People perceive men’s masculinity to be more precarious, or easier to lose, than women’s femininity. In the present article, we investigated (a) whether men’s heterosexuality is likewise perceived to be more precarious than women’s, and if so, (b) whether this effect is exaggerated when the targets in question are Black rather than White. To investigate these questions, we conducted three experiments (one of which was conducted on a probability-based sample of U.S. adults; total N = 3,811) in which participants read about a target person who either did or did not engage in a single same-sex sexual behavior. Results revealed that participants questioned the heterosexuality of men more than the heterosexuality of women when they engaged (vs. did not engage) in same-sex sexual behavior. Surprisingly, these effects were not moderated by whether targets were Black versus White. Results are interpreted in light of recent models of intersectional stereotyping.
AgerströmJ.CarlssonM.StrinićA. (2022). Intersected groups and discriminatory everyday behavior. Social Psychology, 52, 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000464
2.
AltN. P.LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2020). The straight categorization bias: A motivated and altruistic reasoning account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119, 1266–1289. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000232
3.
BaumeisterR. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.
4.
BolgerN.StadlerG.LaurenceauJ. P. (2012). Power analysis for intensive longitudinal studies. In MehlM. R.ConnerT. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 285–301). Guilford Press.
5.
BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A.CaswellT. A. (2013). Precarious manhood. In RyanM. K.BranscombeN. R. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 115–128). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446269930.n8
6.
CarnaghiA.StragáM.ColadonatoR.BianchiM.PiccoliV. (2020). Extrapolating stereotypical information on sexual orientation from race categories: The case of Black and Asian men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000225
7.
ColeE. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564
8.
CraigM.DruckmanJ.FreeseJ. (2022, November). Time-sharing experiments for the social sciences. https://www.tessexperiments.org
9.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
10.
DiMuccioS. H.KnowlesE. D. (2021). Precarious manhood predicts support for aggressive policies and politics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 1169–1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220963577
11.
FreemanJ. B.PennerA. M.SapersteinA.ScheutzM.AmbadyN. (2011). Looking the part: Social status cues shape race perception. PLOS ONE, 6(9), Article e25107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025107
12.
FreemanJ. B.StolierR. M.BrooksJ. A. (2020). Dynamic interactive theory as a domain-general account of social perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 237–287.
13.
GaddisS. M. (2017). How Black are Lakisha and Jamal? Racial perceptions from names used in correspondence audit studies. Sociological Science, 4, 469–489. https://doi.org/10.15195/v4.a19
14.
GaddisS. M. (2019). Signaling class: Two survey experiments examining social class perceptions from names used in racial-bias experiments. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3350739
15.
GalinskyA. D.HallE. V.CuddyA. J. C. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24, 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457783
16.
GilmoreD. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. Yale University Press.
17.
GoffP. A.ThomasM. A.JacksonM. C. (2008). “Ain’t I a woman?” Towards an intersectional approach to person perception and group-based harms. Sex Roles, 59, 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9505-4
18.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
19.
HallE. V.GalinskyA. D.PhillipsK. W. (2015). Gender profiling: A gendered race perspective on person-position fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 853–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215580779
20.
HallE. V.HallA. V.GalinskyA. D.PhillipsK. W. (2019). MOSAIC: A model of stereotyping through associated and intersectional categories. Academy of Management Review, 44, 643–672. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0109
JohnsonK. L.FreemanJ. B.PaukerK. (2012). Race is gendered: How covarying phenotypes and stereotypes bias sex categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025335
23.
JohnsonK. L.GhavamiN. (2011). At the crossroads of conspicuous and concealable: What race categories communicate about sexual orientation. PLOS ONE, 6(3), Article e18025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018025
24.
JohnsonL. L.Lipsett-RiveraS. (1998). The faces of honor: Sex, shame, and violence in colonial Latin America. University of New Mexico Press.
25.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347
26.
KatzD.BralyK. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280–290.
27.
KingD. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a Black feminist ideology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 42–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/494491
LakensD. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 355–362.
30.
LakensD.ScheelA. M.IsagerP. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 259–269.
31.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2016). Straight until proven gay: A systematic bias toward straight categorizations in sexual orientation judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000052
32.
MizeT. D.ManagoB. (2018). Precarious sexuality: How men and women are differentially categorized for similar sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 83, 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418759544
33.
NeelR.LassetterB. (2019). The stigma of perceived irrelevance: An affordance-management theory of interpersonal invisibility. Psychological Review, 126, 634–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000143
34.
ParentM. C.KalenkosiC. M.CardellaE. (2018). Risky business: Precarious manhood and investment portfolio decisions. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 19, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000089
35.
PeplauL. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37–40.
36.
PetskoC. D.BodenhausenG. V. (2019a). Race-crime congruency effects revisited: Do we take defendants’ sexual orientation into account?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 73–81.
37.
PetskoC. D.BodenhausenG. V. (2019b). Racial stereotyping of gay men: Can a minority sexual orientation erase race?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.002
38.
PetskoC. D.BodenhausenG. V. (2020). Multifarious person perception: How social perceivers manage the complexity of intersectional targets. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14, Article e12518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12518
39.
PetskoC. D.RosetteA. S.BodenhausenG. V. (2022). Through the looking glass: A lens-based account of intersectional stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123, 763–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000382
40.
Ponce de LeonR.RosetteA. S. (2022). “Invisible” discrimination: Divergent outcomes for the non-prototypicality of Black women. Academy of Management Journal, 65, 784–812. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1623
41.
Purdie-VaughnsV.EibachR. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 59, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
42.
RemediosJ. D.VinluanA. C. (forthcoming). Intersectionality in social cognition: Stereotyping across interlocking social categories. In CarlstonD. E.JohnsonK.HugenbergK. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (2nd ed.).
43.
RosetteA. S.Ponce de LeonR.KovalC. Z.HarrisonD. A. (2018). Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.12.002
44.
SeskoA. K.BiernatM. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.016
45.
ToddA. R.ThiemK. C.NeelR. (2016). Does seeing faces of young Black boys facilitate the identification of threatening stimuli?Psychological Science, 27, 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615624492
46.
TornelloS. L.MatsikJ. L. (2020). Do actions speak louder than words? Perceptions of women’s and men’s branched and coincident configurations of sexual identities and behaviours. Psychology & Sexuality, 11, 180–197.
47.
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, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
48.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K.CohenD.BurnafordR. M.WeaverJ. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
49.
WestK.Borras-GuevaraM. L.MortonT.GreenlandK. (2021). Fragile heterosexuality. Social Psychology, 52, 143–161.
Supplementary Material
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.
