008). Western hegemonic masculinity norms, which are the main set of gender norms governing the behaviors of North American boys and men, are often centered around the avoidance of feminine attributes (Jackson & Bussey, 2020), and they promote traits such as emotional control, risk-taking, dominance, self-reliance, being a playboy, and disdain for homosexual orientations (Mahalik et al., 2003). Endorsement of such toxic masculine norms has been associated with numerous problematic relationship outcomes, including perpetration of teen dating violence, promiscuity, adversarial views of romantic relationships, and less intimacy with current partners (Reed et al., 2011; Seabrook et al., 2018). Despite continued efforts to reduce individuals’—and by extension, societies’—adherence to masculine gender norms, they remain widespread today (De Meyer et al., 2017).

Reconstructing Masculinity

Levant (1992) argued long ago for a progressivist reconstruction of Western masculinity that balances the valuable aspects of masculinity while helping men come to terms with certain negative aspects that call for change (Levant & Wong, 2013; Wimer & Levant, 2011). Levant listed several positive attributes of Western masculinity, including expressing love by doing things for others, thinking logically, relying on oneself, taking risks, and asserting oneself. He contrasted these with such harmful aspects as difficulties with identifying and expressing emotions, and tendencies toward anger and aggression. He argued that these attributes of masculinity need transformation in order to support a more positive model of hegemonic masculinity. Daloz (2011) extended the proposal for reconstruction of Western masculinity to involve a new kind of courage that is different from the bravery traditionally valued for men, and identified empathy, engagement with others, and acting for the common good, as the primary traits that need to be fostered to transform masculine norms to a gentler form of masculinity.

To support adolescent boys’ adoption of positive masculinities, O’Neil and Luján (2009) have expressly made a call to action for the development of psychoeducational programs that support boys’ development of positive relational skills. O’Neil and Lujan stressed the importance of acquiring healthy masculinity, which involves questioning toxic masculine norms. Tolman et al. (2004) suggested that certain sociological and psychological underpinnings of the investigation of masculinity lay the groundwork for understanding adolescent boys’ unique ways of navigating dating relationships. Despite increased encouragement for the adoption of non-gendered behaviors in popular media discourses (K. Y. Song & Velding, 2020), adolescent boys continue to feel pressured to conform to masculine gendered behaviors and to avoid feminine-type behaviors (Jackson & Bussey, 2020). Way (2013) has further highlighted the predicament that boys face when adhering to norms that require them to avoid disclosing vulnerabilities while concurrently desiring close, intimate relationships.

Discomfort in Communications

J. A. Connolly and McIsaac (2009, 2011) and J. Connolly et al. (2014) have advanced a promising Developmental-Contextual Theory as a framework for understanding adolescent romance that has been used by recent researchers of youth relationships. Their framework emphasizes the importance of both internal and external forces in the development of intimate relations. Internal, personal factors interact with the surrounding social environment to shape the development of dating relationships. Adolescent romantic relationships evolve within a basic context of guidance and constraints from external social forces in young people’s lives, including parents, relatives, peers, religion, and social media (Brown, 1999). Effective communication is identified as a critical component of adolescent romantic relationships, although research suggests that boys generally feel uncomfortable and lack confidence in their communications (C. A. Cameron et al., 2007; J. Connolly et al., 2014; Dmytro et al., 2013; Giordano et al., 2006; Rose et al., 2012). In part, this discomfort stems from coping with an influx of information from current social-media culture that hosts both potentially negative and positive influences that complicate comfortable communication (Barcelos & Rossi, 2014; Weinstein, 2018). In addition, although time spent using social media is associated with an increased number of online social network “friends,” it is not associated with increased offline social networks, and also fails to provide the physical intimacy identified with offline relationships (Pollet et al., 2011). Concerns about their social image, withholding vulnerable and personal disclosures, and struggling with confidence may silence boys from communicating freely with their peers and romantic interests. Relatedly, boys might struggle with open communication when trying to maintain a masculine image (Way, 2013) and communication is a key component of successful and healthy relationships (Eğeci & Gençöz, 2006; Meeks et al., 1998) and a necessary social skill for adolescents to develop.

The Present Study

The present study seeks to understand further: (1) how the adoption of masculine gender norms during adolescence influences Asian-Canadian boys’ attitudes and behaviors in their anticipation of navigating prospective dating relationships; and (2) the influence of cultural expectations and contexts on this contemplation process. A deeper understanding of how these adolescent boys conceptualize their approach to dating will advance theory in early adolescent relational development and contribute to improved psychoeducational interventions aimed toward supporting adolescent boys’ development of positive romantic relationships.

Method

As part of a larger program of research into adolescent romantic relationships, the current study used Grounded Theory methodology (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to organize and analyze focus-group discussions with adolescent boys, examining how they anticipate navigating romantic relationships. Grounded theories are derived inductively through the systematic and iterative process of data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2014) and have been applied extensively in recent years to explore a wide range of social processes (Merchant & Whiting, 2018; Novak et al., 2019; Walker & Myrick, 2006).

Participants

Participants were 23 adolescent cisgender boys enrolled in three neighboring high schools located in an urban multicultural city in Western Canada. Participants were recruited from psychology and social studies classes in schools that had expressed interest in participating in the research after university ethics and school board approvals were obtained. School principals, teachers, and counselors aided in the recruitment of students. Eligibility criteria included: high school students who self-identified as boys and provided both signed parental/guardian consent and participant assent forms. Students were offered a chance to win a gift card to a cinema for their participation.

Participants were in Grades 9 (n = 3), 10 (n = 9), 11 (n = 8), and 12 (n = 3), ranging from 14 to 18 years of age. The majority of the boys (78%) self-identified as having an Asian cultural background, indicating they were Chinese, Canadian-born Chinese, Taiwanese, Taiwanese-Canadian, Japanese-American, Korean, or Korean-Canadian. Three of the remaining four participants identified as Filipino, Filipino-Canadian, and Caribbean-Canadian, while one failed to answer this question. All but two of the boys self-identified as heterosexual. Of those latter two, one boy indicated he was bisexual and the second indicated that he was unsure of his sexual orientation. Regarding dating history, nearly half of participants (48%) reported never having been on a romantic date, 30% reported having had at least one romantic partner, and 22% reported having dated but not having had a romantic partner.

Procedure

Focus-group discussions were utilized to explore the boys’ anticipation of navigating dating relationships and the role of gender norms and culture in these processes. Charmaz (2014) has suggested that such discussions are particularly effective in eliciting participant interactions that expose subjective belief systems within the context of group norms. The interactive nature of focus groups allows researchers and participants to co-create meaning through the exploration of participants’ subjective realities. Prior to data collection, two 2-hr facilitator-training sessions were conducted, which involved discussions related to the goals of the study, trouble-shooting, research planning, and role-playing.

Data Collection

Focus group discussions were held during lunch breaks or outside school hours at the participating schools and were conducted by two university-student research-assistant facilitators, one man and one woman. The focus groups were comprised of two to six participants of various ages and levels of experience in dating relationships. The groups were arranged based on the students’ scheduling availability. Each focus group discussion lasted 50 to 60 min. The facilitators audio-recorded the discussions and transcribed each session shortly afterward.

Six focus group discussions were held. Sessions began with a brief description of the purpose of the study, a discussion to mutually determine guidelines addressing confidentiality and respectful listening, and an icebreaker in the form of a brief dating relationship skit. Discussion questions were developed based on recommendations of Charmaz (2014) and Vaughn et al. (1996). The first line of questioning was designed to elicit participants’ answers to the first research question, which sought to understand boys’ anticipation of navigational processes in dating relationships. For example, “Tell me about a situation that you or a guy you know has gone through in a romantic relationship,” was posed to students and followed with probes such as “What was that like?” A second line of questioning elicited participants’ perceptions of the influence that gender norms exert on relationship navigation. For example, “How do you think guys handle X (i.e., a particular issue that adolescents have) compared to how girls handle it?” Demographic information about participants (i.e., grade, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and general dating history) was collected by written self-report at the end of the focus-group session.

To advance the emerging grounded theory derived from the focus-group discussions, member-check follow-up sessions were conducted 1 month after the initial sessions. One follow-up discussion was held at each of the participating schools; sessions included all participants who had expressed interest in further participation in the study (N = 16). The demographics and format were similar to the initial discussions, beginning with questions regarding issues that boys anticipate facing in romantic relationships, followed by questions about their perceptions of gendered expectations. Additional questions were posed to elicit information from emerging categories in the preliminary analysis of the findings from the first discussions.

Methodological Rigor

Methodological or rich rigor, a criterion for ensuring qualitative research integrity (Tracy, 2010), was established through researcher journaling, including reflections, field notes, memos, and diagrams. Field notes were used to document observations during discussion sessions, such as the researchers’ impressions of the session, group dynamics, and contextual information respecting each session. During data analysis, memos and diagrams were used to capture the occurrence of abstractions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Two team members reviewed transcriptions for accuracy before coding. Four team members and their research supervisor met weekly to discuss data analysis developments, reviewing all codes, and if disagreements arose, the issues were debated and new or amended codes were determined. Additionally, the follow-up sessions confirmed and further developed concepts and categories that had emerged in the initial sessions.

Data Analysis

Within a social construction framework (Charmaz, 2014), the analysis included coding, memo writing, diagraming, and obtaining additional data. Open coding to identify conceptual categories consisted of line-by-line transcriptions recorded in Word documents. Codes determined at this step of analysis were “low-level” restatements or summaries of what the researcher believed the participant was expressing, for example, “believing that girls can be hurt or upset by guys’ actions easily” (i.e., “overly sensitive girlfriend”). Open coding continued with determining higher-level conceptual labels by grouping together low-level codes that demonstrated the same subject or process. In some cases, codes were grouped under more than one concept.

Similar concepts were merged into categories, for example, “Social/Digital Media Culture.” In grounded theory, axial coding utilizes inductive and deductive reasoning to relate thematic categories to one another. Here, axial coding was used to identify relationships among these categories. The final step of the analysis involved selective coding to identify the central phenomenon and to determine the relationships between it and other categories. Through the analysis outlined above and the use of analytical tools recommended by Corbin and Strauss (2008), a grounded theory was developed of the social processes that these adolescent boys described during their reports of anticipating navigating prospective romantic relationships.

Results

The grounded theory revealed a central category of Anticipating Getting Experience in Dating with “short-term gain” as a primary goal. Two subcategories of this phenomenon and its processes, Communicating and Benefiting from Relationships, were priorities in terms of the central category. Contextual categories of macro to micro-processes were identified as underlying the boys’ anticipation of getting experience in dating: First, Masculine Gender Norms, and then, Struggling to be Confident, Social/Digital Media Culture, Multicultural Context,2cii Parents’ Expectations, and Peers’ Perceptions.

Central Category: Anticipating Getting Experience in Dating

The main phenomenon of “anticipating getting experience” meant becoming prepared for serious relationships in adulthood and building confidence in the context of dating. One Grade 9 boy described boys’ primary goal of early dating to be for “short-term gain.” Anticipating getting experience in dating was qualified by the boys’ desire to prepare for the future, and gain confidence, while anticipating engagement in short-term relationships, with a recognition of boys gendered unfair advantage in dating. The goal of getting experience is to become more mature and confident in preparation for future serious, romantic relationships:

If you meet the girl you really like, you don’t want to have like no experience dating, right? Cause later on when you are really serious about like finding a wife, settling down, you need to have good experience in dating to know how girls work or how to, you know, act properly (Grade 9).

There was an expectation of having a serious relationship only in the future when the boys were mature and established. Some said this might occur during post-secondary education. The boys anticipated their relationships to be short-term and casual. They emphasized putting minimal effort into romantic relationships, saying that they often come to an end when problems arise because “The chase is better than the reward.”

The boys were aware of the gendered double standard that getting dating experience in high school is more expected for boys than it is for girls. Some boys experienced encouragement from their parents to get a girlfriend, even boys who were not expressing interest in pursuing a relationship themselves. The boys discussed how this is often not the case for girls:

“I know a lot of parents who are a lot more strict about the girl because they feel like they need to protect them, more than they need to protect their sons” (Grade 11).

Subcategories in Anticipating Gaining Experience

Subcategory 1: Communicating

Individual/Gendered Communication Differences

Some participants suggested that individual variations in personality contributes to differences in communication style between individuals more than does gender: “I don’t think there’s a big difference between guys and girls reading and sending messages [on social media]. I think it’s more [about] personality types” (Grade 12). However, gender and communication were discussed more frequently than individual communication differences. The boys who detected gender differences in communication attributed them to the influence of biological sex rather than the impact of socialization. Boys and girls communicate in contrasting ways, with boys communicating directly and girls communicating indirectly: “. . .a lot of guys, like we need it straightforward right? But girls will try to like hint at it and then guys. . . don’t get it” (Grade 11). Furthermore, while the participants indicated that boys tend to avoid awkward or difficult discussion topics, such as personal disagreements about intimacy or concerns about the relationship, girls seem more comfortable discussing these topics: “Guys just, in general, don’t like talking about that sort of stuff. . . girls tend to like talking about that stuff” (Grade 11). The participants believed that boys prefer not to talk a lot, whereas girls enjoy talking, emphasizing that girls also seem to have an advantage in formulating their thoughts clearly before speaking: “A lot of times girls are one or two steps ahead of the guy. When they’re arguing they know what they’re going to say” (Grade 11).

Subcategory 2. Benefiting From Relationships

Rewarding feelings such as physical and sexual comfort were benefits of dating anticipated by the boys. These benefits drove the desire to initiate a relationship but were unsustainable as they were thought to last only through the beginning of the relationship (referred to as a “honeymoon period”).

The boys noted that a beneficial aspect of relationships involves receiving intimacy and support through having someone with whom to trust and disclose personal feelings. As an older boy asserted, “[Boys] want to be able to sit with [their partner] and say, ‘I feel insecure about my job or my school or our relationship or my friends.’”

Contextual Conditions

Contextual conditions are the environmental factors that influence situations, circumstances, problems, and responses (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Six contextual conditions (i.e., Masculine Gender Norms, Struggling to be Confident, Peer Perceptions, Multicultural Context, Parental Expectations, and Social/Digital Media Culture) were identified as influencing the boys’ anticipation of navigating dating relationships, with masculine gender norms as the core contextual condition. Contextual conditions ranged from macro-level dynamics within their social and cultural circles (i.e., masculine gender norms) to micro-level interactions with others (i.e., peer’s perceptions). These pan-sociocultural contextual conditions often intermingled, forming complex dating environments for the boys.

Masculine Gender Norms

Many issues participants anticipate facing in their dating navigations intersect with masculine gender norms. Some participants indicated they were not trying to conform to masculine or feminine gender norms. For example, a Grade 9 boy said the following:

It doesn’t really matter if you are a guy or girl, as long as you can. . . as long as you are sure that you can be successful. I don’t think that the guys should always be, like I guess more in power in economics, academics, things like that.

However, most admitted complying with gender norms to some extent. For example, boys’ needing to build confidence was a frequent discussion topic and related to the participants’ beliefs that boys are expected to be the initiators of dating relationships. They also believed that boys are expected to pay for dates and consequentially indicated that they sensed peer pressure to appear capable of eventually earning wealth and a respectable career, in order to provide for a family.

Struggling to be Confident

The boys reported being keenly aware of gender norms which stipulate that men should appear confident. The boys discussed other traits typically associated with confidence, such as being “outspoken,” “strong,” “capable,” “able to deal with everything,” “wealthy,” and “muscular.” One Grade 11 boy believed that having all of these traits would make a man confident: “If you have all that stuff going for you, obviously you’re confident. You’re loaded and you’rejacked.” The boys frequently spoke indirectly about confidence through related issues such as anxiety, fear of rejection, and insecurity. These boys revealed that they struggled to be confident, and that this struggle influenced all aspects of their prospective dating navigations.

Lack of confidence in communication was identified as a significant source of struggle that the boys faced in anticipating romantic relationships as explained by a Grade 11 boy, “The big, like, blank check to cover everyone is communication and confidence, ‘cause they’re both lacking.” Traits the boys associated with Western society’s normative view of a man suggested that men are expected not to be relationally communicative (i.e., less communicatively sophisticated, mask feelings, and appear to be able to handle everything independently). The boys’ belief that men lack communication skills compared to women had a significant impact on the boys’ ambivalence in daily communications, especially in romantic relationships.

Peers’ Perceptions

Many boys’ felt the need to have a partner or expected that they would have one, and “it’s mainly pressure that keeps them [the boys] going on their relationship or its pressure that they want to get [a relationship].” Peer perceptions also created expectations of social changes happening when they did enter a relationship, such as increased social status, “I think it’s also a bit of a social standing, like oh yeah, I’m dating this hot chick . . . I mean, you’d respect someone more . . . who’s like got a good catch basically, right?” (Grade 9), or public teasing, “When you have a girlfriend. . . basically everyone is like, ‘Oh, oh’. . . they [those in the relationship] always feel kind of shy” (Grade 10). The social expectations reinforced by peers influenced the positive and negative perspectives on engaging in dating that the boys shared.

Multicultural Context

Within their multicultural context, the boys were differentially impacted by the cultural composition of their schools. Some participants stated that while their school is multicultural, the students tend to socialize within their own cultural groups. In discussion, it appeared common for relationships to occur between teens of similar cultures. This did not appear to be a result of “want[ing] a certain race for a partner” but rather, “how many people they know and interact with” (Grade 11 boy). Several boys explained that “specific Asian groups or white groups: They’re more comfortable talking to each other within their own language rather than English” and that often led to social/cultural separation based on ethnic background.

Parental Expectations

Parents significantly influenced boys’ expectations of whom, when, and how dating relationships should proceed. This influence was especially powerful among the 78% of participants of Asian descent, whose parents frequently supported their youth’s academic success while disparaging any potential dating in secondary school: “For Asians, you’re technically not supposed to date in high school because it apparently interferes with your study” (Grade 10). However, when there was pressure from parents to date, it was often with a familial intent to prepare their sons’ to “continue the bloodline,” (Grade 10) or to find an appropriate wife: “When their children have a relationship with . . . a girl that doesn’t like to study, the parents get worried about their future so they . . . like try everything they can do to break them apart” (Grade 11).

Several participants attributed their parent’s expectations to their varying levels of their acculturation, as some parents’ expectations are based on their traditional cultural beliefs while others’ may have conformed to more Western values: “I’m Japanese, but I know in a lot of Japanese families they don’t like their kids dating, but if your parents are more influenced by this North American culture of dating in high school then I think I think they’d support it” (Grade 10) and, “I know some people, even though they are like first generation immigrants, they’re still relatively Canadian just ‘cause their parents really wanted to become kind of typical Canadian” (Grade 11).

Social/Digital Media Culture

The impact of social media and texting (i.e., digital media) on teen’s lives was clearly expressed. As one boy in Grade 10 said, “. . .right now, we’re in a texting culture where we’re constantly texting in class, [and on] breaks.” Another boy referred to his peers as “the Facebook generation” because it was so common to interact electronically. Their discussions revealed an enormous paradox that adolescents face: social and digital media connect individuals more than ever, while simultaneously creating disconnection.

Positive Aspects of Social/Digital Media

Generally, the boys reported the benefits of social media and texting to decreasing anxiety when communicating with romantic interests. The use of social or digital media was said to reduce the awkwardness of face-to-face interactions with a new romantic interest; and rejection was assumed to be easier to handle virtually. Electronic communication was also discussed as a vehicle to increase comfort with communication by giving boys increased responding time and control in the presentation of their self-image. For example, a Grade 12 boy described how teens use social media to confront a romantic partner while downplaying the severity of the emotion one may feel: “If they have an issue with [something], they won’t actually confront the person, they’ll just message them, ‘Hey, what was that about? Oh really? Okay.. . . Loses the actual jealousy and it comes off as casual.”

Negative Aspects of Social/Digital Media

A main concern with using social and digital media was the potential for miscommunication, such as difficulties interpreting the true emotions and intent of the person sending a message. Electronic communication was also thought to create a sense of disconnection through a lack of authentic communication. One boy expressed his mixed feelings about electronic communication: “[Technology] makes [communication] short. I don’t enjoy it. I think people lose their connection with other people. . . but it’s convenient.” The omnipresence of social media and its interconnection between online and physical self-image exacerbated the boys’ challenges with personal representation.

Discussion

The present study articulates a grounded theory of categories describing Asian-Canadian adolescent boys’ psychosocial processes in anticipating navigating dating, with emphasis on the role of gender norms and cultural expectations and highlighting a range of concerns and contradictions surrounding romantic intimacy that these adolescent boys addressed. To our knowledge, no previous research has examined the perspectives of predominately Asian-Canadian adolescents as they contemplate dating relationships. This grounded theory enriches current understanding by confirming Connolly and McIsaac’s (2009) Developmental Contextual Theory, in the boys’ emphasis on the importance of personal and digital communications and in the guidance of parents, peers, and society in anticipation of navigating dating relationships. With the majority of participants being East-Asian boys living in Canada, the current study enriched a grounded theory of rural Canadian boys’ personal relationship navigation (Dmytro et al., 2013) by considering them in a multicultural context. This grounded theory instantiates the importance of addressing contextual factors in understanding boys’ anticipation of dating engagement. Further, Levant (1992), Daloz (2011), and O’Neil and Luján’s (2009) perspectives on the importance of transforming traditional masculine ideologies into more contemporary, positive perspectives on masculinity deserve support in assisting boys to navigate dating with confidence.

Anticipating Getting Experience in Dating was identified as the primary psychosocial process involved in these adolescents’ approach to dating relationships in high school. Anticipating, rather than engaging, in dating reflected the multicultural composition of these focus groups, where Asian adolescents are more likely to delay dating engagement in comparison to Western mainstream adolescents (Lau et al., 2009). From a strengths-based approach, these boys’ anticipation of getting experience may assist them in managing their future relationships more competently, as they reflect self-awareness in their need for relational skill development. Furman et al. (2007) noted that dating requires youth to have experience navigating relationships to pursue future healthy romantic relationships. Thus, the finding that boys want to gain dating experience seems understandable. Bearing in mind that almost half of the boys in the present study had not yet been on a romantic date, this finding also potentially indicates that some of the boys, having voiced interest in engaging in the discussion, may have participated in this study in order to learn more about navigating dating relationships.

Omnipresent hegemonic masculinities are deeply embedded people’s thinking of what is “common sense” and often inequalities in gender relations go unquestioned as a result. For both boys and girls, hegemonic masculinities permeate expectations and navigations of dating by legitimizing gender inequality (Messerschmidt, 2019). As part of the central category of Anticipating Getting Experience in Dating, the boys suggested that males have an unfair advantage over females in gaining experience in the dating arena, consistent with the findings of Luft et al. (2012), who reported that the girls in their study believed that “society is still in a sense sort of ruled by men” (p. 265). For example, some boys in the current study said they were encouraged by their parents to gain experience in dating, whereas similar engagement by their sisters or other girls would typically be discouraged. Moreover, adolescent boys’ expectations of short-term and casual relationships, which have also been reported in the previous literature, point to a gendered difference compared to girls’ expectations of longer, more serious relationships (Shulman et al., 2009). Boys’ unwillingness to stay in a relationship that requires awkward compromises could relate to having minimal experience and confidence in negotiating conflicts and communicating openly.

Two significant subcategories in Anticipating Getting Experience in Dating emerged: Communicating and Benefiting from Relationships. Communication was perceived as a challenge due to a lack of confidence in communication skills, gendered communication differences, and miscommunication through virtual interactions, or lack of communication altogether. Corresponding with extensive previous findings (C. A. Cameron et al., 2007; Dmytro et al., 2013; Giordano et al., 2006; Rose et al., 2012), the boys emphasized feeling uncomfortable in their communications with romantic interests. Indeed, communication difficulties often stem from lack of confidence (Giordano et al., 2006). The boys demonstrated that perceived gendered communication differences pose challenges in their communications with girls. Due to differences in socialization beginning at infancy, boys’ and girls’ communication styles indeed differ. Marston (2004) proposed that the context of a conversation can influence what is deemed an appropriate response for the respective genders and this can lead to communication differences. These differences can then create barriers for effective communication between genders (Marston, 2004; Tannen, 2005). Regardless of the obstacles, the boys articulated the importance of communication in navigating dating relationships.

The grounded theory emerging from this study identifies additional important contextual factors influencing how boys anticipate navigating dating relationships, with masculine gender norms being inherent in all the identified psychosocial contextual processes. Gender norms reinforce a systemic inequality through a hegemonic hierarchy that favors masculinity over femininity, and challenges girls, boys, and gender minorities in their authentic self-expression. However, gender norms are not inflexible, they bend under social pressure and through personal choices of the individuals who may choose noncompliance over conformity (Heise et al., 2019). Previous studies have associated the endorsement of toxic masculine gender norms with a number of dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors for boys, such as less favorable attitudes toward seeking help (Coleman, 2015; Karakis & Levant, 2012; Levant & Wong, 2013; Wimer & Levant, 2011), and negative outcomes in romantic relationships (Burn & Ward, 2005; Danube et al., 2014; Reed et al., 2011). Aspects of Western masculinity such as self-reliance, restrictive emotionality, and risk-taking are applicable to narratives found in many of the current grounded theoretical categories (Mahalik et al., 2003). Aspects of East-Asian masculinity, particularly Chinese and Japanese masculinity, such as perceiving pressure to appear capable of eventually succeeding in obtaining wealth and a respectable career (i.e., similar to the concept of chenggong) were also found in the current grounded theoretical categories (Dasgupta, 2017; Liu, 2019). The boys said they did not actively resist masculine gender norms, although they were aware of and questioned them. Further, some Western masculine gender norms contradict East-Asian cultural expectations for boys. For example, in traditional East-Asian culture, school is the main priority for boys (Lau et al., 2009), while North American culture promotes socializing as a priority for teen boys (Tolman et al., 2004). In addition, several parents expected the boys to prioritize academic success over personal relationships. Some parents expected their boys to date with the intent of gaining experience, and this was met with the qualification that the girl should also prioritize academic success. Taken together, these findings suggest that boys may be often confronted with opposing masculine normative expectations and they anticipate challenges in navigating these complexities. These dual expectations may have influenced the boys to be more critical of dating expectations in North America.

Given the potentially detrimental effects that endorsement of toxic masculine gender norms can have (Hegarty et al., 2018; Reed et al., 2011), the present findings call for increased support for boys to reinforce their recognition of toxic masculine norms and to promote active efforts to resist these prescribed narratives, as well as increase their confidence to divert from these norms. We echo O’Neil and Luján’s (2009) call to action for the development of psychoeducational programs that support boys’ development of positive relational skills and stress the importance of questioning and challenging toxic masculine norms.

Furthermore, the focused discussions revealed cultural influences on the boy’s conceptions of intimate relational processes. In traditional East-Asian cultures, as are represented by the majority in this sample, excelling in academics is expected to be a top priority for these boys (Way et al., 2013), with dating being a diversion from that purpose (Lau et al., 2009). Further, dating leading to marriage is the most desirable outcome in traditional Asian cultures (Lau et al., 2009). However, North American dating culture also impacts these boys. A recent survey by the Angus Reid Institute found 53% of Canadians feel marriage is unnecessary (Angus Reid Institute, 2018). With traditional East-Asian and North American dating cultures significantly differing in leniency, the presence of North American dating culture can influence the boy’s acculturation to it. East-Asian adolescents’ desire to have romantic relationships is comparable to that of their Western peers (J. Connolly et al., 2014), despite typically engaging in dating at a later age than their Western peers (A. Cameron et al., 2017; Feldman & Rosenthal, 1991). By being immersed in North American dating culture and masculine gender norms, the boys expressed both a desire for and reservations about dating engagement.

Unanticipated by the researchers, the influences of social and digital media emerged as a significant contextual condition. These data were gathered before the pandemic. Reflecting on today’s digital culture, the boys discussed the intense impact that social and digital media have on their experiences of face-to-face socialization, stating that they and their peers are incessantly texting at school, including while in class. Peers’ perceptions are omnipresent as is the pressure to engage in romantic relationships. Incessant engagement in online interfaces has clearly impacted how youth socialize: From 2000 to 2014, the number of teens who reported “hanging out” with their friends everyday declined by 50% (Twenge, 2017). Digital communication holds a strong potential for the miscommunication that the boys indicated, as the lack of emotional and facial cues that characterizes digital communication can cause communication difficulties. Adolescents in previous studies have identified declines in face-to-face communication as problematic as well, providing statements that showcase a desire to connect with peers in a deeper way that does not often occur online (Twenge, 2017).

Exacerbating the situation is the heightened tendency for adolescents to rely on digital communication as compared with young adults (De-Sola Gutiérrez et al., 2016). However, online communication is not all negative, as previous research showed text-based communication to be more beneficial to self-esteem than face-to-face communication (Gonzales, 2014). As noted by the boys in this study, being able to text a romantic interest can also decrease anxiety surrounding the response they receive and gives the individual more control over their self-image. Although the boys provided these examples as benefits to digital communication, it could be hypothesized that the dependence on controlling one’s self-image and the ability to craft the “perfect response” may actually inhibit the development of confidence in face-to-face relations. Future research is recommended to examine this relationship more closely.

Limitations and Strengths

The current study has certain limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. Most of the boys were recruited from high school social studies and psychology classes and may be more aware of their own psychological needs than teens in the general population. Additionally, focus-groups with peers of differing ages may have influenced some respondents to present themselves in a socially favorable way and/or to not fully disclose their thoughts and opinions. Despite these possible limitations, several methodological strengths can be identified: The present study was conducted in an urban, multicultural Canadian community, thereby addressing a gap in the literature regarding dating relationships of urban adolescents in Canada. Secondly, enrollment in psychology courses might not have been a limiting factor. Due to the nature of the discipline, psychology students may be more attuned, curious, and willing to discuss human behavior, meaning that the participants may be stronger coherent than other boys in articulating the issues that adolescents face.

Future Directions and Implications

Future research is called for in several areas. Currently in preparation is a second manuscript based on the current dataset detailing the multiplicity of procedural processes in these boys’ romantic negotiations. Further research implications require a larger-scale study with a more diverse group of adolescent boys, including boys who are not heterosexual or cisgender, involving same-grade focus groups and individual interviews to extend the grounded theory that was developed in the current study. More research exploring girls’ navigation of romantic relationships is needed to compare and contrast girls’ processes with those of boys and to explore the asymmetries experienced in romantic adolescent relationships. Finally, youth in non-heterosexual relationships and youth identifying as nonbinary need to be included in considerations of adolescent romantic development.

Regarding practical implications, the present study points to two specific areas for potential intervention. First, the boys explicitly called for support in developing effective communication skills, both in synchronous, face-to-face encounters and in asynchronous, digital, and social media, to alleviate miscommunications. Furthermore, and in association, the boys asserted that their lack of confidence in communications would negatively impact their ability to initiate and engage in dating relationships. Thus, communication interventions should be designed to boost adolescents’ confidence such that their new communications skills could be seen to be efficacious in supporting healthy relationship outcomes. These communication interventions could be available in digital forms through websites or apps and co-designed with adolescents themselves. Verbal and social interaction practice activities could be outlined on these platforms for facilitation in-person and useful communication tips from-youth-to-youth could be provided for digital intervention. Where boys struggle to maintain masculine gender norms, another implication of this research could lend to encouraging boys to revise their definitions of masculinity by embracing intimacy and viewing girls as more similar to, than different from, themselves. In the words of one participant, “The big blank check to cover everyone is communication and confidence ‘cause they’re both lacking.”