Functional perceptions of relational success and infidelity concerns for violators of gendered naming conventions in marriage

Abstract

Replicating and extending previous findings, we report two high-powered studies exploring how heterosexual men and women’s decisions to change or keep their surnames following marriage influence perceptions of various marital outcomes as a function of perceivers’ sexist attitudes. Participants in Study 1 evaluated men and women who indicated keeping or changing their surname after marriage, along with an articulated reason for their decision, specifically either to disrupt or reinforce gender norms. Study 2 removed the reasoning of their choice. Independent of participant gender or whether decision reasoning was provided, both studies demonstrated that targets who violated gendered naming norms (e.g., female keepers and male changers) were perceived more negatively than those who adhered to these norms (e.g., male keepers and female changers), particularly for participants higher in hostile sexism. We frame these findings from complementary evolutionary and sociocultural perspectives.

Keywords

Attitudes gender norms infidelity marriage sexism surname

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atkinson

D. L

. (1987). Names and titles: Maiden name retention and the use of Ms. Women and Language, 10, 37.

Brescoll

V. L.

Uhlmann

E. L.

(2005). Attitudes toward traditional and nontraditional parents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 436–445.

Brightman

1994. Why wives use their husband’s names. American Demographics, 16, 9–11.

Brown

Keefer

L. A.

Sacco

D. F.

(2020a). Relational insecurity heightens sensitivity to limbal rings in partnered women. Personal Relationships, 27, 61–75.

Brown

Keefer

L. A.

Sacco

D. F.

Brown

F. L.

(in press). Demonstrate values: Behavioral displays of moral outrage as a cue to long-term mate potential. Emotion.

Brown

Sacco

D. F.

(2019). Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 957–976.

Brown

Sacco

D. F.

Medlin

M. M.

(2019). Sociosexual attitudes differentially predict men and women’s preferences for agreeable male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 248–251.

Brown

Westrich

Bates

Twibell

McGrath

R. E.

(2020b). Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110249.

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.

10.

Coleman

J. M.

Franiuk

(2011). Perceptions of mothers and fathers who take temporary work leave. Sex Roles, 64, 311–323.

11.

Cross

E. J.

Overall

N. C.

(2019). Women experience more serious relationship problems when male partners endorse hostile sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 1022–1041.

12.

Cross

E. J.

Overall

N. C.

Low

R. S. T.

McNulty

J. K.

(2019). An interdependence account of sexism and power: Men’s hostile sexism, biased perceptions of low power, and relationship aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 338–363.

13.

Diekman

A. B.

Goodfriend

(2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369–383.

14.

Drea

(2021). Mitigating negative perceptions due to gender norm violation through adherence to another prevalent gender norm [Unpublished Master’s Thesis].

15.

Drigotas

S. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62–87.

16.

Eastwick

P. W.

Eagly

A. H.

Glick

Johannesen-Schmidt

M. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Blum

A. M.

Eckes

Freiburger

Huang

L.-L.

Fernández

M. L.

Manganelli

A. M.

Pek

J. C. X.

Castro

Y. R.

Sakalli-Ugurlu

Six-Materna

Volpato

(2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614.

17.

Embleton

S. M.

King

(1984). Attitudes towards maiden name retention. Onomastica Canadiana, 66, 11–22.

18.

Fisher

M. L.

(2004). Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, S283–S285.

19.

Gaunt

(2013a). Breadwinning moms, caregiving dads: Double standard in social judgments of gender norm violators. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 3–24.

20.

Gaunt

(2013b). Ambivalent sexism and perceptions of men and women who violate gendered family roles. Community, Work & Family, 16, 401–416.

21.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.

22.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536.

23.

Gul

Kupfer

T. R.

(2019). Benevolent sexism and mate preferences: Why do women prefer benevolent men despite recognizing that they can be undermining? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 146–161.

24.

Hales

A. H.

Williams

K. D.

(2020). Extremism leads to ostracism. Social Psychology, 51, 149–156.

25.

Krems

J. A.

Rankin

A. M.

Northover

S. B.

(2020). Women’s strategic defenses against same-sex aggression: Evidence from sartorial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(6), 770–781.

26.

Kocum

Courvoisier

D. S.

Vernon

(2017). The buzz on the queen bee and other characterizations of women’s intrasexual competition at work. In Fisher

M.L.

(Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Women and Competition (pp. 719–738). Oxford University Press.

27.

N. P.

van Vugt

Colarelli

S. M.

(2018). The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 38–44.

28.

Mogilski

J. K.

(2020). Parental investment theory. In Shackelford

T. K.

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of evolutionary psychology. SAGE.

29.

Noack

Wiik

K. A.

(2008). Women’s choice of surname upon marriage in Norway. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 507–518.

30.

Pew Research Center. (2012). A comparison of results from surveys by the Pew Research Center and Google Consumer Surveys. Author.

31.

Platek

S. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds). (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics. Cambridge University Press.

32.

Pratto

Hegarty

(2000). The political psychology of reproductive strategies. Psychological Science, 11, 57–62.

33.

Prentice

D. A.

Carranza

(2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.

34.

Robnett

R. D.

Underwood

C. R.

Nelson

P. A.

Anderson

K. J.

(2016). “She might be afraid of commitment”: Perceptions of women who retain their surname after marriage. Sex Roles, 75, 500–513.

35.

Robnett

R. D.

Wertheimer

Tenenbaum

H. R.

(2018). Does a woman’s marital surname choice influence perceptions of her husband? An analysis focusing on gender-typed traits and relationship power dynamics. Sex Roles, 79, 59–71.

36.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

37.

Schmitt

D. P.

, & International Sexuality Description Project. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.

38.

Shafer

E. F.

Christensen

M. A.

(2018). Flipping the (surname) script: Men’s nontraditional surname choice at marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 3055–3074.

39.

Vaillancourt

Krems

J. A.

(2018). An evolutionary psychological perspective of indirect aggression in girls and women. In Coyne

S. M.

Ostrov

J. M.

(Eds.), The development of relational aggression (pp. 111–126). Oxford University Press.

40.

Wyckoff

J. P.

Asao

Buss

D. M.

(2019). Gossip as an intrasexual competition strategy: Predicting information sharing from potential mate versus competitor mating strategies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40, 96–104.