Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Men Masc. 2021 Oct;22(4):844–849. doi: 10.1037/men0000342

Incarcerated Black Men’s Restrictive Emotionality: The Influence of Parental Closeness and Childhood Abuse

Shemeka Thorpe 1, Candice N Hargons 1, Jardin N Dogan 1, Shawndaya Thrasher 2, Danelle Stevens-Watkins 1
PMCID: PMC8664071  NIHMSID: NIHMS1725619  PMID: 34899074

Abstract

Black men are often socialized to limit their emotional expression, which can lead to negative relationships and emotional health outcomes. Yet, little is known about how childhood experiences influence their emotional restrictiveness in adulthood. This study examined the relationship between parental closeness, childhood abuse, and restricted emotionality among 183 Black incarcerated men nearing release. Findings conclude men who reported having a closer relationship with their parents had lower emotional restrictiveness than men who did not. Men who reported childhood sexual abuse by two people reported more restricted emotionality than their non-abused counterparts. Implications for programming, intervention and prevention strategies are discussed.

Public Significance Statement

The present study suggests childhood abuse, specifically sexual abuse by multiple individuals, is an important risk factor for restrictive emotionality among Black incarcerated men. Additionally, this study highlights the importance of close supportive relationships, particularly with parents, as factors to consider for prevention and intervention approaches, and correctional strategies to foster emotional wellness for this population.

Keywords: Childhood abuse, Black men, incarceration, parental closeness, restricted emotionality

Black men are often socialized to limit their emotional expression, which can lead to relationship issues and negative emotional health outcomes. Yet, little is known about how childhood experiences influence their emotional restrictiveness in adulthood. A key feature of traditional masculinity ideology is emotional restrictiveness, or the avoidance of expressing and displaying emotions in certain situations (O’Neil, 1986). This construct presumes that traditional male culture socializes men to place limitations on whether and how one expresses emotions (Collins, 2004; Connell, 1987; Jackson, 2018). Parents are primary socialization agents; both mothers and fathers have been shown to talk more with their daughters than their sons about emotions (Fivush et al., 2000), specifically encouraging Black boys to adhere to traditional masculinity of being “tough” and invulnerable (Howard, Rose, & Barbarin, 2013).

Differences in messages about emotionality can have lasting, negative consequences such as violence to resolve conflict or substance use to cope with emotional distress (Mercurio, 2003), which increases the likelihood of incarceration for Black men (Laws, 2019). Endorsement of traditional masculinity has been associated with an increased likelihood of being arrested and detained (Stuart & Benezra, 2018). Additionally, experiences of physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse in childhood can also lead to emotional suppression, fears of vulnerability, and sexual risk-taking (DiIorio et al., 2002; Payne et al., 2015). Restricted emotionality, particularly with limited parental support, can lead to maladaptive coping behaviors and may contribute to criminal recidivism (Day, 2009). Thus, the purpose of the current study is to assess the relationship between parental closeness, child abuse, and emotional restrictiveness among an understudied population of incarcerated Black men nearing community re-entry. Findings can inform interventions that will address the systemic, personal, and familial experiences of incarcerated Black men nearing community re-entry.

Literature Review

Among Black men, emotional restrictiveness may be a protective strategy to mask painful feelings and control perceptions of themselves to avoid stereotypes of anger and violence. As a part of racial socialization of Black boys, maintaining calm or cool in the face of danger – from police or community members – is a valued cultural attribute and an assumed safeguard (hooks, 2004; Jeffries, 2011; Majors & Billson, 1993). However, a recent meta-analysis exploring the relationship between Black men and trauma suggests nearly 75% of Black men have either experienced and/or witnessed a traumatic event (Motley & Banks, 2018). Black men’s response to traumatic events has important implications for their psychological and relational health (Motley & Banks, 2018). Research suggests some Black men’s emotional restrictiveness in response to trauma and stressful events may hinder their ability to develop and maintain familial and romantic relationships (Singletary, 2020).

An individual’s emotional reaction to stressful events can be gleaned from their attachment style with caregivers (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Within an attachment theory framework, closeness with and ability to rely upon parental figures establishes secure attachment (Bowlby, 1973). Adverse childhood experiences, such as child abuse, would likely disrupt the attachment bond and increase the likelihood of an insecure attachment (Alexander, 1992; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Riggs, Cusimano, & Benson, 2011). In particular, the avoidant/dismissive attachment style is most aligned with an emotionally restrictive presentation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, p. 25). However, less investigated are the influences of parental factors (i.e., parental closeness) and childhood abuse (i.e., sexual, emotional, and physical abuse) on Black men’s emotional restrictiveness.

For incarcerated Black men, who are disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice system before entering adulthood (The Sentencing Project, 2017), it is important to understand the familial context as correlates of emotional restrictiveness. Incarceration can cause significant family disruptions and opportunities for attachment and bonding with parents (Arditti, Lambert-Sthute, & Joest, 2003), especially among those who were incarcerated as juveniles. Parental closeness during childhood can inform their attachment style, with more closeness being associated with secure attachment, emotional competence, and better psychosocial adjustment in adulthood (Kumar & Mattanah, 2016). On the contrary, traumatic experiences such as childhood abuse can lead to negative physical and mental health outcomes and maladaptive coping behaviors (Kendall-Tackett, 2002). Among young Black men, childhood abuse has also been linked to delinquency (Kang & Burton, 2014), which increases their odds of arrest and recidivism. Therefore, we seek to examine how parental closeness and childhood abuse may be associated with to restricted emotionality among incarcerated Black men. We hypothesized that men that were incarcerated as a juvenile would not report close relationships with their parents and higher restrictive emotionality. Participants who report close relationships with their parents would have lower mean restrictive emotionality scores than men who did not. Further, men who experienced childhood abuse would report more restricted emotionality than those who were not abused.

Methods

Participants & Procedures

The current paper uses data from a larger study examining drug misuse among incarcerated African American men nearing re-entry. Participants were recruited from four prisons (minimum to maximum security) across Kentucky. For more details on study recruitment and procedures, see Wheeler et al. (2018). The overall sample size was (N=208). This study was limited to participants who reported sexual intercourse in their lifetime because the emotional restrictiveness scale contains questions about emotional responses during sexual intercourse (N=199). This study was also limited to participants who reported only being attracted to females because a critical review of the literature found that there were no studies on childhood sexual abuse among heterosexual Black men (Bowleg et al., 2017) (N=188). Once we excluded participants who had missing data on the emotional restrictiveness subscale, we had a final analytic sample of N=183. Participants were incarcerated for drug charges (46.3%), robbery/burglary (22.8%), assault/rape (12.2%), probation violations (10.6%), and weapons charges (8.5%). Participants were between the ages of 19-66, with an average of 35.19 years old. Most participants were single/never married (63.9%) and had been incarcerated before the age of 18 (62.3%). Participants reported being closer to their mom (77%) than their father (39.3%) and participants experienced emotional abuse (25%) compared to physical (17.4%) or sexual abuse (11.9%); see Table 1. This study was approved by the Kentucky Department of Corrections Research Ethics Committee and the university’s Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from each participant. Participants were compensated $25 on their prison accounts to complete the study.

Table 1.

Demographics, Parental Closeness, and Childhood Abuse (N=183)

N (%) M ± SD (Min, Max)
 
Age 35.19 ± 10.02 (19-66)
Years of education 11.52 ± 1.89 (0-16)
Emotional Restrictiveness 31.42 ± 13.94 (10-60)
Single/Never married 117 (63.9)
Legally/Common law marriage 29 (15.9)
Incarcerated before age 18 114 (62.3)
Close with mother 141 (77.0)
Close with father 72 (39.3)
Parental Emotional abuse
 None 108 (75.0)
 Father only 16 (11.1)
 Mother only 11 (7.6)
 Both parents 9 (6.3)
Parental Physical abuse
 None 119 (82.6)
 Father only 12 (8.3)
 Mother only 9 (6.2)
 Both parents 4 (2.8)
Sexual abuse
 None 118 (88.1)
 One person 11 (6.0)
 Two people 5 (3.7)
Sexual abuser
 Mother 0 (0)
 Father 1 (0.7)
 Brothers/sisters 1 (0.7)
 Sexual partner 3 (1.7)
 Family member 13 (7.4)
 Friend of the family 13 (7.6)
Open in a new tab

Measures

Demographics

Participants were asked their current age, age of first intercourse, if they were incarcerated before the age of 18, and marital status: legally married (1), common law marriage (2), widowed (3), divorced (4), separated (5), and single, never married (6). A dichotomous variable was created for those that were single/never married (1) versus not (0). Participants were also asked to report the number of years of education they completed.

Independent Variables

Parental closeness.

Participants were asked to report on their closeness with their mother and father in two questions: During your life, have you had a close long lasting, personal relationship with your (mother, father)? Response options were yes (1) or no (0).

Childhood abuse was measured using three variables: parental emotional abuse, parental physical abuse, and sexual abuse. To measure parental emotional abuse, participants were asked two separate questions about their mother and father: Did your (mother, father) emotionally abuse you in your lifetime? Response options were yes (1), no (0), and not applicable (participants were prompted to select N/A if they did not have a relationship with that relative). The two responses were summed and response options were coded as (0) no emotional abuse, (1) emotional abuse by one parent, and (2) emotional abuse by both parents. Participants were two similar questions about physical abuse: Did your (mother, father) physically abuse you in your lifetime? The response options and coding were the same as emotional abuse. Participants were asked six separate questions about sexual abuse: Did your (mother, father, partner/spouse, brothers/sisters, family member, friend of the family) sexually abuse you in your lifetime. Response options were yes (1), no (0), and not applicable (participants were prompted to select N/A if they did not have a relationship with that relative). The six responses were then summed to represent the number of people they were sexually abused by from no one (0) to six people (6). Other family members were included in sexual abuse because very few participants were sexually abused by their parents. About 60% of children who are sexually abused are abused by a family acquaintance (Finkelhor, 2012); therefore, it was important to explore the number of familial abusers versus focusing solely on mothers and fathers.

Dependent Variable

Restricted emotionality is a subscale of the 24-item Gender Role Conflict scale (O’Neil, 1986). The subscale consists of ten items that are summed together (e.g., I have difficulty telling others I care about them, talking about my feelings during sexual acts is difficult for me). Response options are on a 6-point Likert scale from (1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree). Response options are summed for scores ranging from 10-60, with higher scores indicating higher restricted emotionality. This scale had a high internal consistency α=.82.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. Bivariate correlations were conducted with all study variables. The association between parental closeness and emotional restrictiveness was analyzed using an independent samples t-test. The associations between juvenile incarceration and parental closeness and emotional restrictiveness were analyzed using a Chi-square and independent sample t-test, respectively. To test for mean differences in emotional restrictiveness based on experiences of childhood abuse, one-way ANOVAs were conducted along with Tukey HSD post-hoc test.

Results

The men in our study reported mild restrictive emotionality, as the mean score for emotional restrictiveness was not high. The mean score was 31.42 (SD=13.94) with a range of 10 to 60. Results of the bivariate correlations showed significant correlations between juvenile incarceration, parental closeness, childhood abuse, and restrictive emotionality. Parental closeness was negatively correlated with emotional restrictiveness for both mothers (r = −0.19, p =.01) and fathers (r = −0.20, p =.01). Juvenile incarceration was correlated with emotional restrictiveness (r=.15, p-.04), maternal closeness (r=−.25, p<.001) and paternal closeness (r=.17, p=.01). Childhood sexual abuse was significant and positively correlated with emotional restrictiveness (r =0.20, p =.02; see Table 2). Neither physical nor emotional childhood abuse was significantly correlated with restrictive emotionality; therefore these measures were removed from further analyses.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix with Childhood Abuse and Parental Closeness

1 2 3 4 5
1. Emotional restrictiveness
2. Parental emotional abuse .14
3. Parental physical abuse .01 .65**
4. Sexual abuse .20* .45** .31**
5. Maternal closeness −.19** −.27** −.33** −.23**
6. Paternal closeness −.20** −.14 −.16 −.08 .16*
Open in a new tab
*

p<.05

**

p<.01

There were significant differences in parental closeness and emotional restrictiveness among participants who reported juvenile incarceration. Participants who were incarcerated prior to 18 were significantly less likely to report being close to their mothers (67.7% vs. 89.3%; X2(1)= 11.90, p=.001) and fathers (33.1% vs. 50.7%; X2(1)=6.05, p=.01) compared to those that were not. Participants who reported juvenile incarceration had significantly higher emotional restrictiveness (M=33.27, SD=13.67) than those who did not (M=29.17, SD=13.37; t(181)=, −2.05, p=.04). Participants who reported having a close relationship with their mother had lower emotional restrictiveness (M=29.97, SD=13.45) than those who were not close with their mother (M =36.29, SD=14.59); t(181)= −2.61, p=.01. Participants who reported having a close relationship with their father had lower emotional restrictiveness (M=28.01, SD=13.36) than those who were not close with their father (M=33.64, SD=13.92); t(181)= −2.71, p=.007. There were also significant mean differences in emotional restrictiveness based on experiences of childhood sexual abuse (F(2)=3.11, p=.048). Results of the Tukey’s HSD showed participants who were sexually abused by two people during their childhood reported more emotional restrictiveness (M=44.0, SD=10.06) than those who were not sexually abused (M=29.55, SD=13.44). There were no significant mean differences between those who were sexually abused by one person versus two people or one person versus not being sexually abused. Finally, participants who were more educated reported less emotional restrictiveness (F(181)=5.17, p=.024).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between parental closeness, childhood abuse, and restricted emotionality. Parental closeness was a significant predictor of emotional restrictiveness. Participants who were close with their mothers and fathers were less likely to be emotionally restrictive. This suggests parental attachment can have an influence on incarcerated Black men’s willingness and comfort to express their emotions to others, including their partners during sexual encounters (Blazina & Watkins, 2000; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). Three questions on the emotional restrictiveness subscale focus on communicating their emotions with their partners during sexual intercourse (e.g., telling others of my strong feelings is not part of my sexual behavior, telling my partner my feelings about him/her during sex is difficult for me, talking about my feelings during sexual relations is difficult for me). Black men who have more secure attachments with their parents may be more likely to have secure romantic attachments as well. Research and programming should focus on the steps needed to build secure attachments between young Black boys and their parents to foster emotional expressiveness in adulthood. Since correctional settings do not typically foster emotionality among men (Ross & Pfäfflin, 2007) and incarceration disrupts positive social bonds, networks, and support systems (e.g., romantic partnerships; Pettus-Davis et al., 2015), correctional institutions should gear efforts towards effectively implementing relationship skills training to ensure sustainable supports pre- and post-release (Pettus-Davis et al., 2015).

In this study, participants who were incarcerated as juveniles reported not being close to their parents and higher emotional restrictiveness. Although we are not sure the directionality of this relationship, research has shown that incarceration has effects of parental attachment and support for Black men (Green, Ensminger, Robertson, & Juon, 2006). This is evidence of how the juvenile justice system has the opportunity to disrupt family bonds and long-term effects into adulthood on the emotional expressiveness of Black men. Familial support is the main source of support of Black incarcerated men nearing re-entry, such as those in the current study. Since juvenile incarceration impacts positive social support due to relationship disruption, it is important to provide men with social support interventions to increase positive support from loved ones during critical transitions to their communities, to reduce the likelihood of recidivism and negative coping behaviors (Pettus-Davis et al., 2015).

Physical and emotional abuse were not significantly correlated with emotional restrictiveness, but childhood sexual abuse was. Men may not associate their emotional restrictiveness with histories of physical and emotional abuse because it may be normalized and viewed as a typical form of discipline during childhood (Dunlap et al., 2009). Men may respond to physical and emotional childhood abuse with externalizing behaviors such as competition, aggression, and delinquency (Thompson, Kingree, & Desai, 2004). However, the sexual abuse of Black boys and men receives less attention, as it is often understudied (Kenny & McEarchen, 2000) and underreported (Sorsoli, Kai-Keating, & Grossman, 2008). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2019) suggests one in four men are sexually abused by age 18, however this number is likely underestimated due to societal and cultural stigma. Especially for Black men who have been sexually abused, there is intracultural betrayal trauma that may make it difficult to report sexual abuse committed by loved ones (Gómez, 2019) and increase the likelihood of developing emotional restrictiveness.

Black men may experience racialized gender role conflict (gender role conflict that takes into account Black culture and construction of manhood; Wade, 1996) after being sexually abused as they struggle with expectations of conventional masculinity (Kia-Keating et al., 2004). Previous research has shown childhood sexual abuse leads to emotional suppression (Leitenberg, Greenwald, & Cado, 1992). This could largely be related to racial-gendered socialization in which Black men are taught to refrain from expressing their feelings of helplessness and vulnerability (hooks, 2004). Childhood sexual abuse among Black men results in coping responses including sexual risk behaviors (e.g., frequently paying for and controlling sex workers, increased group sex and pornography consumption combined with heavy episodic drinking, and heightened sexual preoccupation) and influences their relationship behaviors such as being less likely to trust and commit to a partner and more likely to feel the need to control their female partners (Payne et al., 2014). Further, Black men may engage in hypersexuality to cope with or protect themselves against emotional and psychological issues (Payne et al., 2014). For example, Black men are less likely to self-report psychological effects of childhood sexual abuse in their present-day relationships (Payne et al., 2014). Consequently, experiences of childhood sexual abuse have been found to triple the odds of adult crimes, double the odds of domestic violence, and increased the likelihood of drug use in adulthood by 90% (Menard, 2001).

Implications

Receiving treatment or professional support is the most frequently mentioned “turning point” in the life trajectory of men recovering from childhood sexual abuse; for some men, the act of seeking help is the most crucial step (Easton et al., 2015). Trauma-informed therapy is noted as a valuable approach for relational healing to identify safe relationships, learn boundary setting, and gain a sense of belonging (Kia-Keating, Sorsoli, & Grossman, 2010). However, given the underreporting of childhood sexual abuse among Black men (Stone, 2007), clinicians must also provide culturally-competent care to establish a trusting therapeutic relationship. Men with a history of childhood abuse report fear that their therapist would not understand them (e.g., failing to build rapport) or having previous negative experiences with therapists (e.g., non-therapeutic responses to disclosure) (Rapsey, Campbell, Clearwater, & Patterson, 2020). It is critical for practitioners to foster safe spaces for Black men to discuss their experiences of childhood sexual abuse, and how it has influenced their ability to express emotions in their relationships, including romantic partnerships. Providing information about attachment styles and relationship formation could help facilitate in-depth conversations, and perhaps decrease barriers of maladaptive coping, which has been found to increase recidivism.

Limitations

This study has limitations. First, although there were significant correlations the associations are possibly weak. Second, There may be other factors that influence Black men’s emotional restrictiveness, such as being in prison (Evans & Wallace, 2008; Seymour, 2003). Since 64.9% of our sample were incarcerated prior to age 18, the prison system may have played a role in their development of racialized gender role conflict, particularly related to restricted emotionality. More research is needed to compare emotional restrictiveness among incarcerated and non-incarcerated men. Third, the dichotomous variable used to assess parental closeness did not fully capture participants’ attachment styles; therefore, more nuanced measures of closeness (e.g., parental attachment; Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment; IPPA, Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; romantic attachment; Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) may capture attachment-related issues that contribute to restricted emotionality among Black men. Finally, while this study provides meaningful preliminary results, we were not able to examine the frequency of one’s childhood abuse, nor dissect whether the relationship to the perpetrator impacts emotionality. Qualitative methods, as well as moderation and mediation analysis are needed to further explore these findings. Last, generalizability cannot be assumed given data are drawn from a non-probability sample of incarcerated Black men.

Conclusion

This study explored parental closeness, childhood trauma and restricted emotionality among incarcerated Black men nearing community reentry. Findings revealed a significant difference between mean restrictive emotionality scores and parental closeness and childhood abuse among our sample. Men who had a close relationship with their father and mother had lower emotional restrictiveness compared to those men who did not. Additionally, men who experienced childhood sexual abuse by two different people reported more emotional restrictiveness compared to those who were not sexually abused. However, significant mean differences were not observed between men sexually abused by one individual compared to two or men who were sexually abused by one individual versus not being sexually abused. Correctional and community programming efforts should focus on building healthy relationships, secure attachments, and strengthening positive social bonds for incarcerated Black men to support their emotional wellness and successful community reentry.

Funding:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, K08-DA032296, PI: Stevens-Watkins. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. Alexander PC (1992) Application of attachment theory to the study of sexual abuse. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 60(2), 185–195. 10.1037//0022-006x.60.2.185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Armsden GC, & Greenberg MT (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of youth and adolescence, 16(5), 427–454. 10.1007/BF02202939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arditti JA, Lambert-Shute I, & Joest K (2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family relations, 52(3), 195–204. [Google Scholar]
  4. Blazina C, & Watkins CE Jr. (2000). Separation/individuation, parental attachment, and male gender role conflict: Attitudes toward the feminine and the fragile masculine self. Psychology of Men &Masculinity, 1(2), 126–132. 10.1037/1524-9220,1.2.126 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowlby J (1973) Attachment and Loss. Vol. 2, Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York, NY: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowleg L (2017). Towards a critical health equity research stance: Why epistemology and methodology matter more than qualitative methods. Health Education & Behavior, 44(5), 677–684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brennan KA, Clark CL, & Shaver PR (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson JA & Rholes WS (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (2019) Violence Prevention Fast Facts. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html
  9. Collins PH (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. New York: Routledge Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Connell RW (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Day A (2009). Offender emotion and self-regulation: Implications for offender rehabilitation programming. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(2-3), 119–130. 10.1080/10683160802190848 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. DiIorio C, Hartwell T, & Hansen N (2002). Childhood sexual abuse and risk behaviors among men at high risk for HIV infection. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 214–219. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.2.214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dunlap E, Golub A, Johnson BD, & Benoit E (2009). Normalization of violence: experiences of childhood abuse by inner-city crack users. Journal of ethnicity in substance abuse, 8(1), 15–34. 10.1080/15332640802683359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Easton Scott D, Leone-Sheehan Danielle M, Sophis Ellen J, & Willis Danny G. (2015). "From that Moment on My Life Changed": Turning Points in the Healing Process for Men Recovering from Child Sexual Abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(2), 152–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Egeland B, & Sroufe LA (1981). Maltreatment and early attachment. Child Development, 52(1) ,44–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Evans T, & Wallace P (2008). A prison within a prison? The masculinity narratives of male prisoners. Men and Masculinities, 10(4), 484–507. 10.1177/1097184X06291903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Finkelhor D (2012). Characteristics of crimes against juveniles. Durham, NH: Crimes against Children Research Center [Google Scholar]
  18. Fivush R, Brotman MA, Buckner JP, & Goodman SH (2000). Gender differences in parent–child emotion narratives. Sex roles, 42(3-4), 233–253. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gentzler AL, & Kerns KA (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal relationships, 11(2), 249–265. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00081.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gómez JM (2019). Group dynamics as a predictor of dissociation for Black victims of violence: An exploratory study of cultural betrayal trauma theory. Transcultural psychiatry, 56(5), 878–894. 10.1177/1363461519847300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Green KM, Ensminger ME, Robertson JA, & Juon HS (2006). Impact of adult sons’ incarceration on African American mothers’ psychological distress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(2), 430–441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hooks B (2004) We real cool: Black men and masculinity. Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Howard LC, Rose JC, & Barbarin OA (2013). Raising African American boys: An exploration of gender and racial socialization practices. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83(2-3), 218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jackson BA (2018) Beyond the cool pose: Black men and emotion management strategies. Sociology Compass, 12(4), 1–14. 10.1111/soc4.12569 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jeffries MP (2011) Thug Life: Race, Gender, and the Meaning of Hip-Hop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kang HK, & Burton DL (2014). Effects of racial discrimination, childhood trauma, and trauma symptoms on juvenile delinquency in African American incarcerated youth. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 23(10), 1109–1125. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kenny MC, & McEachern AG (2000). Racial, ethnic, and cultural factors of childhood sexual abuse: A selected review of the literature. Clinical psychology review, 20(7), 905–922. 10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00022-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kia-Keating Maryam, Sorsoli Lynn, & Grossman Frances K. (2010). Relational Challenges and Recovery Processes in Male Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(4), 666–683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kumar SA, & Mattanah JF (2016). Parental attachment, romantic competence, relationship satisfaction, and psychosocial adjustment in emerging adulthood. Personal Relationships, 23(4), 801–817. 10.1111/pere.12161 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Laws B (2019). The return of the suppressed: Exploring how emotional suppression reappears as violence and pain among male and female prisoners. Punishment & Society, 21(5), 560–577. 10.1177/1462474518805071 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Leitenberg H, Greenwald E, & Cado S (1992). A retrospective study of long-term methods of coping with having been sexually abused during childhood. Child abuse & neglect, 16(3), 399–407. 10.1016/0145-2134(92)90049-W [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Majors R, & Billson JM (1993). Cool pose: The dilemma of Black manhood in America. Simon and Schuster. [Google Scholar]
  33. Menard S (2001) Short and long term consequences of criminal victimization. In: Menard S, Huizinga D, Elliott D (eds) Violent Behavior in the Life Course. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 110–126. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mercurio CM (2003). Guiding boys in the early years to lead healthy emotional lives. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(4), 255–258. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mikulincer M, & Shaver PR (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Motley R, & Banks A (2018). Black males, trauma, and mental health service use: A systematic review. Perspectives on social work: the journal of the doctoral students of the University of Houston Graduate School of Social Work, 14(1), 4–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. O'Neil JM, Helms BJ, Gable RK, David L, & Wrightsman LS (1986). Gender-Role Conflict Scale: College men's fear of femininity. Sex roles, 14(5-6), 335–350. 10.1007/BF00287583 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Payne JS, Galvan FH, Williams JK, Prusinski M, Zhang M, Wyatt GE, & Myers HF (2014). Impact of childhood sexual abuse on the emotions and behaviours of adult men from three ethnic groups in the usa. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 16(3), 231–245. 10.1080/13691058.2013.867074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pettus-Davis C, Howard MO, Murugan V, Roberts-Lewis A, Scheyett AM, Botnick C, & Vance M (2015). Acceptability of a social support intervention for re-entering prisoners. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6(1), 51–89. 10.1086/680340 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rapsey Charlene, Campbell Anna, Clearwater Ken, & Patterson Tess. (2020). Listening to the therapeutic needs of male survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(9-10), 2033–2054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Riggs SA, Cusimano AM, Benson KM (2011) Childhood emotional abuse and attachment processes in the dyadic adjustment of dating couples. Journal of counseling psychology, 58(1), 126–138. 10.1037/a0021319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Seymour K (2003). Imprisoning masculinity. Sexuality and Culture, 7(4), 27–55. 10.1007/s12119-003-1017-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ross & Pfäfflin F (2007). Attachment and interpersonal problems in a prison environment. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 18(1), 90–98. 10.1080/14789940601063345 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Singletary G (2020). Beyond PTSD: Black male fragility in the context of trauma. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(5), 517–536. 10.1080/10926771.2019.1600091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sorsoli L, Kia-Keating M, & Grossman FK (2008). " I keep that hush-hush": Male survivors of sexual abuse and the challenges of disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 333–345. [Google Scholar]
  46. Stuart F & Benezra A (2018) Criminalized masculinities: How policing shapes the construction of gender and sexuality in poor Black communities, 65(2), 174–190. 10.1093/socpro/spx017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Stone R (2007). No secrets no lies: How Black families can heal from sexual abuse. Harmony. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kendall-Tackett K (2002). The health effects of childhood abuse: four pathways by which abuse can influence health. Child abuse & neglect, 26(6-7), 715–729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. The Sentencing Project (2017) Fact sheet: Black disparities in youth incarceration.
  50. Thompson MP, Kingree JB, & Desai S (2004). Gender differences in long-term health consequences of physical abuse of children: data from a nationally representative survey. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 599–604. 10.2105/AJPH.94.4.599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wade JC (1996). African American men's gender role conflict: The significance of racial identity. Sex roles, 34(1-2), 17–33. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wheeler P, Stevens-Watkins D, Knighton J Mahaffey C, & Lewis D (2018) Pre-incarceration rates of nonmedical use of prescription drugs among Black men from urban counties. Journal Urban Health 95, 444–453. 10.1007/s11524-018-0258-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES