Precarious manhood beliefs portray manhood, relative to womanhood, as a social status that is hard to earn, easy to lose, and proven via public action. Here, we present cross-cultural data on a brief measure of precarious manhood beliefs (the Precarious Manhood Beliefs scale [PMB]) that covaries meaningfully with other cross-culturally validated gender ideologies and with country-level indices of gender equality and human development. Using data from university samples in 62 countries across 13 world regions (N = 33,417), we demonstrate: (1) the psychometric isomorphism of the PMB (i.e., its comparability in meaning and statistical properties across the individual and country levels); (2) the PMB’s distinctness from, and associations with, ambivalent sexism and ambivalence toward men; and (3) associations of the PMB with nation-level gender equality and human development. Findings are discussed in terms of their statistical and theoretical implications for understanding widely-held beliefs about the precariousness of the male gender role.
BestD. L. (2001). Cross cultural gender roles. In WorellJ. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (pp. 279–290). Elsevier Science & Technology.
BetzigL. (1993). Sex, succession, and stratification in the first six civilizations: How powerful men reproduced, passed power on to their sons, and used power to defend their wealth, women, and children. In EllisL. (Ed.), Social stratification and socioeconomic inequality: Vol. 1. A comparative biosocial analysis (pp. 37–74). Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
4.
BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A.BurnafordR. M.WeaverJ. R.Arzu WastiS. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331161
BrownD. E. (1991). Human universals. Temple University Press.
8.
BurnafordR.BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A. (2008). Unpublished data. The University of South Florida.
9.
ByrneB. M.van de VijverF. J. R. (2014). Factorial structure of the family values scale from a multilevel-multicultural perspective. International Journal of Testing, 14(2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2013.870903
10.
ChenF. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193
11.
CheungF. M.LeungK.ZhangJ.-X.SunH.-F.GanY.-Q.SongW.-Z.XieD. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the five-factor model complete?Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 407–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032004003
12.
CheungF. M.van de VijverF. J. R.LeongF. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66(7), 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022389
13.
CurranP. G.HauserK. A. (2019). I’m paid biweekly, just not by leprechauns: Evaluating valid-but-incorrect response rates to attention check items. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 103849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103849
14.
DahlJ.VescioT. K.WeaverK. (2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially cause public discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women. Social Psychology, 46, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000248
DiMuccioS. H.YostM. R.Helweg-LarsenM. (2017). A qualitative analysis of perceptions of precarious manhood in US and Danish men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000062
17.
DyerN. G.HangesP. J.HallR. J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.009
18.
FischerR. (2012). Value isomorphism in the European Social Survey: Exploration of meaning shifts in values across levels. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(6), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111413276
19.
FontaineJ. (2008). Traditional and multilevel approaches in cross-cultural research: An integration of methodological frameworks. In Van de VijverF. J. R.Van HemertD. A.PoortingaY. H. (Eds.), Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures (pp. 65–92). Psychology Press.
20.
FontaineJ.FischerR. (2011). Data analytic approaches for investigating isomorphism between the individual-level and the cultural-level internal structure. In MatsumotoD.Van de VijverF. J. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 273–298). Cambridge University Press.
21.
GilmoreD. D. (1990). Manhood in the making. Yale University Press.
22.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
23.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x
24.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
25.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.AdetounB.OsagieJ. E.AkandeA.AlaoA.AnnetjeB.WillemsenT. M.ChipetaK.DardenneB.DijksterhuisA.WigboldusD.EckesT.Six-MaternaI.ExpósitoF.. . . LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
26.
GlickP.LameirasM.FiskeS. T.EckesT.MasserB.VolpatoC.ManganelliA. M.PekJCHuangL. L.Sakalli-UğurluN.WellsR. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
27.
GlickP.WhiteheadJ. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000025
28.
GrahamJ. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 930–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288165
29.
HambletonR. K.MerendaP. F.SpielbergerC. D. (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
30.
HeJ.van de VijverF. (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111
31.
HerdtG. H. (Ed.). (2017). Rituals of manhood: Male initiation in Papua New Guinea. Taylor & Francis.
32.
HimmelsteinM. S.KramerB. L.SpringerK. W. (2019). Stress in strong convictions: Precarious manhood beliefs moderate cortisol reactivity to masculinity threats. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(4), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000187
33.
InglehartR.NorrisP.RonaldI. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press.
34.
KimmelM. S.AronsonA. (Eds.) (2003). Men & masculinities: A social, cultural, and historical encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO.
35.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
36.
Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.BestaT.AdamskaK.JaśkiewiczM.JurekP.VandelloJ. A (2016). If my masculinity is threatened I won’t support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17, 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000016
37.
Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.BestaT.BossonJ. K.JurekP.VandelloJ. A.BestD. L.WlodarczykA.SafdarS.ZawiszaM.ZadkowskaM.SobieckiJ.AgyemangC. B.AkbasG.AmmiratiS.AndersonJ.AnjumG.ArutaJ. J. B. R.AshrafM.BakaityteA.. . . ZukauskieneR. (2020). Country-level and individual-level predictors of men’s support for gender equality in 42 countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1276–1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2696
38.
KroeperK. M.SanchezD. T.HimmelsteinM. S. (2014). Heterosexual men’s confrontation of sexual prejudice: The role of precarious manhood. Sex Roles, 70(1–2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0306-z
39.
KuppensT.PolletT. V. (2015). Gender equality probably does not affect performance at the Olympic games: A comment on Berdahl, Uhlmann, and Bai (2015). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 144–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.002
40.
LernerG. (1986). The creation of patriarchy (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
41.
LintonR. (1936). The study of man: An introduction. Appleton-Century.
42.
MahalikJ. R.LockeB. D.LudlowL. H.DiemerM. A.ScottR. P.GottfriedM.FreitasG. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
43.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
MillerL. C.FishkinS. A. (1997). On the dynamics of human bonding and reproductive success: Seeking windows on the adapted-for human-environmental interface. In SimpsonJ. A.KenrickD. T. (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 197–236). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
45.
NapierJ. L.ThorisdottirH.JostJ. T. (2010). The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7
46.
O’ConnorE. C.FordT. E.BanosN. C. (2017). Restoring threatened masculinity: The appeal of sexist and anti-gay humor. Sex Roles, 77(9–10), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0761-z
47.
OrtnerS. B.WhiteheadH. (1981). Introduction: Accounting for sexual meanings. In OrtnerS. B.WhiteheadH. (Eds.), Sexual meanings: The cultural construction of gender and sexuality (pp. 1–27). Cambridge University Press.
48.
RammstedtB.DannerD.BosnjakM. (2017). Acquiescence response styles: A multilevel model explaining individual-level and country-level differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.038
49.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
50.
RolleroC.GlickP.TartagliaS. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the ambivalent sexism inventory and ambivalence toward men inventory. TPM - Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.2.3
51.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
52.
RuthigJ. C.KehnA.GamblinB. W.VanderzandenK.JonesK. (2017). When women’s gains equal men’s losses: Predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 76(1–2), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0651-9
53.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
TayL.WooS. E.VermuntJ. K. (2014). A conceptual and methodological framework for psychometric isomorphism: Validation of multilevel construct measures. Organizational Research Methods, 17(1), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113517008
58.
Trizano-HermosillaI.AlvaradoJ. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
59.
United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human development report 2019. Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century. Author. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf
60.
ValvedT.Kosakowska-BerezeckaN.BestaT.MartinyS. E. (Forthcoming). Gender belief systems through the lens of culture: Differences in precarious manhood beliefs and reactions to masculinity threat in Poland and Norway. Psychology of Men & Masculinities.
61.
van de VijverF. J. R.LeungK. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Sage.
62.
van de VijverF. J. R.Van HemertD. A.PoortingaY. H. (Eds.). (2008). Individuals and cultures in multilevel analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
van de VijverF. J. R.WatkinsD. (2006). Assessing similarity of meaning at the individual and country level. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.2.69
64.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
65.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K.CohenD.BurnafordR. M.WeaverJ. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001245
66.
van OschY.BenderM.HeJ.AdamsB. G.KunurogluF.TillmanR. N.BenítezI.SekajaL.MamathubaN. (2020). Assessing the importance of internal and external self-esteem and their relationship to honor concerns in six countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 54(5), 462–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120909383
67.
VescioT.Kosakowska-BerezeckaN. (2020). The not so subtle and status quo maintaining nature of everyday sexism. In CheungF.HalpernD. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the international psychology of women (pp. 205–220). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108561716.019
68.
WinegardB. M.WinegardB.GearyD. C. (2014). Eastwood’s brawn and Einstein’s brain: An evolutionary account of dominance, prestige, and precarious manhood. Review of General Psychology, 18(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036594
69.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 55–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
