What Is Masculinity?
According to Connell and Foucault,
masculinity; It is a pervasive, high-status identity
reinforced by gender roles and stereotypes that
confuses masculinity with power over women. In
many media channels, for example, in
advertisements, movies or TV series, there are
calls for masculinity that are in line with
masculinity values and behavior patterns, have
the power and advantageous position provided
by power (Karaduman and Adalı Aydın, 2017).
According to Maass et al., masculinity is a social identity and an achieved status
defined by three basic characteristics that men should have.
1
Men should treat women in ways that show them more power, status, and
dominance.
Men must show physical, emotional and mental resilience, that is, they must be
2 able to endure pain, refrain from expressing their sadness, and endure difficult
conditions without complaint.
3 Men should reject and stay away from anything feminine.
So Can Masculinity Be Lost?
Basic features of masculinity such as being circumcised, doing military service (Yapar, 2021),
being a father, bringing bread to the house or taking responsibility for the house.
Masculinity is actually insecure. There is no absolute confidence in keeping it, and one can easily
lose it if one fails to consistently demonstrate one's masculinity in public. The loss of the basic
characteristics of the mentioned masculinity or the decrease in its power in masculine areas also
appear as a threat to masculinity.
Femininity;
addiction, social
support and care
Stereotyped
Masculinity;
Influence of dominant roles,
masculinity in leadership or power
interaction with
women
Fair, gentle, and
protect women who
Gender role Men
are weaker in
themselves
Consequences Of The Threat To Masculinity
Looking at previous research has documented two consequences of masculinity threat.
➢ The first is an emotional threat response resulting from concerns about the self-perception
of others.
➢ The second is a functionally restorative response that displays one's masculinity in the
eyes of others.
Society discomfort: When men face threats to masculinity, they experience negative feelings
and anxiety about the self-perception of others.
He has associated threats to masculinity with acts of aggression, which is claimed to be an
effective means of restoring masculinity. Physical and sexual aggression
Anger
It is a critical emotional response to masculinity threats.
Frustration Aggression Theory Action Motivation
People become angry when they are Anger is an emotion that motivates
prevented from achieving and maintaining action to eliminate and appease a threat.
their goals and desires. Masculinity is a Therefore, it is speculated that anger
social status that includes success and is can inspire ideological domination.
gained through the approval of others. In patriarchy, masculinity defines and
Therefore, it is a desirable state to achieve produces itself not only on women but
and maintain. also on other men.
Men who perceive a threat to their
In particular, men who attach importance masculinity display discriminatory and
to gender norms feel role tension when hostile attitudes towards different
their own performances do not match with groups.
the role standards in the society. If others
see a man as lacking in masculinity, this
will cause anger in the person. Public
discomfort following threats to masculinity
leads to increased feelings of anger.
Ideological Dominance
It is a way of gaining power over the outgroup by promoting the values and beliefs that subordinate the members
of an outgroup to its ingroup.
Ideology is the subordination of a particular group to various guidelines.
Features
• It causes some groups to legitimize their power over
others. For example, ideologies that assert a group's
shortcomings justify control over the flawed group.
• By creating a power structure within the low-powered
group, it makes the situation acceptable by showing the
situation better than it is. The mammys symbol represents
the happy black mothers produced in the USA to
legitimize black slavery. These women act as nannies for
their master's children.
• Finally, ideologies can gain control by reducing the
perceived control of the group, that is, by showing it as
having less influence.
There are 3 ideological dominances stemming from threats to masculinity.
1. Social dominance orientation
2. Benevolent sexism (BS)
3. Sexualization of women
Social Dominance Orientation
• It is a personality trait that includes views about the dominance of certain groups over
groups below the hierarchy.
• It is examined in 3 main groups: age, gender and arbitrarily created systems.
• According to Protto et al., gender inequalities are at different levels in different societies,
but nowhere in the world are women in the superior group compared to men.
• According to the theory, male roles have more status and power.
Benevolent Sexism (BS)
Although it represents positive behavior towards women, they actually see women as helpless and vulnerable.
“The woman is pure and should be loved by the man.”
This view argues that women need men's guidance and protection.
Hostile sexism, on the other hand, justifies men's exploitation of women by humiliating and objectifying women.
"Women seek power to gain control over men and demand to be stronger than men.»
Hostile sexism argues that men's power over women is weak or at risk. This is a threat to ideological
domination.
Sexualization of Women
To sexualize someone is to conceptualize that person as sexually or by sexualized body
parts.
Sexualized women are perceived as objects and are seen as less effective in terms of
power and action.
This shows the woman as submissive and the man as dominating.
Current Research
In all three studies, the aim was to examine the link between men's emotional and dominance-related
responses to masculinity threats.
How do men respond to gender threats?
The hypothesis was tested that men would react with anger, which predicted greater dominance over women
as a result of increased discomfort with masculinity threats.
• Study 1A- 1B • Study2
Gender threats + Gender knowledge test Men experienced threats to masculinity when
they were subordinate to a superior-performing
Threat condition woman in a masculine domain.
more like an average woman
<threat condition> outperformed by their
Non threat condition female teammate
an average man
Ideological dominance was measured using non-threat condition -> men outperformed
their female teammate
SDO in Study 1a and BS in Study 1b.
Studies 1a and 1b Method
Participants:
• This study was conducted with male undergraduate students.
• In Study 1a (n=194), the age range of the participants was between 18-44 years old, with a
mean age of 19.8.
• In Study 1b (n=96)., the age range was between 18-25 years old, with a mean age of 19.5.
• The majority of the participants described themselves as White (70%), as Asian (11%),
Multiracial (6%), Black/African American (5%), Hispanic/Latino/a (5%), Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander (1%), Syrian American (1%), and Not Sure/Other (2%).
• After test-failures are eliminated, 177 men remain in study 1a and 90 men in study 1b.
Studies 1a and 1b Method
Procedure
• A "gender knowledge test" consisting of 60 multiple-choice questions designed to test participants' knowledge of gender was
administered. Half of the questions were about stereotypically feminine content (high heels) and half of them were about
stereotypically masculine content (football).
• After completing the test, participants were shown the average test scores of men and women at their university across a spectrum.
("Feminine Self-Concept" and "Masculine Self-Concept"). Then their scores were presented on a similar spectrum.
• Men were randomly assigned to a threat or non-threat state.
• After taking their scores, the men were found to
show public discomfort and anger. Study 1 then
completed the social dominance orientation scale
(Pratto et al., 1994) and Study 2 completed the
ambivalent sexism inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996).
(Figure 1)
Studies 1a and 1b Method
Public Discomfort
• Participants were asked to imagine a public release of their scores.
They were then asked to rate 8 emotions on a 7-point scale (1 = not
at all; 7 = a lot) on how they would feel in this situation.
• anxious, nervous, defensive, depressed, calm, joyful, happy, and
confident
Anger
• Using 9-point (1 = not at all; 9= extremely) scales, the men were
asked how they felt “right now” and then their average anger score
was calculated.
• angry, frustrated, hostile, and mad.
Ideological Dominance
• In Study 1a, a Social dominance orientation (SDO) variable was constructed by averaging the men's responses to the eight "dominance"
items on the social dominance orientation scale (Pratto et al., 1994) by Jost and Thompson (2000).
• In Study 1b, men completed the contradictory sexism inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and a female sexualization (HS) variable was
constructed by averaging the protective sexism items and a protective sexism (BS) variable by averaging the hostile sexism items.
• Figure 2
Studies 1a and 1b Results
In both studies, the research tested if masculinity threats eventually led to increased public discomfort, increased anger, the
greater ideological dominance using SPSS (Hayes, 2012). The study inserted threat condition as the independent variable,
public discomfort and anger as mediators and either social dominance orientation variable (Study 1a) and benevolent sexism
variable and hostile sexism variable (Study 1b) as the dependent variables and tested the indirect, total and direct effects.
As shown in the side figure, men in the threat condition
reported greater discomfort, and this greater public
discomfort predicted greater anger. These findings are
coherent with the idea that masculinity threats made men
feel concerned about others perceptions of their
masculinity which can eventually turn into a greater
anger. Also consistent with predictions, the anger,
subsequently, predicted greater ideological dominance
over women as observed from SDO in study 1a and BS in
study 1b, but not from HS. Because of the masculinity
therat predicted no effects on HS, it will not be mentioned
further.
Studies 1a and 1b Results
➢ According to SDO in study 1a and BS in study 1b masculinity threat led to small increases as evidenced by
significant indirect effects. Compared with men in the no-threat condition, men in the threat condition
endorsed a very small size of effect. Therefore tests of total and direct effects that have less statistical power
did not reach significance. However, several scholars note that significant indirect effects sufficiently
demonstrate the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable even without significant total
effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002; Zhao et al., 2010).
➢ Because public discomfort and anger were measured in close proximity immediately after the threat
manipulation, the study also tested models reversing their order, and these models were not significant.
Although masculinity threats led to increased anger which in turn predicted increased public discomfort
public discomfort did not predict SDO or BS. Either of the indirect nor total and direct effects were not
significant.
Studies 1a and 1b Discussion
● Men's power over women is a key aspect of men’s ● Situational masculinity threats can affect men’s
masculinity. endorsement of dominance ideologies.
● Threats to masculinity sequentially led to greater public ● Men who were told they had feminine gender identities
discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance. more highly endorsed social dominance.
● When subordinate to a superior performing woman in a
masculine domain, men should feel public discomfort and
then anger that predicts greater ideological dominance.
● The sexualization of a threatening woman in a given
context is a form of ideological dominance that both
psychologically diminishes women to unthreatening
objects and undermines women’s actual performance.
Study 2 Method
1) Is masculinity threatened when men’s power is challenged by a superior-performing woman in a masculine domain?
2) Does this threat cause the ideological dominance of men over that threatening woman?
Hypotheses
1) If being outperformed by a woman in a masculine domain threatens masculinity, then the pattern of emotional
responses that emerges should parallel those of other threats to masculinity.
2) If being outperformed by a woman in a masculine domain threatens masculinity, then men should experience
subsequent feelings of public discomfort and, in turn, anger, and this anger should predict ideological dominance.
Participants
• 18-23 years old
• 96 Men, 89 men included in the analyses
• 70% White, Asian (15%), Black/African American (7%),
Hispanic/Latino (7%), and biracial (1%)
Study 2 Method
Procedure
A masculine space was created and men were made to believe that they were interacting with a female
teammate through a computer.
After an ostensible test of skills, men were made to believe that they either performed better than women (the
non-threatening situation) or that women performed better than them (the threatening situation).
The men then completed measurements of public discomfort, anger and ideological dominance.
They were assigned to select avatars to represent their teammates and themselves to help with team
communication during the rest of the experimental session.
Study 2 Method
Dependent Measures
• Public Discomfort
• Anger
• Ideological Dominance: They
chose an avatar to represent
Jessica in communication via
computer. Avatars have different
clothes. Through pilot tests, the
predictive power of ideological
dominance of clothes was coded
from 0 to 5.
Study 2 Result
“If being subordinate to a superior-performing woman threatens masculinity, then men should feel more public
discomfort and in turn more anger in the threat condition than in the no-threat condition.”
To examine the given prediction, as in Studies 1a and 1b, it was used model 6 in PROCESS for SPSS.
Threat condition was entered as an independent variable, public discomfort and anger as mediators, and
sexualization, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism were treated as separate dependent variables.
Study 2 Result
• Consistent with predictions, men in the threat condition reported more
public discomfort which in turn predicted more anger. (see Path A and
B)Findings support the notion that being subordinate to a superior-
performing woman in a masculine domain threatens masculinity.
• Greater anger predicted more sexualization of the woman. (see Path C)
• Unlike the findings of Studies 1a and 1b the path from threat condition
to public discomfort (Path A), and public discomfort to sexualization
(Path E) was significant and in the opposite direction.
• To the degree that threatened men felt more public discomfort, but not
more anger, they sexualized their female teammate less.
In a nutshell, in Figure 4 indicate that to the extent that men’s concern about others’ perceptions of them led to greater
anger, men sexualized the woman more (see Path C). However, when men’s concern about others’ perceptions of them
did not lead to anger, men sexualized the woman less.
As in Studies 1a and 1b, it was also tested a model that reversed the order of anger and public discomfort, and it was not
significant.
Finally, in contrast with the findings of Study 1b, threat condition did not produce a significant indirect effect on benevolent
sexism or hostile sexism.
Study 2 Discussion
• Study 2 replicates and extends the findings of Studies 1a and 1b, further
supporting the notion that men’s power over women is a key aspect of
masculinity
• Increases in anger predicted men’s greater ideological dominance in the
form of sexualization of the threatening woman
• Sexualization leads to the perception of women as objects therefore would
reduce women’s actual ability to exert influence and power.
• Study 2 has a significant difference from Studies 1a and 1b. Whether public
discomfort led to ideological domination depended on men's anger.
• However, it is not yet clear to us why, without anger, masculinity threat
leads to less ideological dominance
• Future research needs to determine in which situations and in what type of
men, the discomfort of being subordinated to a superior
woman causes anger.
General Discussion
Three studies examined the idea that men’s power over women is a key aspect of men’s
masculinity.
They found that men whose masculinity was threatened were more concerned with how
people would perceive them and this led to greater anger, which in turn increased their
ideological dominance over women.
Insofar as masculinity threats increased public discomfort and anger, they increased
the likelihood that men endorsed or acted upon ideologies that implicitly subordinate women.
In Study 2, they found that superior-performing women threaten masculinity and
become targets of men’s ideological dominance. Superior-performing women may encounter
ideological dominance from men, which complements prior work suggesting that well-
performing and agentic women are sexually harrassed in masculine domains
Past research suggests that men’s ideological dominance may subordinate women and maintain existing
gender-based power differences through a variety of mechanisms.
• These ideologies may disempower women, even if women do not accept them. For example, the
communication of ideologies that subordinate and devalue women may reduce women’s feelings that
they can succeed , feelings of belonging and participation in stereotypically masculine achievement
domains.
• Similarly, subtle sexism and the sexualization of women undermines women’s performance , which
reduces their access to resources, opportunities, and eventual power and status. (e.g., Gervais et al.,
2011; Gervais & Vescio, 2012; Vescio et al., 2005; Vescio, Snyder, & Butz, 2003; Woodzicka & LaFrance,
2005)
First, this research only tests men.
Second, research is needed to illuminate the causal links
The current research between masculinity threats and consequences for women.
points to several
possible future research
directions. Third, the psychological processes related to ideological
dominance require additional research.
In addition, given that competent women sometimes
threaten masculinity, attention to interventions that address
how men’s experiences of threat can be appeased is
necessary.
Questions
1) If this study were also conducted with middle-aged men, would there be a
different result compared to the younger ones?
2) This study was conducted with participants from different communities,
mostly white. If the same study were done separately in individualistic and
collective societies, would there be a significant difference between them?
References
• Avşar, S. (2017). Toplumsal cinsiyet rolleri bağlamında tarihsel rollerini yitiren erkekliğin çöküşü: Küllerinden “yeni erkek” liğin doğuşu. Kadem Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 224-241.
• Bosson, J. K., Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Taylor, J. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552.
• Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 82–86
• Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An ‘‘experimental ethnography’’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
945–960.
• Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. (2004). First-and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and
association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion. Violence against women, 10(3), 236-261.
• Garnets, L., & Pleck, J. H. (1979). Sex role identity, androgyny, and sex role transcendence: A sex role strain analysis. Psychology of women quarterly, 3(3), 270-283.
• Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.70.3.491
• Karaduman, S., & AYDIN, G. A. (2017). Hegemonik erkekliğin medyadaki inşası ve temsili: Survivor 2017 program incelemesi. Middle Black Sea Journal of Communication Studies, 2(2), 26-40.
• Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
853–870.
• Pratto, F., Sidanius J., Levin, S. (2006) “Social Dominance Theory and The Dynamics of The Intergroup Relations: Taking Stock and Looking Forward”, Europion Review of Social Psychology, No.17,
271-320.
• Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Yapar, B. (2021). Erkek Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rolü Çatışması, Psikolojik Yardım Arama, Erkekliğe Yönelik Algılanan Tehdit.
THANKS FOR
LISTENING
