Abstract
Precarious manhood theory posits a double standard in gender rules such that prescriptions (“shoulds”) and proscriptions (“should nots”) are endorsed more strongly for men than for women. Here, we tested this hypothesis by asking whether people view agency as more desirable in men than communion is in women, and weakness as less desirable in men than dominance is in women. Data from college undergraduates in 62 countries (N = 27,343) indicated that: (1) measures of agency, communion, weakness, and dominance are psychometrically comparable across countries; (2) prescriptions (agency for men, communion for women) are variable across countries, whereas proscriptions (weakness for men, dominance for women) appear universal; (3) double standards in prescriptions (men’s agency as more desirable than women’s communion) are larger in countries lower in gender equality and human development, whereas double standards in proscriptions (men’s weakness as less desirable than women’s dominance) do not covary with country-level factors; and (4) these patterns are moderated by participant gender in nuanced ways, and are robust to control by individual-level gender beliefs. Discussion considers the theoretical and practical significance of these findings for understanding how young adults – as cultural agents of gender socialization – hold men to asymmetrically rigid gender rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Archer, J. (1992). Childhood gender roles: Social context and organisation. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 31–61). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315785042-3
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Rand McNally. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1967-02200-000
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Berent, J., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Chipeaux, M. (2016). Masculinity and sexual prejudice: a matter of heterosexual men’s need to differentiate themselves from women and gay men. In K. Faniko, F. Lorenzi-Cioldi, O. Sarrasin, & E. Mayor (Eds.), Gender and social hierarchies: Perspectives from social psychology (pp. 175–187). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-17213-012
Betzig, L. (1992). Roman polygyny. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(5–6), 309–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(92)90008-R
Boer, D., Hanke, K., & He, J. (2018). On detecting systematic measurement error in cross-cultural research: a review and critical reflection on equivalence and invariance tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(5), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117749042
Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Vandello, J. A., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Olech, M., Besta, T., Bender, M., Hoorens, V., Becker, M., Sevincer, A. T., Best, D., Safdar, S., Wlodarcyzk, A., Zawisza, M., Zadkowska, M., Abuhamdeh, S., Agyemang, C. B., Akbas, G., Albayrak-Aydemir, N., & Van Laar, C. (2021). Psychometric properties and correlates of precarious manhood beliefs in 62 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(3), 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022121997997
Bosson, J., & Vandello, J. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402669
Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1413–1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611420445
Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 31063–31069. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008704117
Brewster, K. L., & Padavic, I. (2000). Change in gender-ideology, 1977–1996: The contributions of intracohort change and population turnover. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00477.x
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665
Chrisler, J. C. (2013). Womanhood is not as easy as it seems: Femininity requires both achievement and restraint. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031005
Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36921-X_2
Cuddy, A. J., Wolf, E. B., Glick, P., Crotty, S., Chong, J., & Norton, M. I. (2015). Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4), 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000027
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005
Finch, W. H., Bolin, J. E., & Kelley, K. (2019). Multilevel modeling using R (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351062268
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
Flere, S., & Lavrič, M. (2008). On the validity of cross-cultural social studies using student samples. Field Methods, 20(4), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08322703
Fog, A. (2021). A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of cultural variables. Cross-Cultural Research, 55(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120956948
Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. Yale University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-97409-000
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Brunner, A., Willemsen, T., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksteruis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Exposito, F., & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., Manganelli, A. M., Pek, J. C. X., Huang, L., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Castro, Y. R., Pereira, M., Willemsen, T., Brunner, A., Six-Materna, I., & Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000025
Hammond, M. D., Milojev, P., Huang, Y., & Sibley, C. G. (2018). Benevolent sexism and hostile sexism across the ages. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617727588
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/cultures-consequences/book665
Ingelhart, R., Norris, P., & Ronald, I. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550362
Jackson, E. F., & Bussey, K. (2020). Under pressure: Differentiating adolescents’ expectations regarding stereotypic masculine and feminine behavior. Sex Roles, 83(5), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01113-0
Jackson, E. F., Bussey, K., & Myers, E. (2021). Encouraging gender conformity or sanctioning nonconformity? Felt pressure from parents, peers, and the self. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01387-8
Kane, E. W. (2006). No way my boys are going to be like that! Parents’ responses to children’s gender nonconformity. Gender & Society, 20(2), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205284276
Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2013). Integrating the stereotype content model (warmth and competence) and the Osgood semantic differential (evaluation, potency, and activity). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1978
Kim, E. S., Cao, C., Wang, Y., & Nguyen, D. T. (2017). Measurement invariance testing with many groups: A comparison of five approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(4), 524–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1304822
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.687667
Koenig, A. M. (2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01086
Kuppens, T., & Pollet, T. 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
Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292459
Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Toward a greater understanding of antigay prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701503390
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.267
Milfont, T. L., & Fisher, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857
Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203821961
Mize, T. D., & Manago, B. (2018). Precarious sexuality: How men and women are differentially categorized for similar sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418759544
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018093
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
Pauletti, R. E., Cooper, P. J., & Perry, D. G. (2014). Influences of gender identity on children’s maltreatment of gender-nonconforming peers: A person × target analysis of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(5), 843–866. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036037
Pleck, J. H. (1981) The myth of masculinity. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/227831
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (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(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
Pryor, J. B., & Whalen, N. J. (1997). A typology of sexual harassment: Characteristics of harassers and the social circumstances under which sexual harassment occurs. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 129–151). Allyn & Bacon. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-98843-007
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Roberts, A. L., Rosario, M., Slopen, N., Calzo, J. P., & Austin, S. B. (2013). Childhood gender nonconformity, bullying victimization, and depressive symptoms across adolescence and early adulthood: An 11-year longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 52(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.11.006
Rogoza, R., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Jonason, P. K., Piotrowski, J., Campbell, K. W., Gebauer, J. E., Maltby, J., Sedikides, C., Bilic, M., Bodroza, B., Brulin, J. G., Poonoosamy, H. Y. B., Chaleeraktrakoon, T., Dominguez, A. D. C., Dragova-Koleva, S., El-Astal, S., Eldesoki, W. L., Gouveia, V., Gundolf, K., & Włodarczyk, A. (2021). Structure of dark triad dirty dozen across eight world regions. Assessment, 28(4), 1125–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120922611
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Rudman, L. A., Mescher, K., & Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2013). Reactions to gender egalitarian men: Perceived feminization due to stigma-by-association. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 572–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212461160
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2012a). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 167–227). Elsevier. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012a-12724-004
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012b). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257
Sagebin Bordini, G., & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality & Culture, 17(4), 686–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9163-0
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
Smuts, B. (1995). The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 6(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734133
Spivey, L. A., Huebner, D. M., & Diamond, L. M. (2018). Parent responses to childhood gender nonconformity: Effects of parent and child characteristics. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(3), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000279
Sullivan, J., Moss-Racusin, C., Lopez, M., & Williams, K. (2018) Backlash against gender stereotype-violating preschool children. PLoS One 13(4), Article e0195503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195503
Tellhed, U., Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2017). Will I fit in and do well? The importance of social belongingness and self-efficacy for explaining gender differences in interest in STEM and HEED majors. Sex Roles, 77(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0694-y
United Nations Development Programme. (2020). Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/IHDI
United Nations Statistics Division. (2021). Standard country or area codes for statistical use. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/
Valved, T., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., & Martiny, S. E. (2021). 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, 22(2), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000331
van Beusekom, G., Collier, K. L., Bos, H. M., Sandfort, T. G., & Overbeek, G. (2020). Gender nonconformity and peer victimization: Sex and sexual attraction differences by age. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1591334
van de Vijver, F. J., & Leung, K. (2021). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415188
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study. (Rev. ed.) Sage. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-97701-000
Williams Insitute. (2019). Social acceptance of LGBT People in 174 Countries: 1981 to 2017. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Global-Acceptance-Index-LGBT-Oct-2019.pdf
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The man who mistook his wife for a chattel. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 289–322). Oxford University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98504-000
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. 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
World Economic Forum. (2020). Global gender gap report 2020. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf
Acknowledgements
This study was preregistered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/j9fcy/) as part of a larger preregistered study of gender beliefs across countries (https://osf.io/fqd4p/). The results presented in this paper are part of a larger project entitled “Towards Gender Harmony” (www.towardsgenderharmony), which involves many wonderful collaborators who helped collect the data. Here, we acknowledge our University of Gdańsk Research Assistants team for their assistance with programming the surveys and coordinating the collection of data at all sites: Jurand Sobiecki, Agata Bizewska, Mariya Amiroslanova, Aleksandra Głobińska, Andy Milewski, Piotr Piotrowski, Stanislav Romanov, Aleksandra Szulc, and Olga Żychlińska.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Science Centre in Poland [Grant 2017/26/M/HS6/00360] awarded to Natasza Kosakowska-Berezecka.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
All research involving human participants received approval from each primary researcher’s university IRB (or relevant ethical oversight committee) and was conducted following all guidelines for ethical treatment of human participants.
Consent to Participate
All participants gave their informed consent to participate.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests, nor any present or anticipated employment interests, to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bosson, J.K., Wilkerson, M., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N. et al. Harder Won and Easier Lost? Testing the Double Standard in Gender Rules in 62 Countries. Sex Roles 87, 1–19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01297-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01297-y