Abstract
Abstract. While overt sexism has become less acceptable in recent years, sexism frequently goes unchallenged by observers for a variety of reasons. In the present investigation, we propose that people may excuse men’s sexist remarks when the remarks follow a manhood threat caused by a woman. In Study 1, we found that a man’s sexist remark buffered against the emasculating effect of a threat to his masculinity from an ex-girlfriend. In Study 2, we further show that observers excuse a man’s sexist remark following a competitive loss to a woman to the extent that they perceive him as less manly as a result. We replicate this finding in Study 3 while ruling out two competing explanations. We discuss the implication that sexism prevention efforts need to identify and address gender-related contexts where sexism is excused in order for efforts to move toward its prevention.
References
(2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as a way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 227–242. doi: 10.1177/0361684310397509
(2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 425. doi: 10.1037/a0033126
(2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623–634. doi: 10.1177/0963721411402669
(1998). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 419–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00166.x
(2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544. doi: 10.1177/0146167202250923
(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
(2012). When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 210–226. doi: 10.1177/0361684312440958
(2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–167. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128
(2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling, [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
(2006). Coping with threats to Just-World Beliefs: Derogate, blame, or help? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 664–682. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00023.x
(1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563–677. doi: 10.1177/000276486029005005
(1965).
From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in social psychology . In L. BerkowitzEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (2, pp. 219–266). New York, NY: Academic.(2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
(1997).
Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction of gender identity . In M. M. GergenS. N. DavisEds., Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223–242). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum: New York, NY.
(2011). The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 215–220. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.001
(2014). Men’s (mis)perceptions of the gender threatening consequences of unemployment. Sex Roles, 70, 88–97. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0339-3
(2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 140–151. doi: 10.1037/a0018093
(1995).
The gender role strain paradigm: An update . In R. F. LevantW. S. PollackEds., A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York, NY: Basic Books.(1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
(2004).
The bases of gendered power . In A. H. EaglyA. E. BeallR. J. SternbergEds., The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 242–268). New York, NY: Guilford Press.(2011). Turn-frogs and careful-sweaters: Non-conscious perception of incongruous word pairings provokes fluid compensation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 246–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.020
(2013). “I guess what he said wasn’t that bad”: Dissonance in nonconfronting targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 856–869. doi: 10.1177/0146167213484769
(2004).
Gender as status: An expectation states theory approach . In A. H. EaglyA. E. BeallR. J. SternbergEds., The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 217–241). New York, NY: Guilford Press.(2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 157–176. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
(2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
(1999). Stereotypes and terror management: Evidence that mortality salience enhances stereotypic thinking and preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 905–926. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.905
(2010). Women’s attempts to appease masculinity and avoid punishment through self-sexualizing appeasement strategies, (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University).
(2012). Implicit and explicit emotional reactions to witnessing prejudice. Group Processes and Interpersonal Relationships, 15, 379–392. doi: 10.1177/1368430211426163
(2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: Effects of threats to one’s prototypicality on evaluations of in-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 510–517. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1476
(2002). Reporting discrimination in public and private contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 69–74. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.69
(1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x
(1998).
Experiencing everyday prejudice and discrimination . In J. K. SwimC. StangorEds., Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 37–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.(2005). Judgments of sexism: A comparison of the subtlety of sexism measures and sources of variability in judgments of sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 406–411. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00240.x
(2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 101–113. doi: 10.1037/a0029826
(2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–1339. doi: 10.1037/a0012453
(2013). Intrepid, imprudent, or impetuous? The effects of gender threats on men’s financial decisions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 184–191. doi: 10.1037/a0027087
(2010). The proof is in the punch: Gender differences in perceptions of action and aggression as components of manhood. Sex Roles, 62, 241–251. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9713-6
(1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 15–30. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00199
