Two studies examined whether men’s perception of the declining value of traditional masculinity activates social status, realistic, and symbolic threat, and in turn motivates opposition to feminist social movements. In Study 1, men’s perception that their ingroup is losing value across several social spheres was associated with social status and realistic threat, both of which were associated with opposition to feminist movements. Study 2, an experiment, presented men with public opinion data showing a 30-year decline in the degree to which Americans value traditional masculinity or no decline. Information about the declining value of masculinity activated status threat, which motivated less support for feminist movements. Among men who highly identified as masculine, this same information reduced support for feminist movements through symbolic threat. In sum, perceived decline in the social value of traditional masculinity creates status anxiety about the ingroup’s future and motivates compensatory reactions against gender equality.
ButzD. A.YogeeswaranK. (2011). A new threat in the air: Macroeconomic threat increases prejudice against Asian Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.014
2.
CraigM. A.RichesonJ. A. (2014). On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25, 1189–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614527113
3.
DanboldF.HuoY. J. (2015). No longer “all-American”? Whites’ defensive reactions to their numerical decline. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614546355
EssesV. M.JacksonL. M.ArmstrongT. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x
6.
EssesV. M.JacksonL. M.NolanJ. M.ArmstrongT. L. (1999). Economic threat and attitudes toward immigrants. In HalliS.DriedgerL. (Eds.), Immigrant Canada: Demographic, economic, and social challenges (pp. 212–229). University of Toronto Press.
GlickP.WilkersonM.CuffeM. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology, 46, 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228
10.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.GalinskyA. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 32–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386610380991
11.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
12.
HenrichJ.McElreathR. (2003). The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 12, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10110
13.
KoskiJ. E.XieH.OlsonI. R. (2015). Understanding social hierarchies: The neural and psychological foundations of status perception. Social Neuroscience, 10, 527–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1013223
14.
LorberJ. (2010). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
LoweryB. S.UnzuetaM. M.KnowlesE. D.GoffP. A. (2006). Concern for the in-group and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.961
16.
MaassA.CadinuM.GuarnieriG.GrasselliA. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853
17.
MitchellM.SidaniusJ. (1995). Social hierarchy and the death penalty: A social dominance perspective. Political Psychology, 16, 591–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/3792228
18.
MorrisonK. R.FastN. J.YbarraO. (2009). Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.004
19.
MorrisonK. R.YbarraO. (2008). The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.006
20.
MorrisonK. R.YbarraO. (2009). Symbolic threat and social dominance among liberals and conservatives: SDO reflects conformity to political values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1039–1052. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.606
21.
MossA. J.BlodornA.van CampA. R.O’BrienL. T. (2019). Gender equality, value violations, and prejudice toward Muslims. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22, 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217716751
22.
OuttenH. R.SchmittM. T.MillerD. A.GarciaA. L. (2012). Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211418531
23.
PrattoF.StallworthL. M.Conway-LanzS. (1998). Social dominance orientation and the ideological legitimization of social policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1853–1875. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01349.x
24.
PrattoF.StallworthL. M.SidaniusJ. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01118.x
25.
PrattoF.TatarD. G.Conway-LanzS. (1999). Who gets what and why: Determinants of social allocations. Political Psychology, 20, 127–150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3792007
26.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
27.
RiosK.SosaN.OsbornH. (2018). An experimental approach to intergroup threat theory: Manipulations, moderators, and consequences of realistic vs. symbolic threat. European Review of Social Psychology, 29, 212–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1537049
28.
RothenbergP. S. (2004). Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study. Macmillan.
SchmuckD.MatthesJ. (2017). Effects of economic and symbolic threat appeals in right-wing populist advertising on anti-immigrant attitudes: The impact of textual and visual appeals. Political Communication, 34, 607–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1316807
StephanW. G.Lausanne RenfroC.EssesV. M.WhiteS. C.MartinT. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.011
34.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van DykeN.SouleS. A. (2002). Structural social change and the mobilizing effect of threat: Explaining levels of patriot and militia organizing in the United States. Social Problems, 49, 497–520. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2002.49.4.497
37.
XiaoY. J.van BavelJ. J. (2012). See your friends close and your enemies closer: Social identity and identity threat shape the representation of physical distance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212442228
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.
