Precarious Manhood Predicts Support for Aggressive Policies and Politicians
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PSPXXX10.1177/0146167220963577Personality and Social Psychology BulletinDiMuccio and Knowles 963577research-article2020 Empirical Research Paper Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Precarious Manhood Predicts Support for 1 –19 © 2020 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc Aggressive Policies and Politicians Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220963577 10.1177/0146167220963577 journals.sagepub.com/home/pspb Sarah H. DiMuccio1 and Eric D. Knowles1 Abstract Precarious manhood (PM) theory posits that males are expected to actively maintain their reputations as “real men.” We propose that men’s concern about failing to meet masculine standards leads them to embrace policies and politicians that signal strength and toughness—or what we term political aggression. Three correlational studies support this claim. In Study 1, men’s fear of failing to meet masculine expectations predicted their support for aggressive policies (e.g., the death penalty), but not policies lacking aggressive features (e.g., affirmative action). Studies 2 and 3 utilized Google searches to assess the relationship between regional levels of PM and real-world electoral behavior. The use of search terms related to masculine anxieties correlated with Donald Trump’s vote share in the 2016 general election (Study 2) and, confirming preregistered predictions, with Republican candidates’ vote shares in 2018 congressional elections (Study 3). We close by discussing potential sources of variation in PM. Keywords precarious manhood, masculinity, aggression, political attitudes, voting Received May 22, 2020; revision accepted September 14, 2020 Perhaps more than any politician in recent history, Donald Precarious Manhood Trump has rooted his political persona in traditional notions of masculinity. As a candidate and as President, Trump pres- Men are expected to achieve and maintain their standing as “real men” or risk losing this highly valued status (Vandello ents himself as dominant, unyielding, and virile (Katz, 2016). 1 From threatening foreign nations with attack (Sanger et al., & Bosson, 2013). Such expectations compel men to enact 2019) to alluding favorably to the size of his penis (Krieg, culturally prescribed masculinity and to monitor their own 2016) and testosterone levels (Kurtzleben, 2016), the success at doing so. Manhood’s precariousness therefore President’s behavior suggests a desire to place his manhood leads some men to experience anxiety at the prospect beyond reproach. of not meeting masculine standards, in turn motivating a The President’s displays of masculinity appear to resonate variety of compensatory beliefs and behaviors aimed at with many American men. During the 2016 election, Trump’s restoring one’s masculine reputation (Willer et al., 2013). take-no-prisoners brand of politics attracted a considerable Although the behaviors that constitute normative mascu- number of voters—a disproportionate number of whom were linity are time- and culture-specific, pressure on men to male (Huang et al., 2016). The gender gap in support for actively earn and uphold their manhood may be nearly uni- Trump mirrors similar gender gaps in support for other versal (DiMuccio et al., 2017; Vandello & Bosson, 2013; Republican politicians (Center for the American Women and Winegard et al., 2014). Politics [CAWP], 2017) and for tough and uncompromising Dominant themes of masculinity in the United States political policies (Oliphant, 2018), suggesting that these pre- include avoiding the appearance of femininity and homo- dilections have sources in common. In this research, we sexuality, seeking status and achievement, evincing indepen- argue that support for harsh political policies, Trump, and the dence and confidence, taking risks, and being aggressive present-day Grand Old Party (GOP) reflects (in part) the psy- chology of precarious manhood (PM). On this account, some 1New York University, New York City, USA men harbor doubts about their masculinity, which they in turn seek to reaffirm through voting behavior and policy Corresponding Author: Eric D. Knowles, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 preferences that can be characterized as “politically Washington Place, New York City, NY 10012, USA. aggressive.” Email: [email protected] 2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 00(0) (Brannon, 1976; Connell, 1995; Donaldson, 1993). American precarious men may signal to the self and others their status men who harbor chronic doubts about their masculinity as “real men.” Indeed, research shows that for political elites (Reidy et al., 2014), or men whose masculinity has been and lay-citizens alike, prevailing notions of American mas- threatened (Berke et al., 2017), may attempt to compensate culinity encourage political aggression. by engaging in hypermasculine behaviors. In the American context, these behaviors may include displays of interper- Masculinity and Support for Aggressive Policies sonal aggression (Reidy et al., 2014; Vandello & Bosson, 2013)—and, we propose, aggressive political behaviors. and Right-Wing Politicians Although previous research has linked PM to support for Observers have long identified politics as an arena in which specific politicians or policies (e.g., Carian & Sobotka, 2018; men strive to embody culturally prescribed notions of mas- Willer et al., 2013), we argue that a broad range of political culinity. In his analysis of the Vietnam War, Fasteau (1974) behaviors belong together under the rubric of political argues that the decision to escalate hostilities reflected male aggression. Indeed, the present research is novel in tracing a leaders’ preoccupation without appearing weak. Similarly, broad range of political behaviors to aggression stemming Katz (2016) and Ducat (2004) contend that male political from the psychology of PM. candidates often attempt to appeal to voters by eschewing the Threats to manhood cause a host of behavioral, cognitive, feminine, engaging in masculine pursuits, and promoting and attitudinal outcomes—including interpersonal aggres- “get tough” policies (e.g., the death penalty). These authors sion. In experiments, PM is often manipulated by directly illuminate a masculine style of politics that prescribes dis- challenging men’s masculinity. Popular paradigms have men plays of dominance and support for punitive policies. engage in stereotypically feminine tasks, such as hair braid- The link between masculinity and political aggression is ing (Bosson & Vandello, 2011), or give men false feedback also seen among male lay-citizens. For instance, “hypermas- on gender knowledge tests indicating that they score atypi- culinity” and “manhood honor” are associated with gun cally high in feminine knowledge (Vandello et al., 2008; enthusiasm and opposition to gun control—preferences that Willer et al., 2013). Men subject to such threat inductions convey one’s preparedness to confront threats with deadly tend to experience increased anxiety (Bosson et al., 2009; force (Matson et al., 2019). Although experimental studies Caswell et al., 2014; Vandello et al., 2008), punch punching linking masculinity to politics are sparse (see for a review of bags harder (Bosson et al., 2009), display more hostility the literature, DiMuccio & Knowles, 2020), Willer and col- toward women (Maass et al., 2003), administer more severe leagues (2013) found that, following a manhood threat, men shocks to confederates (Cohn et al., 2009), and behave more expressed increased support for George W. Bush’s decision aggressively toward gay men (Bosson et al., 2012). to invade Iraq and approval of his handling of the Iraq War. PM can also be captured in an individual-difference dimen- In light of this evidence, we predict that PM will be posi- sion termed gender role discrepancy stress (GRDS)—anxiety tively associated with support for a broad range of aggressive that occurs “when one fails to live up to the ideal manhood domestic and foreign policies. derived from societal mandates of masculine gender roles” Aggressive policies and politicians are unevenly distrib- (Reidy et al., 2014, p. 160).2 GRDS predicts risky and aggres- uted across the ideological spectrum in the United States. sive behavior in men, including unsafe sexual practices (Reidy Several scholars have observed that conservative and et al., 2016) and health behaviors (Eisler et al., 1988), intimate Republican candidates and policies tend to evoke masculine partner and sexual violence (Reidy et al., 2015), and anger and tropes, whereas their liberal and Democratic counterparts rely hostility toward gay men (Parrott, 2009). on more feminine themes. Lakoff (1996) argues that people understand government through implicit familial meta- Precarious Manhood and Political phors—with conservatives conceptualizing government as Aggression the “strict father” and liberals viewing it as a “nurturant par- ent.” These gendered lenses help determine which govern- We suggest that politics is an appealing avenue through ment policies people prefer, such that conservatives gravitate which men can express aggression and thereby affirm their toward harsher positions and liberals toward more compas- masculinity. The political domain extends the reach of indi- sionate stances. Similarly, Katz (2016) contends that tradi- viduals’ preferences to one’s community (in the case of local tional masculinity has played a central role in the Republican politics) and to the country as a whole (in the case of national