Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article

Masculine Identity, Ambivalent Sexism, and Attitudes Toward Gender Subtypes

Favoring Masculine Men and Feminine Women

Published Online:June 15, 2015https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228

Abstract

Abstract. We investigated how men’s masculine identification and ambivalent sexism relate to evaluations of male and female subtypes. Masculine identification correlated with positive attitudes toward male and female types that conform to traditional gender norms (i.e., masculine men, feminine women), but negative attitudes toward feminine men. However, masculine identification was not associated with negative evaluations toward other nontraditional male (stay-at-home fathers, feminist men) or with nontraditional female (masculine women, career women, and feminist women) subtypes. By contrast, hostile sexism consistently predicted negative evaluations of nontraditional female and male types, whereas benevolent sexism predicted positive evaluations of traditional female types. We suggest that masculine identification generally promotes favoritism toward traditional male and (like benevolent sexism) traditional female subtypes, rather than (as hostile sexism does) derogation toward nontraditional subtypes.

References

  • Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K. & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multi-dimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bosson, J. K. & Michniewicz, K. S. (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, 425–442. doi: 10.1037/a0033126 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bosson, J. K. & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 82–86. doi: 10.1177/0963721411402669 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00126 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Burhmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, but high quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Carpenter, S. & Trentham, S. (1998). Subtypes of women and men: A new taxonomy and an exploratory categorical analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 679–696. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms, and male sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 259–266. doi: 10.1080/00224490409552233 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M. & Lewis, L. L. (1985). Level of categorization and the content of stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3, 145–167. doi: 10.1521/soco.1985.3.2.145 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Diekman, A. B. & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188. doi: 10.1177/0146167200262001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. ZannaEd.. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Eagly, A. H. & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558. doi: 10.1177/0146167289154008 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B. & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334. doi: 10.1177/01461672972312009 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (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 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. ZannaEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33 pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., … López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., … Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Green, R. J., Ashmore, R. D. & Manzi, R. Jr. (2005). The structure of gender type perception: Testing the elaboration, encapsulation, and evaluation framework. Social Cognition, 23, 429–464. doi: 10.1521/soco.2005.23.5.429 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual men’s attitudes toward women and gay men: The theory of exclusive masculine identity. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 41, 37–56. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.37 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Luhtanen, R. & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. doi: 10.1177/0146167292183006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y. & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgements toward ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180102 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mason, W. & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J. & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision-Making, 5, 411–419. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rudman, L. A. & Fairchild, K. (2007). The F word: Is feminism incompatible with beauty and romance? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 125–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00346.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Spence, J. T. & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: What do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01021.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Social identity and intergroup relations. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Thompson, E. H., Pleck, H. H. & Ferrera, D. L. (1992). Men and masculinities: Scales for masculinity ideology and masculinity-related constructs. Sex Roles, 27, 573–607. doi: 10.1007/BF02651094 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thompson, E. H. & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. doi: 10.1177/000276486029005003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Vandello, J. A. & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research of precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 101–113. doi: 10.1037/a0029826 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M. & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–1339. doi: 10.1037/a0012453 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Whorley, M. R. & Addis, M. E. (2006). Ten years of psychological research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant methodological trends. Sex Roles, 55, 649–658. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9120-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar