Measure of a Man

As social psychologists investigating topics pertaining to gender and intergroup relations, much of the research that has impacted our own work has been focused on the experiences of women. Perhaps because gender stereotypes legitimize men’s greater status relative to women (Eagly, 1987; Ridgeway, 2001), their potential negative effects on men are often overlooked. Researchers have generally focused on the ways in which stereotyping processes and traditional gender roles produce negative consequences for women, for good reason. Gender stereotypes have been shown to result in discrimination against women in the workplace (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012), disrupt women’s performance in counter-normative domains (such as math and science fields; Good, Woodzicka, & Wingfield, 2010; O’Brien & Crandall, 2003), and can incur negative consequences for women’s self-esteem (Good & Sanchez, 2010) and relationships (Sanchez, Phelan, Moss-Racusin, & Good, 2012).

In contrast, comparatively little research has investigated the implications of gender stereotyping processes for men. The assumption that gender stereotypes uniquely or disproportionately impact women may not only reinforce unrealistic expectations of men, but also obscure a rich unexplored area ripe for empirical investigation. Recently, researchers have begun to fill this gap; results from a growing subfield suggest that despite occupying positions of societal power and dominance, pressure to adhere to a strict definition of masculinity is often associated with serious health (Courtenay, 2000), relational (Burn & Ward, 2005), and professional (Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010) consequences for men (see Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, & Weaver, 2008). This special issue offers a timely compendium of manuscripts from this new (yet rapidly expanding) area of research, focusing on various outcomes of gender stereotyping processes for men. Our call for papers resulted in 29 submissions, many of which represented interdisciplinary work merging social psychology with health psychology, clinical psychology, educational psychology, industrial organizational psychology, developmental psychology, media studies, sociology, and social advocacy work. The quality of the submissions made it difficult to select the six papers that seemed most relevant, impactful, and scientifically rigorous within this growing subfield. As such, this special issue includes a compelling mix of topics and theoretical approaches, reflecting the diversity and range of work being conducted on masculinity and male stereotyping.

Through their studies of gendered food packaging, Zhu, Brescoll, Newman, and Uhlmann demonstrate the health impacts of gender stereotyping. First, the authors demonstrate that both men and women prefer unhealthy food when primed with masculinity, while femininity primes were associated with preferences for healthier foods. Next, they reveal that the gender stereotype congruency of food packaging (i.e., feminine packaging for healthful foods, and masculine packaging for less healthy foods) impacted ratings of product attractiveness, taste, purchasing intentions, and even the amount participants were willing to spend on the product. Of importance, they also demonstrate reactance to explicitly gendered packaging among some participants. Given that men are stereotypically associated with unhealthy eating, the implications of gender-congruent advertising on men’s health are far-reaching.

Michniewicz and Vandello consider the downstream consequences of masculine identity threat, both for men and women. Across three studies, they show that participants are more likely to excuse sexism perpetrated by a man who has recently been emasculated by a woman (i.e., experienced masculine identity threat caused by a woman) relative to a man who received a gender identity threat from another man or a man who received a non-gendered threat. Importantly, both male and female participants demonstrated this pattern of excusal. The importance of continuously reaffirming men’s identity therefore is not only detrimental to men, but also to women.

Glick, Wilkerson, and Cuffe highlight masculine identification from a social identity perspective (i.e., strength of ingroup identification) rather than endorsement of a set of prescriptive traits and behaviors. As such, they show that masculine identification mirrors benevolent sexism in predicting positive evaluations of traditional female subtypes, but not negative evaluations of nontraditional female subtypes. Of importance, unlike benevolent sexism, masculine identification also predicts positive evaluations of traditional male subtypes, but not negative evaluations of nontraditional male subtypes.

Cheryan, Cameron, Katagiri, and Monin explore the strategies that men utilize to recover from threats to their masculinity (i.e., learning that they had underperformed on a test of masculinity, and being told that they were physically weak). The authors reveal that these masculinity threats can lead men to both distance themselves from femininity and associate themselves with masculinity. Specifically, men who received masculinity threats (relative to non-threatened men) were less likely to express preferences for feminine products (such as a free trial day at a Spa or tickets to an arts performance). Of interest, they also claimed more stereotypically masculine attributes (such as height, number of prior sexual relationships, and aggressiveness). These findings reveal the complex identity signaling strategies that men employ to reassert threatened gender identities.

Saucier, Strain, Hockett, and McManus consider the interplay between masculinity and honor, particularly as it relates to beliefs about rape and female rape victims. Somewhat paradoxically, they show that both men and women who strongly endorse masculine honor (a specific set of prescribed and proscribed behaviors) have more negative attitudes about the crime of rape (against a woman) but also more negative attitudes toward those women who have been raped.

Finally, Dahl, Vescio, and Weaver explore novel and particularly problematic recovery strategies that men employ in response to gender identity threats. Moreover, they reveal a new manifestation of gender identity threat for men. Specifically, men whose gender identity had been threatened (relative to non-threatened men) were more likely to express concern about their public image, as well as increased anger. In turn, threatened men were more likely to endorse a host of ideologies and strategies that subordinate women, such as social dominance orientation, benevolent sexism, and sexualizing women. Additionally, the authors reveal that being outperformed by a woman in masculine domains can serve as a powerful gender identity threat for men.

Taken together, the papers collected in this special issue highlight the critical importance of studying the consequences of gender stereotypes for men as well as women. Although research in this area has historically emphasized women’s experiences, the current results reflect the field’s growing interest in understanding the impact of gender processes more broadly. Indeed, comprehensive theoretical frameworks should shed light on the complex operations of gender constructions, not just their manifestation for certain affected subgroups. By definition, research in this area must thus explore the ways in which gender stereotypes serve as powerful measuring sticks for individuals who identify at all points along the gender spectrum. By highlighting rigorous work on the consequences of gender stereotypes for men and masculinity, we hope to inspire other researchers to explore the ways in which gender stereotyping processes broadly shape social expectations and experiences.