Emotional Reactions

From Townsend, Wasserman, and Rosenthal, 2015, PID

Human females evolved emotional–perceptual mechanisms that cause them to be attracted by partners’ ability and willingness to invest (time, affection, resources) (Buss, 1989a; Symons, 1979). Human male mechanisms include the capacity to dissociate sexual pleasure from investment and a desire for a variety of sex partners who exhibit signs of fertility (Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue, 1994).

Maybe these mechanisms aren’t as different as we think? So to me, the scripts are reinforcing that for women, pleasure is transactional or symbolic in ways that are not true for men- female pleasure may be understood as the result of demonstrated investment while male pleasure may be understood as removed from investment, stand-alone. 

Male and female strategies often conflict and interfere with each other; these conflicts represent strategic interference. Men’s and women’s emotional–motivational mechanisms alert them to strategic interference and motivate them to alter their own behavior and influence the behavior of the opposite sex to eliminate or reduce the interference (Buss, 1989b, 1994, 1995; Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, & Angleitner, 2005).

So I think they’re arguing that women’s less positive emotional reactions are alerting them to the fact that their strategy of looking for investment is conflicting with their partner’s strategy of sowing his seed? 

Sexual strategies theory posits that the fundamental desires that motivate sexual action and the emotional reactions that evaluate these actions differ in men and women (Buss, 1994; Symons, 1979)…their emotional reactions to the same activities (e.g., casual sexual relations) differ significantly….Reacting to low-investment copulation, women’s emotions should alert them to strategic interference and guide them toward relationships that offer higher levels of investment (Townsend, 1987, 1995, 1998).

So our study says that women and men are not emotionally reacting to the same activity of casual sex– they’re reacting to quite different casual sex experiences, even if they were partners. 

Because of the differential feedback men and women receive, these gender differences should increase rather than decrease with increasing experience with casual sex (Townsend & Wasserman, 2011).

Maybe we could test with the data whether people who had longer sexual involvement with their partners have closer or further emotional reactions. 

Both qualitative and quantitative studies indicate that women’s sexual regrets are strongly linked to uncommitted (i.e., low-investment) sex: number of one-time sexual encounters, having sex with strangers, quantity of sex partners, and having sex with someone who falsely promised commitment. In contrast, men’s sexual regrets focus on missed opportunities to have sex (Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Galperin et al., 2013; Paul & Hayes, 2002).

Has anyone looked into whether women are regretting wasting their time on an unpleasurable experience? Can someone look into these three studies? 

Townsend used in-depth oral interviews and survey questions derived from those interviews to investigate associations between casual sexual relations and emotional reactions. Findings were consistent across diverse samples and methods. Men’s reported worry, feelings of vulnerability, and concern regarding partners’ intentions tended to decline with greater numbers of partners; women’s vulnerability and concern were significantly greater than men’s and either increased or remained high and constant (Townsend, 1987, 1995, 1998, 2005; Townsend, Kline, & Wasserman, 1995; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011).

Wouldn’t women’s anticipated or experienced stigma increase with their partner number? Doesn’t it also make sense that their concern “about partner intention” should rise with increase number of partners because each partner is another potential assailant? 

Several lines of evidence suggest that women are more likely than men to form attachment bonds in casual sexual relations (de Graaf & Sandfort, 2004; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011; Young & Wang, 2004). Such bonds are more likely to form in repeated relations with the same partner compared to infrequent relations, or single encounters with different partners (Townsend, 1987, 1995, 1998). Studies that combine these types of encounters may adumbrate important distinctions—including gender differences (Vrangalova, 2014). A second goal of the current research was to distinguish between types of encounters and determine whether participants’ emotional reactions differed.

Okay so did emotional reactions differ between first time, yes or no? What about between the genders?

A fourth reason for the dearth of negative reactions in some reports is that women engage in denial: they tend to idealize hook-ups and ignore their negative aspects—including sexual coercion

We tried to avoid this by asking about consensual experiences

There is a different argument about are women damaged from engaging in casual sex once, or are they damaged from engaging in it over and over…

Viewed in light of these factors, our findings support the view that the current hookup subculture on college campuses represents a phase rather than a permanent lifestyle. Sexual strategies theory would predict that most of these women will alter their partner-selection criteria and sexual behavior when their goal evolves from short-term to long-term relationships (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). For most college women this will happen when their career tracks are established, they feel their biological clocks ticking, and their female peers begin to marry (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2009; Townsend, 1987, 1998; Townsend & Roberts, 1993).

Ugh

Women’s emotions evaluate the quality and reliability of male investment. These emotions act as an alarm system that urges women to test and evaluate investment and remedy deficiencies even when their permissive attitudes reflect indifference to investment.

I’m bothered by male investment being used in place of female orgasm. Female orgasm/pleasure shouldn’t be a signifier of male investment in the relationship. It should signify male sexual capabilities and his respect for his partner. 

Our findings suggest that unrestricted women (i.e., women with high SOI scores) may experience as much Worry–Vulnerability and concern regarding partners’ intentions, and have the same difficulty in avoiding emotional involvement with regular partners as more restricted women. More importantly, women with higher SOI scores were significantly more likely to experience sexual coercion, including its most severe forms. Thus, the personality traits that underlie SOI scores (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990) may have been adaptive for women in ancestral environments but could be maladaptive in today’s hook up subculture.

I love how they warn women in their conclusion when certain men (non SOI) are the ones most at risk for feeling worry-vulnerability and not being able to resist emotional involvement! That also suggests to me that perhaps the cultivating we do of men to be super promiscuous goes against their nature or perhaps what is best for them mentally, psychologically, emotionally… they’re the ones who get changed and shaped by the increasing number of partners, not women. That chewing gum metaphor is stupid.

 

Advertisements

Trump and Social Dominance

Valentino, Wayne, Oceno (2018) Mobilizing Sexism: Emotion and Gender in Attitudes in 2016 Election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 213-235.
Do those who react to threats primarily with anger or fear subsequently make different political choices?

Sexism significantly drove vote choice in the 2016 presidential election much more strongly than in previous presidential elections, as others have begun to find (Schaffner, MacWilliams, and Nteta forthcoming).It is impossible to be certain whether Clinton’s gender and political platform or Trump’s rhetoric drove sexism’s influence most. However, the results presented below suggest Trump’s campaign was integral. 

Support for Obama over Clinton during the 2008 primary was not significantly linked to sexism, ceteris paribus (Tesler and Sears 2010).

A more common explanation for Trump’s success was that he used fear appeals involving economic stagnation, immigration, and national security to powerfully mobilize support among those high in authoritarianism (MacWilliams 2016ab). #EconomicAnxiety

Many suspected that anxiety, springing from economic insecurity and the shifting demographic and social structure in America, played a substantial role (Cramer 2016). #EconomicAnxiety

Trump preyed on the economic concerns of working- and lower-middle-class white voters by identifying commonly scapegoated groups: immigrants, African Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims (MacWilliams 2016 ab). These threats to traditional social norms and group hierarchies #SocialDominance were most critical for activating the authoritarian personality (Feldman and Stenner 1997Stenner 2005Hetherington and Weiler 2009), thereby driving up support for leaders intent on protecting the nation’s socio-political status quo. In sum, these theories suggest that those high in authoritarianism, exposed to threats to status quo social norms by stigmatized outgroups, supported the populist candidate Donald Trump.

Fear leads voters, on balance, to avoid risks (Lerner and Keltner 2001), including untested policies and inexperienced candidates (Huddy et al. 2005). #EconomicAnxiety

so maybe while they are saying these authoritiarians who voted for trump were doing it because their anger–not fear–was driving their sexism against hillary and towards trump
And maybe we can be like, well perhaps they’re not authoritarians, but socially dominant?

STUDY 1
Method: 
In June 2016, a representative sample of 716 US adults was interviewed via GfK-Knowledge Networks (KN). KN operates a large national probability-based panel, using address-based sampling to cover approximately 97 percent of US households

  • Ideology and partisanship were assessed using standard ANES question wording.
  • Authoritarianism was measured with a four-item childrearing preferences scale developed and validated by Feldman and Stenner (1997).
  • An abbreviated version of the hostile sexism subscale of the ASI from Glick and Fiske (1996) tapped gender attitudes.
  • Ethnocentrism—the preference for one’s ethnic group over others. These questions were adapted from Bizumic and Duckitt’s (2008) ethnocentrism inventory

Results: In the late primary period of June 2016, sexism was strongly associated with support for Trump. Ethnocentrism was equally strong among whites, while authoritarianism was simply not the most important force at that moment.

STUDY 2
Method: ANES from 04, 08, 12, & 16

Results: Sexism is powerfully associated with the vote in the 2016 election, for the first time in at least several elections, above and beyond the impact of other typically influential political predispositions and demographic characteristics.

Just an aside, this is good language: The prevailing narrative held that anxiety in reaction to a variety of threats discussed during the campaign may have pushed authoritarians and other voters with negative outgroup attitudes to support Trump. However, existing theory suggests that anxiety will instead trigger risk-avoidance and new information seeking in the political realm. 

STUDY 3
Method: MTurk sample (white), incidential task to induce anger, fear, or relaxation (Banks and Valentino). Then- how much do u support each republican candidate & their voting intentions

Results: – Fear substantially reduced the impact of sexism on support for Trump
-Sexism’s predictive power was increased only slightly, and not significantly in the statistical sense, in the anger condition compared to the control
– Anxiety drives support for Trump down among those high in sexism compared to those in either the control or anger conditions, while it has little impact on those very low in sexism.14
– The association between Trump evaluations and authoritarianism was again relatively small in this study, and neither anger (b5 = .02, p = NS) nor fear (b4 = –.07, p = NS) altered this linkage. So…. social dominance, right?
– Sexism was significantly correlated with support for Trump, but not with any other Republican candidate in the race.
so can we use this paper as a template and look at social dominance (aka racism) instead of sexism?


Crowson, H.M. & Brandes, J.A. (2017). Differentiation between DT and HC voters using facets of RWA and SDO: A Brief Report. Psychological Reports, 120(3), 364-373.

We sought to test the discriminant validity of SDO-Dominance and SDO-Anti-egalitarianism in predicting voting intetion for DT or HC. Hypotheses: SDO-D = Pro Trump. SDO-AE = Anti Clinton. Sample was mostly white women. Results: SDO-AE = Pro Trump. SDO-D = nonsignificant.


Choma, B.L. & Hanoch, Y. (2017). Cognitive ability adn authoritarianism: Understanding support for Trump and Clinton. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 287-291.

Authoritarianism explains Trump support over and above key demographics like age, gender, education, religion, income, and political identification. (Macwilliams 2016).

Poll showed that Trump supporters are higher on authoritarianism than Clinton supporters (Rahn and Oliver 2016).

In psychology, RWA and SDO are the most popular indices of authoritarianism, measured with comprehensive scales comprising items on a range of attitudes (Duckitt, 2001). Correlations between RWA and SDO range from weak to stronger than 0.60 (Altemeyer, 1998; Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005). Factors including the strength of ideological contrast of a particular context affect the strength of the association between RWA and SDO (Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005). The more complex the political axes of a certian country, the lower the correlation. Therefore, RWA and SDO are distinguishable concepts that captrue unique types of authoritarianism.

In explaining support for Trump, drawing on the Dual Process Model, those higher (vs. lower) in RWA and SDO might endorse Trump because he resonates with RWAs fear of socially threatening groups and SDOs disdain of inferior groups.

The present research investigated whether RWA and SDO uniquely predict Trump support in a sample of American adults. Whether voting intentions for Hillary Clinton could be attributed to lower RWA and SDO was also tested.

Method: Mostly white MTurk sample. Measures: Cognitive ability, RWA, old SDO, Trump attitudes, voting intentions, party affiliation

Results: RWA and SDO significantly predict favorable Trump attitudes with equal strength.  RWA and SDO positively predict intentions to vote for trump- again, equally. Relation between ideological beliefs and favorable trump attitudes/intention to vote for Trump was predicted in part by lower cognitive ability.

Takeaways: Using comprehensive indices of authoritarianism (i.e., measures of RWA and SDO), the present study confirms that endorsing authoritarian ideology predicts favorable Trump attitudes and intentions to vote for Trump in the U.S. Presidential election. Specifically, greater endorsement of RWA (the aspect of authoritarianism specific to obedience and respect of authorities and punishment of those who violate social conventions) and SDO (the aspect of authoritarianism specific to preferring hierarchical intergroup relations) uniquely predicted more positive evaluations of Trump and a greater desire to vote for him.

Critically, RWA and SDO significantly predicted Trump support and voting intentions, even controlling for party affiliation. Furthermore, our results indicate that both ideological beliefs exert similar effects on Trump support and voting intentions. These findings are consistent with the dual process model (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009) and the notion that RWA and SDO, although distinct and independent, uniquely predict similar outcomes, and likely do so for different reasons. Hence, Trump likely appeals to a wide range of authoritarian positions.

 

Kray et al: The effects of Implicit Gender Role Theories on Gender System Justification (2017, JPSP)

“understanding why and under what circumstances people resist change is of critical importance for those invested in reducing gender inequality.”

Individuals have a fundamental need to view a social system positively and will engage in a number of motivated processes to rationalize the status quo (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost & Kay, 2005; Kunda, 1990; Sidanius & Pratto, 2001).

we consider whether men’s (but not women’s) support for the status quo increases when holding the belief that gender roles are fixed as opposed to malleable.


Implicit Gender Roles Theories: beliefs about the malleability or fixedness of the social roles inhabited by men and women so what about the malleability of sex roles?

Because men enjoy more status and power in society (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004; Bem 1993), understanding the factors that increase or decrease their recognition of gender inequality is critical for bringing about social change. Understanding the circumstances under which, or predictors of, men endorse or do not endorse sexist ideologies is important for strides towards gender equality in the sexual domain. 

Gender roles speak to divisions of household labor, job segregation, and gender differences in status and authority. Sexual gender roles speak to the roles and sensibilities adopted by women and men in the bedroom or in sexual situations/encounters/ sexual domain. These roles are scripted and difficult to change or deviate from.

Asserting gender differences as established facts triggers the system justification motive for men, but not women (Morton, Postmes, Haslam, & Hornsey, 2009). So in the current paper, they want to see if believing gender roles are fixed as opposed to malleable predicts support for the status quo. Because of course if things are innate and hard to change, we want to find a way to rationalize the system we’re in.

Implicit theories of gender roles explain why men justify the gender hierarchy more than women. (I say it’s also because they are more served by the hierarchy than women). They seem to see masculine identity as motivation for rationalizing the gender hierarchy. (I see desire to dominate women/maintain male power as motivation for rationalization).

PSYCHOLOGICAL ESSENTIALISM: ontology that supposes there are unchanging essences that form the core of what it means to belong to a given category (Gelman & Taylor, 2000, Prentice & Miller, 2006). So differences are biological and immutable.

        Exposure to those explanations bolsters the endorsement of gender seterotypes (Hogg & Turner, 1987). Theoretical perspective that essentialism functions to rationalize inequality (Keller, 2005; Yzerbyt, Rocher, & Schadron, 1977). 

PErceptions of group differences as essential rely on stereotypes and therefore reinforce beliefs that the current system is fair, and that inequality is an inevitable result of how men adn women’s social (sexual) roles are differently valued.

Gender performances are guided by gender norms and stereotypes, which dictate beaviors and attributes that are allowed versus forbidden from being displayed (Bem, 1981; Prentice & Carranza, 2002)

Implicit gender role theories may differ based on how strongly one identifies iwth their gender (gender identity strength, degree to whcih group membership is important).

Dominant group members are motivaed to defend the status quo/justify the system when it’s threatened with change or when the legitimacy of their position is in doubt (Ellemers, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990; Hornsey, Spears, Cremers, & Hogg, 2003).

 YESSSSSS why it’s all synthesizedAs advantaged group members, men’s ego, group, and system motives are often consistent and mutually reinforcing (JJost, J. T., Burgess, D., & Mosso, C. (2001). Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system: The integrative potential of system justification theory. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 363–388). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Jost, J. T., Gaucher, D., & Stern, C. (2015). “The world isn’t fair”: A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 317–340). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

If guys are operating with essentialist implicit gender role theories, then being told you’re not masculine is probably way more threatening than if you think men adn women are the way they are cause of society. Also, because men are the in-power group, they have more to lose by admitting the system isn’t justified or the hierarchy is not legitimate.   SO_ believing in fixed gender roles may trigger men’s efforts to assure their gender status by strengthening their identification with teh male gender group, and also to see that the gender hierarchy is fair and legitimate.

The gender system privileges masculinity over femininity: Ridgeway and Correll 2004

Biological essentialism. Participants indicated their agreement
with a seven-item measure (alpha = .87) of gender-specific
biological essentialism (Brescoll et al., 2013, adapted from Keller,
2005). Sample items include: “Men commit the majority of violent
crimes in this country because they have a greater predisposition
toward violence than women,” and “Part of the reason why women
are more emotional than men is because of the way they’re
hard-wired.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 6 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicated greater agreement
with an essentialist explanation of gender.

RESULTS:
-fixed beliefs about gender roles were associated with greater justification of
gender system inequality and a stronger preference for traditional gender roles (as opposed to egalitarian gender roles).
– reading about fixed theories of gender roles caused men to self-stereotype more (makse sense as they’re advantaged group members in the gender hierarchy… it’s a GOOD thing to be the male stereotype). AND, the more someone identifies with their gender (self-stereotypes?), the more they justify the system (and men do this more than women)
– of people who read about fixed gender roles, men justified the gender system more than women. Men and women who read about changable gender roles did not differ in their system justification.
– more fixed beliefs about gender roles predicts greater system justification, which is moderated by how strongly you identify with your gender.

Rubin Prospectus

The rigid form of masculinity has arguably become more restricted with gains in women’s rights (Banet-Weiser & Miltner, 2015). Accordingly, it is an important project in feminist psychology to identify the “particular political purpose of male [hostile] behavior: the silencing of women who dare to speak in the online public sphere” (Megarry, 2014, p. 53).

 

Masculinity describes the practices, behaviors, and expectations culturally associated with (though not limited to) people understood to be male (Coston & Kimmel, 2012; Pascoe & Bridges, 2016). Importantly, masculinity requires constant demonstration and social validation, driving men to “prove” their masculinity by performing behaviors associated with normative prescriptions of manhood (Vandello et al., 2008; West & Zimmerman, 1987). For example, men learn from an early age to avoid displays of femininity by enacting restrictive emotionality, toughness, and aggression during interpersonal interactions (Fenstermaker & West, 2002; Thompson & Bennett, 2015). Masculinity is therefore relational because it functions “…as an aspect of a larger [gender] structure” and as a result, has no meaning outside its relationship to femininity (Connell & Connell, 2005, p.67).

Although definitions of masculinity differ across contexts, men are typically appraised against a monolithic standard of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 1983). Hegemonic masculinity denotes the ideal conception of masculinity within a given culture by designating traits representative of archetypal manhood (Connell 1995; Willer, Conlon, Rogalin &Wojnowicz, 2013). Within an American context, men should embody aggression, competitiveness, physical strength, courage, risk-taking, assertiveness, heterosexuality, and the absence of feminine traits (Kimmel, 2008; Levant, et al., 2010; Pascoe, 2011). Importantly, hegemonic masculinity works to legitimate gender inequality by reconstituting hierarchical relationships between (and among) women and men (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Donaldson, 1993). Consequently, the stakes of maintaining gender relations are high for men since it validates their positions of power relative to women (Acker, 1990; Dahl, Vescio & Weaver, 2015).

Across the psychology of men and masculinities, the notion that manhood is a tenuous and socially constructed status is an important unifying assumption in the field (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Kimmel, 2004; 2008; Levant, 1996; Pleck, 1976, 1981, 1995; Vandello & Bosson, 2013). In its most recent iteration, Vandello and Bosson (2013) contend that much of the anxiety about men’s gender status emerge from three fundamental tenets that define the structure of manhood. The precarious manhood paradigm states that: (1) manhood is widely viewed as a precarious, achieved status that is earned during the social transactions of everyday life; (2) once achieved, manhood can be easily lost or taken away; (3) manhood must be consistently reasserted through public demonstrations, requiring social validation and recognition by others.

manhood is an esteemed social identity (e.g., Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003

Men may experience gender role discrepancy, or the perceived failure to live up to societal prescriptions that denote ideal manhood, and these self-evaluations may result in stress (Berke, Reidy, Miller & Zeichner, 2016

These results suggest that power relations between women and men are pertinent in incidences of harassment, as the former traditionally have power over women in society. Supporting this notion, several experiments have found that men were more likely to harass women who challenge gender power relations, such as feminists or women who defy gender norms (Dall’Ara & Maass, 1999; Siebler et al., 2008).

 

Pehrson, Carvacho, & Sibley 2017: Group differences in the legitimization of inequality: role of SDO

According to SDT, SDO drives both individuals’ pro-hierarchy attitudes. So to the extent that men are high SDO, they’re strongly support the sexist legitimizing myths.

the factors that make some men more sexist than other men, for example,
are not necessarily the same factors that make men more sexist than women. To date,
longitudinal studies on the causal status of SDO have examined only within-group
variance, such as variance in men’s levels of sexism(Sibley, Wilson, et al., 2007)

Ideological underpinnings of the gender hierarchy include hostile and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism entails enmity primarily towards women who resist or fail to conform to the roles defined for them by traditional patriarchal relations, depicting them as illegitimately trying to control men and extract power from them. (Glick & Fiske 1996).

Benevolent and hostile sexism are LMs. So is “sexual” sexism.”

Results:  Effects of gender and race on hostile sexism are mediated by SDO.

So is sexual sexism related to SDO? Is it part of an ideological system that supports gender inequality/male dominance?

Hostile sexism and SDO:   r=.6

Precarious Manhood

Pinel, E. C., Bronson, C. A., Zapata, J. P., & Bosson, J. K. (2018, April 23). I-Sharing After a Gender Status Threat and Its Implications for Attitudes Toward Gay Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Advance online publication.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000161 

Despite patrarchal dominance of male supremacy, manhood itself is a relatively fragile social status. (Vandello et al., 2008).

Precarious manhood theory proposes three assumptions about the male gender role that distinguish it from the female gender role.
First, manhood is widely viewed as an elusive, achieved status, or one that must be earned.
Second, once achieved, manhood status is tenuous and impermanent. Men can lose manhood status by enacting stereotypically feminine behaviors or by failing to
demonstrate adequate levels of masculinity.
Third, manhood status is conferred primarily by others and thus requires regular, public demonstrations that center on themes of toughness, bravery, and antifemininity (Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, &  Wasti, 2009; Vandello et al., 2008; for reviews see Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Vandello & Bosson, 2013).

Real-world examples of men’s defensive reactions to gender threats abound as well. For instance, when men are outearned by their female relationship partners, they accordingly do less—and not more— housework, presumably as a way of restoring threatened manhood (Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre, & Matheson, 2003). More chillingly, scholar and filmmaker Jackson Katz proposed that the epidemic of gun violence in U.S. schools arises from young men’s efforts to restore threatened masculinity (Earp, 2013). Similarly, some suggested that young men’s entrance into
violent and politically extremist militia groups may reflect, in part, a compensatory response to social and economic conditions that disempower and emasculate boys (Khan, 2010).

 

Gender dichotomization article:

Men take measures to distance the group “Men” from the group “woman”. JP: I’d argue this is because “woman” or “femininity” or wahtever is devalued and subjugated in our society “invites” (thats an evil word) domination. Not inherently. I gotta think about Jimmy Carter’s quote about how women’s uniqueness could have been exhalted rather than envied.

Vandello & Bosson 2008 PRecarious Manhood

The authors report 5 studies that demonstrate that manhood, in contrast to womanhood, is seen as a precarious state requiring continual social proof and validation. Because of this precariousness, they argue that men feel especially threatened by challenges to their masculinity. Certain male-typed behaviors, such as physical aggression, may result from this anxiety. Studies 1-3 document a robust belief in (a) the precarious nature of manhood relative to womanhood and (b) the idea that manhood is defined more by social proof than by biological markers. Study 4 demonstrates that when the precarious nature of manhood is made salient through feedback indicating gender-atypical performance, men experience heightened feelings of threat, whereas similar negative gender feedback has no effect on women. Study 5 suggests that threatening manhood (but not womanhood) activates physically aggressive thoughts.

Vandello & Bosson 2013 Hard Won and Easily Lost: Precarious Manhood Theory and Research

This article reviews evidence that manhood is seen as a precarious social status that is both difficult to achieve and tenuously held. Compared with womanhood, which is typically viewed as resulting from a natural, permanent, and biological developmental transition, manhood must be earned and maintained through publicly verifiable actions. Because of this, men experience more anxiety over their gender status than women do, particularly when gender status is uncertain or challenged. This can motivate a variety of risky and maladaptive behaviors, as well as the avoidance of behaviors that might otherwise prove adaptive and beneficial. We review research on the implications of men’s precarious gender status across the domains of risk-taking, aggression, stress and mental health, and work–life balance. We further consider how work on precarious manhood differs from, and can add to, work on individual differences in men’s gender role conflict. In summary, the precarious manhood hypothesis can integrate and explain a wide range of male behaviors and phenomena related to the male gender role.

This article reviews theory and research concerning manhood as a precarious social status. The precarious manhood thesis has three basic tenets: First, manhood is widely viewed as an elusive, achieved status, or one that must be earned (in contrast to  womanhood, which is an ascribed, or assigned, status). Second, once achieved, manhood status is tenuous and impermanent; that is, it can be lost or taken away. Third, manhood is confirmed primarily by others and thus requires public demonstrations of proof.

we (and others) often successfully manipulate manhood threats in our lab by inducing men to perform stereotypically feminine behaviors (e.g., Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, & Wasti, 2009; Weaver, Vandello, & Bosson, in press) or by offering them
feedback indicating that their psychological profile is similar to that of a woman’s (e.g., Vandello, Bosson, et al., 2008

 

Research arms

  1. Casual sex and double standard (norms, scripts, media, orgasm, stereotypes, inequality)
  2. Masculinity threat and system justification (social dominance, legitimizing myths, power, backlash, aggrieved entitlement)
  3. Existential anxiety, reproductive roles, explanation or root of patriarchy/ rape (evolutionary, feminist theory, sexual economics theory)
    Not sure where to put these: redpill, altright, fringe group, evil, reactionaries,

System Justification Jost 2000 & 2004

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/system-justification-theory-compliment-complement-corrective

 

Put another way, a system justification perspective leads one to inquire how and why people maintain the “belief in a just world” (Lerner, 1980), especially when it directly conflicts with motives for self-enhancement and motives to make ingroup favoring attributions for failure and disadvantage (see also Jost et al., 2001)

System justification theory is a functional theory of social and political cognition, which
posits that attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes serve system justifying ends for  individuals, groups, and social systems (Jost & Banaji, 1994). One of the main theoretical assumptions of our perspective is that people tend to use ideas about groups and individuals to justify the way things are, so that existing social arrangements are perceived as fair and legitimate, perhaps even natural and inevitable. This means that there may be a relatively general (but not universal) directional bias in favor of the status quo; cognition, we say, is deployed in the service of the social system (see also Haines & Jost, 2000; Jost, in press; Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2000).

The notion that hierarchical forms of social organization are sustained in part by consensually shared ideologies that cut across group boundaries is a very important point of convergence between system justification and social dominance theories (see especially Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996).

Three drives or motives in need of resolve:
1) Ego justification- the need to develop adn maintain a favorable self-image and to feel valid, justified, and legitimate as an individual actor (Jen note: autonomous?)
2) Group justification- the desire to develop adn maintain favorable perceptions of one’s ingroup and to defend and justify the actions of ingroup members (social identity theory)
3) System justification- the epistemic, ideological, and psychological needs to percieve the status quo as fair, legitimate, adn justificatible.

How SysJus is different that SDT: SysJus does a good job of taking into account that sometimes the motive to justify is strongest among those who are most disadvantaged by the social order. See also Jost Pelham sheldon and Ni 2001

social dominance and system justification perspectives postulate a great deal of ideological consensus across groups, as a result of the spread of dominant ideology and cultural hegemony.

According to social dominance theory, one of the social psychological mechanisms by which the species purportedly maintains unequal relations between groups is the development and transmission of “legitimizing myths”. These include racist, sexist, and other xenophobic ideologies which attempt to justify and legitimize the discriminatory treatment of some social groups.

Social dominance theory holds that dominant groups are biologically hard-wired to defend their position of dominance by developing hierarchy enhancing attitudes. By far the strongest empirical evidence obtained in support of social dominance theory concerns sex differences in social behavior. In particular, it has been found that males tend to exhibit more ingroup favoritism, more outgroup hostility, more politically conservative attitudes in at least some domains, and higher scores on measures of social dominance than do females (e.g., Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius, Pratto, & Rabinowitz, 1994).

The goal of system justification theory, by contrast, is to identify contexts in which people will accept, protect, defend, and justify existing forms of social relations and when they will reject, challenge, attack, and criticize them. pg 30. I’m interested in perhaps which men (high conformers vs low conformers), and under which circumstances (masc threat vs masc affirm) sexist and racist ideologies are or are not endorsed and to what extent. 

YAS JOST YAS Probably the most fundamental difference between social dominance theory and system justification theory concerns the evolutionary origins of social attitudes and intergroup behavior (see also Sidanius et al., this issue). Whereas social dominance theory is a sociobiological theory that holds ethnocentrism and tendencies to preserve the status quo to be “adaptive”, “inevitable”, and part of “human nature” (Sidanius,  1993; Sidanius & Pratto, 1993), system justification theory stresses processes of social learning and ideological persuasion as determinants of stereotypes and other intergroup attitudes (Jost, 1995; Jost & Banaji, 1994). From a system justification perspective, sociobiological accounts run the risk of becoming “legitimizing myths,” in that they provide essentialistic justification for status  differences between groups (see Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000; Hoffman & Hurst, 1989; Yzerbyt & Rogier, 2001). I am not claiming that social dominance researchers themselves have sought to justify existing status and power differences between groups, only that the history of using evolutionary meta-theory to understand human social behavior is a troubled one, ideologically speaking, as it has been closely allied
with social Darwinism and other political attempts to justify the dominance of some groups over others (e.g., Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984).     My purpose here is not to argue that the sociobiological underpinnings of social dominance theory are scientifically incorrect, although others have advanced this argument (e.g., Gould, 1977; Lewontin et al., 1984).

To investigate whether the sociobiological tenets of social dominance theory function as a kind of legitimizing myth, I conducted a study to assess the link between social dominance orientation and endorsement of evolutionary explanations for social inequality. I found that people who score high on Pratto et al.’s (1994) social dominance orientation (SDO) scale agree more with scientific claims about the immutability and biological inevitability of status hierarchies (derived from articles on social dominance theory) than do people who score low on social dominance orientation. pg 32 It seems that people who are high in social dominance orientation are more likely than others to adopt “naturalistic legitimizing myths” in seeking to explain social inequality among social groups. 33

Okay I’m looking at group justification, whcih is SDO/SDT. I need a combo of SDT and SysJus…

 

Dahl Vescio and Weaver: Masc Threat and Ideological Dominance Over Women

3 core characteristics of “good men”
1) Power, status, and dominance, especially relative to women (Rudman & Glick 2008)
2) Physical, emotional, and mental toughness (Brannon, 1976; Thompson & Pleck, 1986)
3) Repudiate and distance from femininity (Bosson, Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005)
When men fail to embody these three, they risk losing their masculinity status. So they must constantly and publicly demonstrate their masculinity (Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Gilmore, 1990)

Masculinity can be threatened when men are like women in knowledge (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004), personality (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001), or roles (e.g., Bosson et al.,  2005; Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, & Wasti, 2009).

Gendered power dynamics/differentials are reversed when a woman outperforms a man in a stereotypically masculine domain (Vescio et al 2010)

2 main consequences of masculinity threat
       1) Affective threat response stemming from concern about others’ perceptions

       2) Reparative response to reestablish masculinity in others’ eyes

After performing stereotypically feminine behavior, men have increased accessibility of threat-related cognitions (thoughts related to negative appraisals; Vandello et al 2008) and report concern about being negatively labeled (Rudman & Fairchild 2004)

Increased public discomfort with the thought that others might see them as gay, but that discomfort is lessened when they are able to proclaim their heterosexuality (Bosson et al 2005)

Aggression (which signals toughness, dominance, power, and status) is particularly useful for restoring masculinity (Cohen et al 1996; Bosson & Vandello 2011).
Men in masculinity-threatening situations also engage in other types of aggressive behaviors to compensate for, or ‘‘repair,’’ their masculinity (Babl, 1979), such as sexual
aggression (Maass et al., 2003).

Stereotypes and gender roles function as ideologies that legitimate and justify men’s power over women (see Rudman & Glick, 2008), thereby implicitly subordinating women Gender/sex roles- as in, the roles we are to play in the sexual domain. Those are also ideologies that legitimate and justify men’s power over women, in the workplace, in character stereotypes (men as more competent)… now i want to do it in the bedroom.

When threats to power are responded to via the promotion of such ideologies, rather than open acts of aggression (see Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998), members of subordinate groups are more likely to tolerate rather than challenge power differentials (Boehm & Flack, 2010; Jackman, 1994). Because women and men have an interdependent relationship (Rudman and Glick book about how there is a reciprocal relationship) therefore civility and cooperation is necessary, measures taken to be diplomatic and preserve good will as opposed to explicit oppression… therefore, measuring ideological endorsement is relevant. Especially among our white, likely educated and higher ses sample… assessing attitudes over physical aggression is much more appropriate, not to mention feasible. 

So by promoting their certain gender-based ideologies in response to masculinity threat, men are re-asserting their power over women because ideologies serve to provide reasons for why men should dominate (SST justification…) and why women must be subordinate (stereotypes, dehumanization).

They look at three forms of ideologies that they think will be activated after a masculinity threat and endorsed in order to restore masculinity. First: SDO, which legitimizes the idea that some groups deserve more power than others (Sidanius and Pratto 2001). By endorsing SDO, men communicate ideologies that assert their group-based power, thereby restoring their masculinity.

(the other two forms they looked at: benevolent sexism and sexualization of women)
Sexualization (thinking of their body not their person): calls to mind traditional heterosexual courtship ideologies that associate men with dominance and women with submission (Sanchez, Fetterolf, Rudman, 2012). When women are sexualized, they underperform (Gervais, Vescio, & Allen, 2011a & b; Wiener, Gervais, Allen, and Marquez, 2013.

Richardson and Goff masculinity threat summary

Gender theorists argue that men are constantly concerned with how they are being rated by other men Frank Rudy Cooper, “Who’s the Man?”: Masculinities Studies, Terry Stops, and Police Training, 18 COLUM. J.GENDER & L. 671 (2009) and are also chronically
anxious that they will be found wanting in their masculinity Angela P Harris, 2011 Heteropatriarchy Kills: Challenging Gender Violence in a Prison Nation

Social psychologists have confirmed the precarious nature of masculine identity. Men generally see manhood not as a developmental guarantee, but as a status that must be earned…and once manhood status IS earned, it can be lost relatively easily.
– Weaver et al, 2010 The Proof is in the Punch: Gender Differences in Perceptions of Action and Aggression as Components of ManhoodSex Roles, 62;
– Vandello et al, 2008 Precarious Manhood, J of Personal and Social Psychology, 95.

Threatened masculinity will make men engage in riskier financial behavior Jackson, M.C., 2013, Male Pattern Blindness: The Consequences of Defending Manhood, unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Furthermore, threats to masculinity can lead men to engage in violence.  This is likely to occur “in contexts in which physical aggression is the most salient masculine option or other routes to restoring manhood seem less attractive or effective.” Vandello et al

Numerous studies confirm that masculinity threats can result in aggressive behaviors. In one of these studies, men whose masculinity was threatened chose afterwards to punch a bag rather than to solve a puzzle. Additionally, they punched the bag harder than men whose masculine identities had not been threatened.
Bosson & Vandello, 2011, Precarious Manhood and its links to action and aggression, Current Dir in PsychSci, 20

In another study, men performed more pushups when threatened than when not. Phillip Abita Goff, Brooke Allison Lewis Di Leone & Kimberly Barsamian Kahn, Racism Leads to Pushups: How Racial Discrimination Threatens Subordinate Men’s Masculinity, 48 J. EXPERIMENTAL SOC. PSYCHOL. 1111 (2012)

Evidence also demonstrates that behaving aggressively can actually relieve the anxiety caused by a masculinity threat. Thus, when masculinity is threatened, aggressive behavior not only allows men to perform their masculine identity, but it also reduces their gender anxiety. Bosson & Vandello 2011

Men often respond to masculinity threats with aggression because physical aggression “is part of men’s cultural script for sustaining and restoring manhood.” This was confirmed in a study in which participants were asked to interpret the physically aggressive acts of another man whose masculinity had been threatened. Researchers found that male observers were more likely to explain these acts as a necessary response to the situation rather than resorting to explanations that attributed the behaviors to the actor’s personality. Weaver et al 2010

As the authors noted, “men display[] a unique sensitivity to the situational factors that compel men to defend their gender status with aggression.” Bosson and Vandello 2011

Their finding is all the more remarkable because, typically, people explain the behaviors of others with resort to dispositional rather than situational explanations, a psychological process known as fundamental attribution error.