Table Of ContentOriginal Manuscript
SocialPsychologicaland
PersonalityScience
A Cognitive Uncoupling: Masculinity
1-10
ªTheAuthor(s)2020
Threats and the Rejection of Relationship
Articlereuseguidelines:
Interdependence sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI:10.1177/1948550620961263
journals.sagepub.com/home/spp
Veronica M. Lamarche1 , Ciara Atkinson2, and Alyssa Croft2
Abstract
Whathappenswhenaprimaryresourcepeopledrawfromintimesofneedisatoddswithmaintainingathreatened,yetvalued,
identity? Four studies (N ¼ 806) examined whether men cognitively disengage from romantic relationships following mas-
total
culinitythreats.Ashypothesized,romanticallyattachedmenreportedlesscloseness,commitment,andinterdependenceintheir
romantic relationships (Study 1), and both single and romantically attached men expressed less positive commitment beliefs
(Study 2) following masculinity threats. Supporting a strategy of distancing from interdependence to protect masculinity, per-
ceivers evaluated men who used more interdependent language to describe their relationships as less masculine and more
feminine (Studies 3a and 3b). However, exhibiting less interdependence did not restore third-party evaluations of masculinity
following a public masculinity threat (Study 3b). Thus, subverting relationship interdependence to protect perceptions of mas-
culinityisanineffectivestrategyforrestoringmasculinityintheeyesofothersandmaycauseunnecessarystrainonrelationships.
Keywords
masculinity threats,interdependence, relationships, person perception,identity
Social identities enable people to organize information about theirrelationships(e.g.,Feeney&Collins,2015;Murrayetal.,
the self in meaningful and purposeful ways, help them cope 2020;Park&Maner,2009;Plusninetal.,2018).Thisispossi-
with the uncertainty of life, and are a source of social capital blebecausecloserelationshipsfunctionasaself-affirmational
in the eyes ofothers(Hogg& Adelman, 2013; Jenkins, 2014; resource (e.g., Hart et al., 2005; Murray et al., 2001). And,
Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Thus, maintaining social identities whilethedecisiontoapproachacloseotherintimesofvulner-
is important, and people are motivated to think and behave in ability is often constrained by personality (e.g., Brennan &
ways that will restore valued identities when they are threat- Bosson, 1998; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Murray et al.,
ened.Forexample,masculinityisahigh-status,yetprecarious, 1996;Park,2010;Simpsonetal.,1992),genderdifferencessel-
socialidentity(Bosson&Vandello,2011).Masculinityiscon- dom emerge. In fact, even men with unstable self-views eval-
structed, enacted, and preserved through gender roles and uate their relationships more positively in an attempt to
stereotypes and is associated with social status, power, and defensively improve how they see themselves (Zeigler-Hill
dominanceover women (Bosson et al., 2005; Wood &Eagly, et al., 2011). For identity threats in particular, romantic rela-
2009).Narrowdefinitionsofmasculinitycanleadmentoinhi- tionshipshavetheaddedvalueoffunctioningasasocialiden-
bitemotionalexpressionandavoiddependenceonothers(Ber- tity people can invest in (Day, 2015). Being romantically
ger et al., 2005; O’Neil, 2008). And masculinity threats have attachedisidealized,whereassinglemenandwomenarestig-
been linked to concerns about public self-presentation, anger, matized aslonely, unhappy,and unfulfilled (DePaulo &Mor-
physical violence, and the subordination and objectification ris, 2006). Thus, when people experience identity threats,
ofwomen(e.g.,Bosson &Vandello, 2011;Dahlet al.,2015). such as a threat to their masculinity, they should not only be
In contrast to these antagonistic outcomes, self-threats can
also heighten the need for social connection. Drawing closer
toothersiseffectivebecauserelationshipsnotonlyofferinstru- 1DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofEssex,Colchester,UnitedKingdom
mentalsupporttomanagethreats(Overalletal.,2010)butalso 2DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofArizona,Tucson,AZ,USA
restoreself-worthbysignalinglove,acceptance, andapproval
CorrespondingAuthor:
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary & Baumeister, 2000;
Veronica M. Lamarche, Department of Psychology, University of Essex,
Taylor,2006).Consistently,whenbothmenandwomenexpe-
WivenhoePark,ColchesterCO43SQ,UnitedKingdom.
rienceself-threats,theytypicallyrespondbydrawingcloserto Email:[email protected]
2 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
motivated to draw closer to their partners because of instru- hypothesizedthatmenwhousedmoreinterdependentlanguage
mentalbenefitsbutalsobecauseitprovidesawayofaffirming todescribetheirrelationshipwouldbeevaluatedasmorefem-
andinvesting ina valuedsocial identity. inineandlessmasculine(Hypothesis2,Studies3aand3b)and
However, the precariousness of masculinity could make that using less interdependent language would help restore
menreluctanttoseekconnectionwiththeirpartnersaftermas- masculinityintheeyesofothersfollowingapublicmasculinity
culinitythreats,thuselicitingtheoppositepatternthanistypi- threat(Hypothesis3,Study3b).Studies1and3bwerepreregis-
cally seen inresponse toself-threats.Men are often unwilling tered,andtheaggregatedata,studymaterials,andpreregistra-
to violate gender norms or engage in behaviors considered to tion documents are publicly available on Open Science
be stereotypically feminine (Bosson et al., 2005; Croft et al., Framework(OSF): https://osf.io/ju3kw/.
2015) because those types of behaviors are generally socially
devalued (Block et al., 2019), and men are not socialized to
Study 1
internalize goals that would prompt them to enact such beha-
viors (Block et al., 2018). Feminine qualities are associated Study 1 tested whether romantically attached men respond to
with caring for others, seeking and enjoying dependence, and masculinity threats by cognitively disengaging from their
communal orientations, whereas masculine traits are often romanticrelationships and curtailing theirinterdependence.
associated with prioritizing agency and independence over
socialconnectionanddependence(Eagly,1987;Glick&Fiske,
Method
1996). Relationship interdependence—the extent to which
Participants
partnersmutuallydependonandinfluenceoneanother(Kelley
& Thibault, 1978)—is considered stereotypically feminine,
Onehundredandthirty-nineromanticallyattachedmalevolun-
despitebothmenandwomenbenefitingequallyfrominterde-
teers over the age of 18 were recruited to participate in this
pendentpartnerships(Gabriel&Gardner,1999).Thiscreatesa
study as part of an undergraduate project. Forty-three partici-
potential paradox for men who have experienced a threat to
pants were removed from the sample for not completing the
their masculinity: Although drawing closer to their romantic
surveytotheend(31quitbeforeexposuretothemanipulation,
partner may help them cope with the threat and align them- 12quitafterthemanipulatedfeedback[masculinitythreatn¼
selves with an alternative valued identity, increasing interde- 7,nothreatn¼5]),leavingafinalsampleof96participants.1
pendence with a partner may further subvert and undermine
The men in this study (M ¼ 30.91, SD ¼ 12.97) predomi-
age
their already threatened masculine identity. Consequently, nantly identified as heterosexual (89%, 2% gay, 7% bisexual,
masculinitythreatsmaymotivatementocognitivelyuncouple and2%other)andwerepredominantlyWhite(89%,4%Asian,
fromanddownplaytheimportanceoftheirrelationshipsasan and 7% mixed or multiple ethnic backgrounds). Participants
attempttoperformativelyandpubliclyrestoretheirthreatened were either casually dating (2%), in a committed dating rela-
masculinity. tionship (55%), or engaged or married (43%) and had been
Eschewing interdependence may temporarily protect mas- together for 7 years on average (M ¼ 7.41, SD ¼
Rel. Length
culinitybutcanalsohaveseriousconsequencesforrelationship 9.47). Nearly, all (99%) of our participants reported that they
well-being. When people prioritize goals that reduce interde- were monogamous (1%consensually nonmonogamous).
pendence and focus on the self over communal goals, their
partners and relationships suffer (Lamarche & Murray, 2014;
Materials and Procedures
Lamarche & Seery, 2019; Le et al., 2018; Murray et al.,
1996). By contrast, espousing interdependence is associated Participants were invited to participate in a study of self-
with relationship-enhancing thoughts and behaviors and perceptionsandinterpersonalinteractions.Eligibleparticipants
greater relationship stability over time (Rusbult et al., 2004). completedthedemographicquestionnairefollowedbyperson-
Thus, even if disengaging from an identity (i.e., the relation- ality measures unrelated to this project.2 Next, participants
ship)servestheutilitarianfunctionofprotectingtheirmasculi- completedaseriesof40questionstestingtheirgeneralknowl-
nityintheeyesofothers,itmayultimatelybeimpracticalifit edge.Thisparadigmwasbasedonmasculinitythreatmanipu-
erodes the foundations uponwhich relationships exist. lations used successfully in the past (Dahl et al., 2015).
Followingtheknowledgetest,participantsweretoldthattheir
“genderself-concept”wouldbecalculatedbasedontheknowl-
Current Research
edgetestandthattheirscorewouldbecomparedtoothermen
The current research tested whether masculinity threats moti- intheUnitedKingdom.Next,halfoftheparticipantsreceived
vatementocognitivelydisengagefromtheirromanticrelation- feedbackthattheyhadscoredonthe37thpercentilecompared
ships and undermine relationship interdependence. We to other men in the United Kingdom, and half received feed-
hypothesized that masculinity threats would motivate men to back that they had scored on the 83rd percentile compared to
distance from their relationships by minimizing relationship othermen inthe United Kingdom. This feedback was accom-
closeness, commitment, and cognitive interdependence paniedbyagraphicalrepresentationoftheirscoreplacingthem
(Hypothesis1,Studies1and2).Wealsotestedwhethermini- in the pink feminine self-concept region (threat condition) or
mizing interdependence publicly restores masculinity. We blue masculine self-concept region (no-threat condition).
Lamarche et al. 3
Table1.Study1t-TestResultsComparingMenintheThreatandNo-ThreatConditions.
ThreatCondition(n¼46) No-ThreatCondition(n¼50)
DependentVariables M SD M SD tTest d
Closeness 7.11 1.77 7.83 .96 (cid:2)2.51* .51
Commitment 8.17 1.22 8.70 .58 (cid:2)2.72** .55
Cognitiveinterdependence 5.53 0.94 6.01 .62 (cid:2)2.93** .59
yp<.10.*p<.05.**p<.01.***p<.001.
Finally, participants were asked to complete the target mea- closeness, t(94) ¼ (cid:2)2.51, p ¼ .01, 95% confidence interval
sures of closeness, commitment, and cognitive interdepen- (CI) [(cid:2)1.29, (cid:2)0.15], d ¼ 0.51; commitment, t(94) ¼ (cid:2)2.72,
dence. Participants completed additional relationship-focused p¼.01,95%CI[(cid:2)0.90,(cid:2)0.14],d¼0.55;andcognitiveinter-
measures unrelated tothisproject andwere debriefed. dependence,t(94)¼(cid:2)2.93,p¼.004,95%CI[(cid:2)0.79,(cid:2)0.15],
d¼0.59, thanthoseinthe no-threat condition.
Measures
Closeness
Study 2
A10-itemmeasure(a¼.93;Murrayetal.,2002)assessedhow
Study 2 aimed to conceptually replicate Study 1 by capturing
closeparticipantsfelttotheirpartners(e.g.,“Iamclosertomy
shifts in commitment beliefs following a masculinity threat.
partner than any other person in my life”; “I would choose to
Threatened men were expected to endorse the benefits of
spend timewith mypartnerover anyoneelse inmylife”) and
relationship commitment to a lesser extent than men in the
how close participants perceived their partners felt to them
no-threatcondition.
(e.g.,“Mypartnerisclosertomethananyotherpersonintheir
life”; “My partner would choose to spend time with me over
anyone else in their life,” 1 ¼ not at all true, 9 ¼ completely
true). Method
Participants
Commitment
Onehundredandfifty-fivemalevolunteersovertheageof18
A six-item measure (a ¼ .93; adapted from Rusbult et al., were recruited to participate in this study as part of an under-
1998) assessed how committed participants were to maintain- graduateproject.Fifty-sixparticipantswereremovedfromthe
ing their relationship with their partner long term (e.g., “I am samplefornotcompletingthesurveytotheend(35quitbefore
committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner”; the manipulation, 21 quit after the manipulation [masculinity
“Iwantmyrelationshiptolastforaverylongtime”)andhow threat n ¼ 11, no threat n ¼ 10]), leaving a final sample of
committedparticipantsbelievedtheirromanticpartnerswereto 99 participants. The men in this study (M ¼ 24.24, SD ¼
age
maintaining the relationship (“My partner is committed to 6.31) predominantly identified as heterosexual (88%, 4.0%
maintainingourrelationship”;“Mypartnerwantsourrelation- gay, 7% bisexual, and 1% other) and White (70%, 9% Asian,
shiptolastforaverylongtime,”1¼notatalltrue,9¼com- 7%Black,and6%mixedormultipleethnicbackgrounds).Par-
pletely true). ticipants were either single (41%) or in a relationship (17%
casually dating, 32% exclusively dating, and 8% engaged or
Cognitive Interdependence married; M ¼ 6.53, SD ¼ 6.06), and nearly, all
Rel. Length
(93%) of our participants typically practice monogamy (3%
A four-item measure (a ¼ .72) of cognitive interdependence
consensuallynonmonogamous and4%otherstyle notlisted).
assessed the extent to which men integrated their relationship
into their self-concept (Agnew et al., 1998; “In comparison
tootherpartsofyourlife[e.g.,work,family,friends,religion],
Materials and Procedures
howcentralisyourrelationshipwithyourpartner,”1¼notat
all central, 7 ¼extremely central). ParticipantsinStudy2completedthesamedemographicques-
tionsandmasculinity threatmanipulationas thoseinStudy 1.
Following the manipulation, participants completed a 16-item
Results and Discussion
measure (a ¼ .83) of commitment beliefs that assesses per-
Independent-sample t tests were used to predict closeness, ceivedbenefitsofbeinginacommittedrelationship(Sedikides
commitment,andcognitiveinterdependencefrommasculinity et al., 1994; “I enjoy being single [reversed],” “I enjoy being
threatcondition(Table1).Consistentwiththehypotheses,men dependent on my partner in a relationship,” 1 ¼ strongly dis-
in the masculinity threat condition reported significantly less agree, 5 ¼stronglyagree).
4 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
Table2.Study2t-TestResultsComparingMenintheThreatand Table3.Study3aTargetEvaluations.
No-ThreatConditions.
Interdependence Agentic
Condition N M SD tTest d Condition Condition
(n¼68) (n¼68)
Threat 48 3.20 .56
No-threat 51 3.34 .62 (cid:2)2.04* .41 Evaluations M SD M SD tTest
yp<.10.*p<.05.**p<.01.***p<.001. Likability 5.37 1.22 4.68 1.52 2.92**
Confidence 4.73 1.64 5.69 0.97 (cid:2)4.15***
Masculinity 4.60 1.24 5.00 1.20 (cid:2)1.90y
Results
Femininity 3.74 1.20 2.90 1.35 3.82***
Anindependent-samplettestwasusedtopredictcommitment Extroversion 4.31 1.42 5.41 1.05 (cid:2)5.15***
Successinlife 4.46 1.29 4.46 0.85 0.00
beliefsfrommasculinitythreatcondition(Table2).Consistent
Commitmenttopartner 6.46 0.89 4.57 1.75 7.92***
withthehypothesisandthefindingsfromStudy1,meninthe
Likelihoodofrelationship 5.50 1.52 4.56 1.76 3.34**
masculinitythreatconditionendorsedcommitmentbeliefstoa
lasting
lesser extent than men in the no-threat condition, t(97) ¼
(cid:2)2.04,p ¼.04,95%CI [(cid:2)0.48,(cid:2)0.01], d ¼0.41.3 yp<.10.*p<.05.**p<.01.***p<.001.
Studies 3a and 3b Materials and Procedures
Masculinity is upheld by personal beliefs and performative InStudy3a,participantsweretoldtheyweretakingpartinan
behaviorsvisibletoothers(Croftetal.,2015).Althoughcogni- impression formation study and would make evaluations of
tivelyuncouplingfromtherelationshipmaybeharmfultothe others based on limited information. Participants were then
relationship structure, it may serve the utilitarian function of randomly presented withone of two profiles: In Profile1, the
mitigating masculinity threats by giving men the opportunity mandescribedtheimportanceofhisrelationshipusinginterde-
toperformativelyrestoretheirmasculinityintheeyesofothers. pendentlanguage (interdependent condition). In Profile 2, the
Studies 3a and 3b examined whether other people perceive mandescribedtheimportanceofhisrelationshipusingagentic
more interdependent men as less masculine (Studies 3a and language(agenticcondition).Interdependentstatementsinthe
3b) andwhether presenting oneself asless interdependent can profilesweredrawnfromitemsintheclosenessandcognitive
restore masculinity in the eyes of others following a public interdependencemeasuresusedinStudy1(e.g.,“Mypartneris
masculinity threat (Study 3b). We hypothesized that people animportantpartofmylifebecauseshegivesmylifesomuch
wouldrate amale targetasless masculineandmore feminine meaningandIfeelclosertoherthananyoneelse”isacombi-
when he used more interdependent language (Studies 3a and nation of Items 2 and 3 from the cognitive interdependence
3b); as less masculine and more feminine when he received a measureandItem1fromtheclosenessmeasure).Next,partici-
more feminine gender knowledge score (Study 3b); and, that pants were asked to rate the target across eight dimensions
gender knowledge scores and interdependent language would (likability, confidence, masculinity, femininity, extroversion,
interact, such that less interdependent language would buffer likelihoodforsuccess,commitmenttotheirpartner,andlikeli-
male targets against the public costs of a masculinity threat hoodtheirmarriagewouldlast;1¼notatall,7¼extremely).
(Study3b). Masculinityandfemininityratingswerethetargetevaluations,
withtheothersservingasfoilstomaskthetruepurposeofthe
study.
Study 3a
Method
Results
Participants
An independent sample t test was used to predict masculinity
Study3arecruited155maleandfemalevolunteersovertheage and femininity ratings from interdependence condition in
of18toparticipateinthisstudyaspartofanundergraduatedis- Study 3a (Table 3). Consistent with our hypothesis, targets
sertationproject.Nineteenparticipantswereremovedfromthe whousedmoreinterdependentlanguagetodescribetheirrela-
sample for not completing the survey to the end (interdepen- tionship were evaluated as nonsignificantly less masculine,
dence condition n ¼ 10, agentic condition n ¼ 9), leaving a t(134)¼(cid:2)1.90,p¼.059,95%CI[(cid:2)0.81,0.02],d¼0.33,and
final sample of 136 participants. The majority of the partici- significantly more feminine, t(134) ¼ 3.82, p < .001, 95% CI
pants (M ¼ 27.40, SD ¼ 11.60) in Study 3a were women [0.40, 1.27], d ¼ 0.65, by the participants compared to men
age
(62%,37%men,and2%othergenderidentitynotlisted),were who used more agentic language. Furthermore, exploratory
ofWhite(81%)orAsian(10%)ethnicbackgrounds,andwere tests suggested that participants also viewed the target
eithersingle(33%),casuallydating(3%),inacommitteddat- who used more interdependent language as more committed
ingrelationship (44%),orengagedor married(20%). to his partner, t(134) ¼ 7.98, p < .001, 95% CI [1.41, 2.35],
Lamarche et al. 5
d¼1.36,andbelievedthatthetarget’srelationshipwouldlast Results
longer,t(134)¼3.34,p¼.001,95%CI[0.38,1.50],d¼0.57,
InStudy3b,afactorialanalysisofvariancewasusedtopredict
compared to targets who used more agentic language. Thus,
targetmasculinityandfemininityfrominterdependencecondi-
Study 3a suggests that people perceive men who use more
tion, gender knowledge condition, and their two-way interac-
interdependent language asless masculine andmorefeminine
tion (Table 4). Consistent with the hypotheses, targets who
thanthosewhousemoreagenticlanguage.Peoplealsorecog-
used interdependent language were evaluated as significantly
nizethatusingmoreinterdependentlanguagesignalsagreater
lessmasculine,F(1,451)¼18.26,p<.001,Z2 ¼:04,and
likelihood of success for that partnership in the future.4 partial
more feminine, F(1, 451) ¼ 8.62, p ¼ .003, Z2 ¼:02, by
Although we had no a priori predictions for the other filler partial
participants compared to targets who used agentic language.
questions, significant differences emerged across likability,
ExploratoryanalysesalsoreplicatedStudy3asuchthatpartici-
confidence,andextroversionbutnotsuccessinlife(seeTable
pants evaluated targets who used interdependent language as
3). Men in the interdependence condition were seen as more
more committed to his partner, F(1, 451) ¼ 60.52, p < .001,
likable but likewise less confident or extroverted. These rat-
Z2 ¼:12,andbelievedthatthetarget’srelationshipwould
ings, along with the relationship commitment and persistence partial
last longer, F(1, 451) ¼ 13.97, p < .001, Z2 ¼:03, com-
ratings,mapontotraditionallymasculine(extroversion,confi- partial
paredtotargetswhousedagenticlanguage.Likewise,signifi-
dence)andfemininequalities(likability,commitment,andper-
cant effects emerged across the other filler questions in a
sistence). However, caution should be used in interpreting
pattern consistent with Study 3a. People rated men who used
these findings as they were not hypothesized a priori and fall
interdependentlanguageasmorelikablebutlessconfidentand
outside the scopeofthis research.
extroverted(Table4),althoughcautionisurgedininterpreting
thefindingsforthesefiller questionsasthere werenoapriori
expectations forthem.
Study 3b Finally, consistent with the hypotheses, participants rated
targets with more feminine gender knowledge scores as less
Method masculine,F(1,451)¼18.62,p<.001,Z2 ¼:04,andmore
partial
feminine,F(1,451)¼13.92,p<.001,Z2 ¼:03,thanthose
Participants partial
withmoremasculine genderknowledge scores. Butno differ-
Study 3b recruited 497 participants over the age of 18 from encesemergedontheirperceptionsofthetargetscommitment,
undergraduate subject pools for course credit at the research- F(1,451)¼0.11,p¼.74,Z2 <:001,orlikelihoodforrela-
partial
ers’universitiesintheUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStates. tionshipsuccess,F(1,451)¼0.78,p¼.38,Z2 ¼:002,asa
partial
Responsesfrom20participantsweredroppedbecausetheyhad functionofgenderknowledgescores.However,contrarytoour
been presented with twoconditions (Conditions 2 and4)con- hypothesis,theinterdependentlanguagebygenderknowledge
currentlyfollowingacomputerglitch.Anadditional22partici- conditioninteractionspredictingmasculinity,F(1,451)¼2.12,
pants were removed from analyses for not completing the p ¼ .15, Z2 ¼:005, or femininity, F(1, 451) ¼ 0.37,
partial
surveytotheend(Condition1n¼2;Condition4n¼20),leav- p¼.54,Z2 ¼:001,wasnotsignificant.5Thus,ourhypoth-
partial
ingafinalsampleof455participants.Themajorityofpartici- esisthatgenderknowledgescoresandinterdependentlanguage
pants (Mage ¼ 19.71, SD ¼ 3.19) in Study 3b were women would interact, such that less interdependent language would
(70%,30%men);wereofWhite(55%),Asian(12%),ormixed buffer male targets against the public costs of a masculinity
ethnic backgrounds (18%); and were either single (53%), threat,wasnotsupported.
casually dating (12%), in a committed dating relationship
(33%),or engagedormarried (3%).
General Discussion
Relationships are a valued identity that provide people with
Materials and Procedures
bothasupportive,self-affirmationalresourcewhenvulnerable
InStudy3b,participantswereprovidedwiththesameinforma- (Feeney & Collins, 2015; Hart et al., 2005; Hazan & Shaver,
tionregardingthepurposeofthestudyandthesameprofilesas 1987; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2011) and a desired social identity
Study3b.However,inordertoassesswhetherusinglessinter- withwhichtoaffiliate(Day,2015).Itisthereforeunsurprising
dependent language restores masculinity in the eyes of others that the typical response is to draw closer to this valuable
following a threat, the profiles were paired with the target’s resource following a self-threat (Murray et al., 2001; Park &
gender knowledge scores using the same feedback as Studies Maner, 2009; Plusnin et al., 2018). However, some identities
1and2(ostensiblyasifthetargetshadtakenthegenderknowl- may clash, making it unproductive to compensate for a threat
edge test and this was the outcome). Thus, Study 3b used a inonebyaffirmingtheother.Thisraisesthequestion,dopeo-
2-interdependence (interdependence vs. agentic) (cid:3) 2- ple default to the typical response of affirming their relation-
masculine gender knowledge(masculine vs. feminine) factor- ship interdependence when masculinity is threatened? And
ial design. Participants then completed the same dependent are these defensive strategies successful in performatively
variables asStudy 3a. restoring perceptions of masculinity in the eyes of others? In
6 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
Table4.Study3bTargetEvaluations.
Condition Evaluation M1(SD) M2(SD) F
Likability 5.36(.08) 5.34(.08) 0.02
Confidence 5.64(.09) 5.31(.09) 6.70*
Feedbackcondition Masculinity 5.11(.08) 4.60(.08) 18.61***
M1¼masculine; Femininity 3.27(.10) 3.78(.10) 13.92***
M2¼feminine Extroversion 5.09(.09) 4.96(.09) 1.15
Successinlife 4.96(.07) 4.76(.07) 4.02*
Commitmenttopartner 5.98(.09) 5.94(.09) 0.11
Likelihoodofrelationshiplasting 5.50(.10) 5.38(.10) 0.78
Likability 5.23(.09) 5.46(.08) 3.92*
Confidence 5.73(.10) 5.22(.08) 16.50***
Interdependencecondition Masculinity 5.11(.09) 4.61(.08) 18.26***
M1¼agentic; Femininity 3.32(.10) 3.72(.09) 8.62**
M2¼interdependent Extroversion 5.36(.09) 4.69(.08) 30.05***
Successinlife 4.84(.08) 4.87(.07) 0.05
Commitmenttopartner 5.48(.09) 6.45(.08) 60.51***
Likelihoodofrelationshiplasting 5.18(.09) 5.70(.09) 13.97***
M1(SD) M2(SD) M3(SD) M4(SD) F
Likability 5.15(1.38) 5.57(1.08) 5.32(1.17) 5.56(1.26) 2.75y
Feedback(cid:3)Interdependenceinteraction
Confidence 5.84(.96) 5.43(1.42) 5.62(1.32) 5.00(1.53) 0.68
M1¼Masculine(cid:3)Agentic;
Masculinity 5.27(1.06) 4.94(1.18) 4.94(1.27) 4.27(1.40) 2.12
M2¼Masculine(cid:3)
Femininity 3.03(1.35) 3.51(1.44) 3.62(1.44) 3.94(1.55) 0.37
Interdependent;
Extroversion 5.33(1.32) 4.85(1.20) 5.39(1.31) 4.53(1.37) 2.35
M3¼Feminine(cid:3)Agentic;
Successinlife 4.86(1.08) 5.06(1.04) 4.83(1.00) 4.68(1.15) 2.82y
M4¼Feminine(cid:3)
Commitmenttopartner 5.56(1.53) 6.41(1.10) 5.40(1.59) 6.48(1.07) 0.88
Interdependent
Likelihoodofrelationshiplasting 5.25(1.67) 5.76(1.32) 5.12(1.58) 5.64(1.36) <.001
yp<.10.*p<.05.**p<.01.***p<.001.
our studies, men compensated for feedback that undermined the health and viability of a relationship. Congruently, in our
theirmasculinitybyespousinglessinterdependence andcom- studies, people saw men who used less interdependent lan-
mitmentintheirrelationships.Atfirstblush,thisappearedtobe guage as less committed to their relationship and doubted the
areasonablestrategy,aspeopleevaluatedmenwhousedmore relationshipwouldlast.Thus,peopleareattunedtothebenefits
interdependent language to describe their relationships assig- ofinterdependenceevenwhenexpressedbymenwhomaybe
nificantlylessmasculineandmorefeminine.However,theuse encouraged to stereotypically downplay or undermine it. The
of interdependent language and publicmasculinitythreats did currentfindingssuggestthatwhenmen’smasculinityfeelspre-
notinteract,suggestingthatsubvertingrelationshipinterdepen- carious, they may attempt torestore it by withdrawingfrom a
dencetobolstermasculinitymaynotbeenoughtorestoreper- relationshipthatcouldotherwiseprovidecareandsupport.Not
ceptions ofmasculinityonce it is lostintheeyes ofothers. only could this harm the well-being of their relationship and
Ourstudiesdonotdirectlyspeaktotherelationshipimplica- directlyaffecttheirromanticpartners,butourstudiesalsosug-
tions of cognitively uncoupling in response to a masculinity gestthat thistactic may notbean effective strategy to restore
threat. Nonetheless, our findings may have important conse- masculinityinthe eyesof others.
quencesforrelationshipwell-being.Effectivelybalancingand
maintaining mutual responsiveness and interdependence is a
Limitations and Future Directions
fundamental cornerstone of happy, long-lasting relationships
(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Murray & Holmes, 2009). Interde- Despite their novelty and strength, our findings also inspire
pendenceisalsotransformative,shiftingpeople’sthoughtsand importantquestionsforfutureworktoaddress.First,ourfind-
feelingstofocusontheneeds,wants,andexpectationsoftheir ings demonstrate that the common response to draw closer to
partnersratherthanjustthemselves(Holmes,1981;Rusbult& one’s relationship following a self-threat can be upended for
van Lange, 2008). Thus, the more interdependent people are, menwhoexperienceamasculinitythreat.Althoughthispattern
the closer they feel, the more important their partners are to is inconsistent with models showing relationships as a haven
them,andthemorecommittedtheyaretotherelationshipper- during times of stress, it is reminiscent of the “tend and
sisting(Agnewetal.,1998;Berscheidetal.,1989;Clarketal., befriend” model of stress and coping, which suggests that
1998;Reis&Shaver,1988).Interdependencethereforesignals women may prioritize affiliative motivations following a
Lamarche et al. 7
stressor compared to men who seemingly prioritize the “fight threatened, dependence is perceived as stereotypically femi-
andflight”stressresponsepattern(Taylor,2002,2006).How- nine,whichmaycreateaconflictformenexperiencingamas-
ever, our studies cannot speak to whether masculinity threats culinity threat. Our findings suggest that men may in fact
aretheonlyself-threatthatmotivatementoupendtherelation- cognitively uncouple following a masculinity threat, but this
shipasasafehavenorwhetherothertypesofself-threatselicit strategymayonlyspellharmfortheirrelationshipasitisinef-
a similar desire to uncouple from the relationship. Further fective at restoringmasculinity lostinthe eyesof others.
researchisthereforeneededtospecificallyexaminewhatother
typesofself-threatssharesimilarcharacteristicswithmasculi- Authors’ Note
nity threats. Studies1and3bwereformallypreregistered.Studies2and3awere
Second,ourstudiesfocusonone-offmasculinitythreatsand notformallypreregistered.Preregistrations,deidentifieddata,code-
men’s reactions as they pertain to their relationship percep- books,anddataanalysissyntaxarepostedathttps://osf.io/ju3kw/.
tions. It is possible that while men may express feeling less
interdependent, they do not act any differently toward their Acknowledgments
partner. Alternatively, prior research has shown that men TheauthorswouldliketothankHazelJacksonandBethanyBackfor
becomemoreaggressiveandderogatorytowardwomeningen- theirassistancewithparticipantrecruitmentanddatacollectionfor
eral following a masculinity threat (Dahl et al., 2015). Thus, someofthestudiesreportedinthisarticle.
masculinity threats could lead men to direct more agentic,
aggressive, and dismissive behaviors toward their actual part- Declaration ofConflicting Interests
ners. Future studies examining the day-to-day interactions Theauthor(s)declarednopotentialconflictsofinterestwithrespectto
between partners could shed additional light on howmasculi- theresearch,authorship,and/orpublicationofthisarticle.
nity threats impact relationship well-being. This would also
help clarify whether defensively cognitively uncoupling from Funding
the relationship following a masculinity threat helps men Theauthor(s)receivednofinancialsupportfortheresearch,author-
restoretheirownfeelingsofmasculinityorwhetherthisrepre- ship,and/orpublicationofthisarticle.
sentsasocializedresponsethatmayneitherbeadaptivetothe
relationship norfunctionally repairthe threatened identity. ORCIDiD
Finally, though not deliberate, our studies were hetero- VeronicaM.Lamarche https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2199-6463
centricintheirfocus.AlthoughStudies1and2didnotexclude
participants based on sexual orientation, the targets evaluated Notes
inStudies3aand3bwerepresentedasheterosexualmen.Gen- 1. Studies1,2,and3awererecruitedbyundergraduatestudentscom-
der andsexual orientationare separate identities,buttheycan pletingstudentprojects.Participationinthesestudieswasvolun-
interact such thatpeopletendtoview gaymen aslessmascu- tary and relied on intrinsic motivation by the participants to
linethanstraightmen(Fiskeetal.,2002),despiteresearchsug- completethestudiesthroughtheend.Consequently,wesawhigher
gestingthatgaymenvalueappearingmasculine(Vogelet al., dropoutratesthanwhenparticipantsarepaidorawardedcourse
2011). The importance and value of interdependence in rela- credit.Webelievethispatternexposespotentialmotivationaldif-
tionships cuts across gender and sexual orientation. However, ferencesresearchersshouldconsiderwhenplanninguncompen-
itisinterestingtonotethatgaymenoftenexpressgreaterinter- sated research and when generalizing their findings. However,
est in low-commitment partnerships and short-term mating weareconfidentinthequalityandreliabilityofthesefindings.The
strategies (Schmitt et al., 2001). It is unclear from prior samepatternofresultsemergedinStudy3b,whichdiduseastu-
research whether these preferences are evolutionarily driven, dentsamplecompensatedbycoursecredit.Webelievethedropout
withmenoptingforlessinterdependenceandlesscommitment rateinStudy3bisattributabletothecomputerglitchthatappeared
especiallywhenthesegoalsarefacilitatedbylike-mindedpart- todisproportionatelyaffectparticipantsintheconditioncombining
ners,orwhethertheyreflectmoresociallydrivenexpectations masculinefeedbackwithagenticlanguage.
aboutmasculinityandinterdependence.Ourfindingsmayshed 2. Studies1,2,and3aincludedadditionalmeasuresunrelatedtothis
newlightontheseprocesses.Notablythattheextenttowhich project.ThecompletequestionnairesareincludedonOpenScience
gay men respond to their relatively marginalized and stereo- Framework:https://osf.io/ju3kw/.
typedmasculinitybyeschewinginterdependenceintheirrela- 3. UnlikeStudy1,Study2includedbothromanticallyattachedand
tionshipscouldhelpexplainhowinternalizedhomophobiaand singlemen.Themaineffectofthreatconditionremainedsignifi-
minoritystressmaycontributetorelationshipinstabilityamong cant,F(1,95)¼5.60,p¼.02,Z2 ¼ :06,evenwhenincluding
partial
gaymen(Fingerhut&Maisel,2010;Greene&Britton,2015). themaineffectofrelationshipstatusandtheirtwo-wayinteraction
inthemodel.
4. Study3aincludedmenandwomenasevaluators.Toensurethe
Conclusions
effectswerenotdrivenbyevaluatorgender,wererananalysescon-
Masculinityissociallyvaluableyetprecarious.Whenmasculi- trolling for gender as a covariate and testing for the gender by
nity is threatened, men are motivated to restore it. Although conditioninteraction.Addinggenderasacovariatedidnotchange
people typically turn to their partners when they feel the effects relative to the no-gender model, masculinity rating:
8 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
F(1,133)¼3.48,p¼.064;femininityrating:F(1,133)¼14.70,p Dahl,J.,Vescio,T.,&Weaver,K.(2015).Howthreatstomasculinity
<.001.Furthermore,evaluatorgenderdidnotinteractwithcondi- sequentiallycausepublicdiscomfort,anger,andideologicaldom-
tiontopredictperceivedmasculinityorfemininity(ps>.60). inanceoverwomen.SocialPsychology,46,242–254.https://doi
5. AswithStudy3a,themaineffectsoftheinterdependenceandfeed- .org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000248
backconditionsonmasculinityandfemininityratingsremained Day,M.V.(2015).Whypeopledefendrelationshipideology.Journal
significant controlling for gender (ps < .001). Furthermore, the ofSocialandPersonalRelationships,33,348–360.https://doi.org/
three-wayinterdependencebyfeedbackbyevaluatorgenderinter- 10.1177/0265407515613164
actionwasnotsignificant(ps>.25). DePaulo,B.M.,&Morris,W.L.(2006).Theunrecognizedstereotyp-
ing and discrimination against singles. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15, 251–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
References
.1467-8721.2006.00446.x
Agnew,C.R.,VanLange,P.A.,Rusbult,C.E.,&Langston,C.A. Downey,G.,&Feldman,S.I.(1996).Implicationsofrejectionsensitiv-
(1998).Cognitiveinterdependence:Commitmentandthemental ity for intimate relationships. JournalofPersonality and Social
representationofcloserelationships.JournalofPersonalityand Psychology,70,1327.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327
SocialPsychology,74,939–954.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3 Eagly,A.H.(1987).Sexdifferencesinsocialbehavior:Asocial-role
514.74.4.939 interpretation.UKPsychologyPress.
Baumeister,R.F.,&Leary,M.R.(1995).Theneedtobelong:Desire Feeney,B.C.,&Collins,N.L.(2015).Anewlookatsocialsupport:A
forinterpersonalattachmentsasafundamentalhumanmotivation. theoreticalperspectiveonthrivingthroughrelationships.Personal-
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/ ityandSocialPsychologyReview,19(2),113–147.https://doi.org/
0033-2909.117.3.497 10.1177/1088868314544222
Berger,J.M.,Levant,R.,McMillan,K.K.,Kelleher,W.,&Sellers,A. Fingerhut,A.W.,&Maisel,N.C.(2010).Relationshipformalization
(2005). Impact of gender role conflict, traditional masculinity andindividualandrelationshipwell-beingamongsame-sexcou-
ideology,alexithymia,andageonmen’sattitudestowardpsycho- ples.JournalofSocialandPersonalRelationships,27,956–969.
logicalhelpseeking.PsychologyofMen&Masculinity,6,73–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510376253
https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.73 Fiske,S.T.,Cuddy,A.J.C.,Glick,P.,&Xu,J.(2002).Amodelof
Berscheid,E.,Snyder,M.,&Omoto,A.M.(1989).Therelationship (oftenmixed)stereotypecontent:Competenceandwarmthrespec-
closenessinventory:Assessingtheclosenessofinterpersonalrela- tivelyfollowfromperceivedstatusandcompetition.Journalof
tionships.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,57(5), PersonalityandSocialPsychology,82,878–902.https://doi.org/
792.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Block,K.,Croft,A.,DeSouza,L.,&Schmader,T.(2019).Dopeople Gabriel,S.,&Gardner,W.L.(1999).Arethere“his”and“hers”types
careifmendon’tcareaboutcaring?Theasymmetryinsupportfor ofinterdependence?Theimplicationsofgenderdifferencesincol-
changinggenderroles.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychol- lectiveversusrelationalinterdependenceforaffect,behavior,and
ogy,83,112–131.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.013 cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,
Block,K.,Croft,A.,&Schmader,T.(2018).Worthless?Whymen 642–655.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.642
(andwomen)devaluecare-orientedcareers.FrontiersinPsychol- Glick,P.,&Fiske,S.T.(1996).Theambivalentsexisminventory:
ogy,9,1353.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01353 Differentiatinghostileandbenevolentsexism.JournalofPerson-
Bosson,J.K.,Prewitt-Freilino,J.L.,& Taylor,J.N. (2005).Role alityandSocialPsychology,70,491–512.https://doi.org/10.1037/
rigidity:Aproblemofidentitymisclassification?JournalofPer- 0022-3514.70.3.491
sonalityandSocialPsychology,89,552–565.https://doi.org/10 Greene,D.C.,&Britton,P.J.(2015).Predictingrelationshipcommit-
.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552 mentingaymen:Contributionsofvicariousshameandinterna-
Bosson,J.K.,&Vandello,J.A.(2011).Precariousmanhoodandits lized homophobia totheinvestmentmodel.PsychologyofMen
linkstoactionandaggression.CurrentDirectionsinPsychological &Masculinity,16,78–87.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034988
Science,20,82–86.https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402669 Hart,J.,Shaver,P.R.,&Goldenberg,J.L.(2005).Attachment,self-
Brennan,K.A.,&Bosson,J.K.(1998).Attachment-styledifferences esteem,worldviews,andterrormanagement:Evidenceforatripar-
inattitudestowardandreactionstofeedbackfromromanticpart- titesecuritysystem.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,
ners:Anexplorationoftherelationalbasesofself-esteem.Person- 88(6),999.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.999
alityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,24(7),699–714.https://doi Hazan,C.,&Shaver,P.(1987).Romanticloveconceptualizedasan
.org/10.1177/0146167298247003 attachmentprocess.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,
Clark,M.S.,Dubash,P.,&Mills,J.(1998).Interestinanother’scon- 52,511–524.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
siderationofone’sneedsincommunalandexchangerelationships. Hogg, M. A., & Adelman, J. (2013). Uncertainty–identity theory:
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(3), 246–264. Extreme groups, radical behavior,and authoritarian leadership.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1352 Journal of Social Issues, 69, 436–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An under-examined josi.12023
inequality:Culturalandpsychologicalbarrierstomen’sengage- Holmes,J.G.(1981).Theexchangeprocessincloserelationships.In
ment with communalroles. Personality and Social Psychology M.J.Lerner&S.C.Lerner(Eds.),Thejusticemotiveinsocial
Review,19,343–370.https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789 behavior(pp.261–284).Springer.
Lamarche et al. 9
Jenkins,R.(2014).Socialidentity.Routledge. worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,
Kelley,H.H.,&Thibaut,J.(1978).Interpersonalrelations:Atheory 203–217.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013933
ofinterdependence.Wiley. Plusnin,N.,Pepping,C.A.,&Kashima,E.S.(2018).Theroleofclose
Lamarche,V.M.,&Murray,S.L.(2014).Selectivelymyopic?Self- relationships in terror management: A systematic review and
esteemandattentionalbiasinresponsetopotentialrelationship researchagenda.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,22,
threats. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 307–346.https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317753505
786–795.https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614532377 Reis,H.T.,&Shaver,P.(1988).Intimacyasaninterpersonalprocess.
Lamarche,V.M.,&Seery,M.D.(2019).Comeon,giveittomebaby: InS.Duck,D.F.Hay,S.E.Hobfoll,W.Ickes,&B.M.Montgom-
Self-esteem,narcissism,andendorsingsexualcoercionfollowing ery(Eds.),Handbookofpersonalrelationships:Theory,research
social rejection. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, andinterventions(pp.367–389).JohnWiley.
315–325.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.060 Roccas,S.,&Brewer,M.B.(2002).Socialidentitycomplexity.Per-
Le,B.M.,Impett,E.A.,Lemay,E.P.,Jr.,Muise,A.,&Tskhay,K.O. sonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,6,88–106.https://doi.org/
(2018). Communal motivation and well-being in interpersonal 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
relationships:Anintegrativereviewandmeta-analysis.Psycholo- Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Coolsen, M. K., & Kirchner, J. L.
gicalBulletin,144,1–25.https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000133 (2004). Interdependence, closeness, and relationships. In. D. J.
Leary,M.R.,&Baumeister,R.F.(2000).Thenatureandfunctionof Mashek&A.P.Aron(Eds.).Handbookofclosenessandintimacy
self-esteem:Sociometertheory.AdvancesinExperimentalSocial (pp.137–161).LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Psychology, 32, 1–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065- Rusbult,C.E.,Martz,J.M.,&Agnew,C.R.(1998).TheInvestment
2601(00)80003-9 Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level,
Murray,S.L.,Bellavia,G.,Feeney,B.,Holmes,J.G.,&Rose,P. quality ofalternatives, andinvestmentsize. PersonalRelation-
(2001). The contingencies of interpersonal acceptance: When ships,5(4),357–391.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.
romanticrelationshipsfunctionasaself-affirmationalresource. tb00177.x
Motivation and Emotion, 25(2), 163–189. https://doi.org/10 Rusbult,C.E.,&VanLange,P.A.(2008).Whyweneedinterdepen-
.1023/A:1010618010115 dencetheory.SocialandPersonalityPsychologyCompass,2(5),
Murray,S.L.,&Holmes,J.G.(2009).Thearchitectureofinterdepen- 2049–2070.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00147.x
dentminds:Amotivation-managementtheoryofmutualrespon- Schmitt,D.P.,Shackelford,T.K.,&Buss,D.M.(2001).Aremen
siveness.PsychologicalReview,116,908–928.https://doi.org/10. reallymore“oriented”towardshort-termmatingthanwomen?A
1037/a0017015 criticalreviewoftheoryandresearch.Psychology,Evolution&
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self- Gender,3,211–239.https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660110119331
fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Sedikides,C.,Oliver,M.B.,&Campbell,W.K.(1994).Perceived
Loveisnotblind,butprescient.JournalofPersonalityandSocial benefitsandcostsofromanticrelationshipsforwomenandmen:
Psychology, 71(6), 1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3 Implicationsforexchangetheory.PersonalRelationships,1(1),
514.71.6.1155 5–21.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00052.x
Murray,S.L.,Lamarche,V.,Seery,M.D.,Jung,H.Y.,Griffin,D.W., Simpson,J.A.,Rholes,W.S.,&Nelligan,J.S.(1992).Supportseek-
&Brinkman,C.(2020).Thesocial-safetysystem:Fortifyingrela- ingandsupportgivingwithincouplesinananxiety-provokingsit-
tionshipsinthefaceoftheunforeseeable.JournalofPersonality uation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
andSocialPsychology.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000245 434–446.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434
Murray,S.L.,Rose,P.,Bellavia,G.M.,Holmes,J.G.,&Kusche,A. Taylor,S.E.(2002).Thetendinginstinct:Hownurturingisessential
G. (2002). When rejection stings: How self-esteem constrains towhoweareandhowwelive.HenryHolt.
relationship-enhancementprocesses.JournalofPersonalityand Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of
SocialPsychology,83,556–573.https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3 affiliationunderstress.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalSci-
514.83.3.556 ence, 15, 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.
O’Neil,J.M.(2008).Summarizing25yearsofresearchonmen’sgen- 00451.x
derroleconflictusingtheGenderRoleConflictScale:Newresearch Vogel,D.L.,Heimerdinger-Edwards,S.R.,Hammer,J.H.,&Hub-
paradigmsandclinicalimplications.TheCounselingPsychologist, bard, A. (2011). “Boys don’t cry”: Examination of the links
36,358–445.https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057 between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and
Overall,N.C.,Fletcher,G.J.,&Simpson,J.A.(2010).Helpingeach help-seekingattitudesformenfromdiversebackgrounds.Jour-
othergrow:Romanticpartnersupport,self-improvement,andrela- nalofCounseling Psychology,58,368–382.https://doi.org/10.
tionshipquality.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,36, 1037/a0023688
1496–1513.https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057 Wood,W.,&Eagly,A.H.(2009).Genderidentity.InM.R.Leary&
Park,L.E.(2010).Responsestoself-threat:Linkingselfandrelational R.H.Hoyle(Eds.),Handbookofindividualdifferencesinsocial
constructs with approachandavoidancemotivation.Socialand behavior(pp.109–125).GuilfordPress.
PersonalityPsychologyCompass,4(3),201–221.https://doi.org/ Zeigler-Hill,V.,Fulton,J.J.,&McLemore,C.(2011).Theroleof
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00247.x unstable self-esteem in the appraisal of romantic relationships.
Park,L.E.,&Maner,J.K.(2009).Doesself-threatpromotesocial PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,51(1),51–56.https://doi.
connection? The role of self-esteem and contingencies of self- org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.009
10 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
Author Biographies identity threats and the role of threat in gender stereotype
maintenance.
VeronicaLamarcheisasocial-personalitypsychologistandlecturer
(assistantprofessor)intheDepartmentofPsychologyattheUniver- Alyssa Croft is an assistant professor of psychology at the
sityofEssex.Herresearchfocusesonthepsychologicalmechanisms University of Arizona. She is interested in understanding how,
associatedwithbalancingrisk,vulnerability,trustanddependencein when, and why people’s identities and choices are constrained
relationships. byinvisiblepsychologicalbarriers,suchasstereotypesandsocietal
expectations.
CiaraAtkinsonisasocialpsychologyPh.D.studentattheUniversity
ofArizona.Herresearchexaminespsychologicalresponsestosocial HandlingEditor:JenniferBosson
