Running head: MEN AND OTHER MEN

Men and Other Men: Sexual Orientation, Masculinity Threat and AntiEffeminacy Affect
Kevin C. Ngo and Fiona A. Papps
Australian College of Applied Psychology

Correspondence:
Fiona A. Papps,
School of Psychological Sciences,
Australian College of Applied Psychology,
11 York St., Level 6,
Sydney NSW 2000,
Australia.
e-mail: FionaAnn.Papps@acap.edu.au

MEN AND OTHER MEN

Abstract
Prejudice toward sexual minorities is a serious issue which has affected most individuals in the
queer community (Herek, 1989). Although it affects individuals of all genders and sexual
orientations, sexual prejudice directed at men is more severe, perpetrated more by straight men,
is heightened by threats to masculine identity, and is greater in response to feminine gay men
(Glick, Gangl, Gibb, Klumpner, & Weinberg, 2007; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Kite & Whitley,
1996). However, no studies have explored possible sexual orientation differences in the effect of
masculinity threat on affect toward straight and gay masculine and feminine men. Therefore, the
present research explored the effect of masculinity threat on gay and straight mens affective
evaluations of masculine straight men, feminine straight men, masculine gay men, and feminine
gay men. 168 gay and straight men, aged from 17 to 51 years (M = 23.77 years), randomly
assigned either to masculinity threat or no masculinity threat conditions, rated four target men
(straight masculine, straight feminine, gay masculine, and straight feminine) on three negative
affect dimensions, fear, hostility and discomfort. Results indicated that regardless of threat to
masculinity, a masculine straight target elicited significantly more fear and hostility than a
feminine straight or gay target for both gay and straight men. However, for gay men, a masculine
straight target elicited significantly more discomfort than a masculine gay target, whereas for
straight men, all four targets elicited equal amounts of discomfort. Furthermore, when
masculinity was threatened, straight men rated a masculine straight target and masculine and
feminine gay targets as causing significantly more discomfort. Results do not support those of
previous research, and suggest that hypermasculinity and perceived difference in sexual
orientation may be more important than perceived gender role violation in motivating mens
negative affect toward other men.
Keywords: Attitudes toward homosexuality, stereotypes, masculinity threat

MEN AND OTHER MEN

Men and Other Men: Sexual Orientation, Masculinity Threat and AntiEffeminacy Affect
Prejudice toward sexual minorities is a serious issue which has affected most individuals
in the queer community (Herek, 1989). Sexual prejudice is of concern to researchers in
psychology as its prevalence holds ramifications for the wellbeing of queer people (Herek,
1989). Although it affects individuals of all genders and sexual orientations, research suggests
that sexual prejudice directed at men is more severe than in women and that straight men
generally present greater negativity than straight women toward gay men (Herek & Capitanio,
1996; Kite & Whitley, 1996). Perceived gender role violation is understood as the motivator
behind straight mens sexual prejudice toward gay men (Herek, 2000). This sexual prejudice has
been shown to be heightened by threats to masculine identity, but that this negative reaction is
greater in response to feminine gay men than masculine gay men (Glick et al., 2007). Gay men
have also been shown to hold prejudicial views toward other men they perceive to be violating
gender role norms (Annes & Redlin, 2012). However, there have been no published studies
which have explored any possible sexual orientation differences in the effect of masculinity
threat on affective positions toward different types of men, whether they are gay, straight,
masculine, or feminine.
The aim of the present research is to explore differences between gay men and straight
men in the effect of masculinity threat on the affective evaluations of masculine straight men,
feminine straight men, masculine gay men, and feminine gay men. The following literature
review examines issues that are foundational to the present research, hegemonic masculinity,
sexuality, masculine identity, and masculinity threat.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

Hegemonic Masculinity
Since the advent of the modern gay rights movement, there has been an increasing body
of literature on the confluence of gender roles and homophobia. Of particular importance to this
research has been the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is understood
as the stylised embodiment of a current set of privileged gender practices which support the
current patriarchy and dominant cultural patterns (Connell, 1987; 2005). Hegemonic masculinity
is essentially relational, as it is defined as a form of masculinity privileged above all other
masculinities, as well as femininity, in a way in which performers of hegemonic masculinity hold
power over other masculinities and femininity across different historical and social contexts
(Beasley, 2008). The gendered practices and attributes which are typically described as
masculine are generally more desirable than feminine practices, and so hegemonic masculinity
involves opposition to femininity among its members (Falomir-Pichastor, Martnez, & Paterna,
2010). As the performance of these gendered practices is privileged and rewarded, men are
motivated to conform to the socially authoritative hegemonic masculinity to benefit from being
identified with a dominant group rather than being subordinated as a non-conformist. Despite the
privileging of hegemonic masculinity practices, it is not considered normal in a statistical sense,
as most men may not be required to provide a strong performance of hegemonic masculinity to
benefit from the patriarchy (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Instead, hegemonic masculinity is
considered normative as it is the embodiment of the ideal man, with the personal benefits of
patriarchy being derived from compliance to the values espoused by the hegemonic masculinity
(Messerschmidt, 2008).
As a tool for the maintenance of patriarchal power, displays of hegemonic masculinity
emphasise the strength and authority of the performer. However, as a set of privileged gender

MEN AND OTHER MEN

practices, hegemonic masculinities differ across cultures and contexts (Connell &
Messerschmidt, 2005; Beasley, 2008). The gendered practices of men privileged by hegemonic
masculinity in Australia are characterised by traits such as firmness, confidence, bossiness,
competitiveness, aggressiveness, outspokenness, rebelliousness, bravery, arrogance,
independence, rudeness and athleticism (Antill, Cunningham, Russell, & Thompson, 1981).
Feminine traits identified by Antill et al. (1981), such as dependence, sensitivity, timidity,
emotionality, devotion to others, inclination to cry, loyalty, anxiety and graciousness reflect
caring, frailty and servility, in contrast to the emphasis on strength and independence found in
masculine traits. This emphasis on masculine power can be seen perpetuated by media such as
mens magazines (Ricciardelli, Clow, & White, 2010). Ricciardelli et al. (2010) found that in
mens magazines sold in Canada, magazine content and advertising marketed outward or
physical displays such as fashion and muscularity, as symbols of power and success in relation to
women as well as other men.
Hegemonic Masculinity and Sexuality
Besides demonstrations of power, current Western hegemonic masculinity is typified by
heterosexuality and the institution of marriage, making it little wonder that homosexuality is
equated with a lack or absence of masculinity (Connell, 1987; 2005). This dissociation of
homosexuality from masculinity goes some way to explain the conflation of homosexuality with
femininity found by Valdes (1995) in Western society and law. The result of this conflation of
gender and sexuality include the stereotype that members of sexual minorities display gender
atypical traits (Glick et al., 2007; Levahot & Lambert, 2007). Examples of stereotypes among
Americans regarding gay men include the perception of gay men as gentle, passive, effeminate,
and well dressed (Glick et al., 2007; Taywaditep, 2001). A study by Blashill and Powlishta

MEN AND OTHER MEN

(2009a) found that this conflation continues to exist despite improvements in the status of sexual
minorities, with gay males still being viewed as being less masculine or more feminine than
heterosexual males. In a study on male and female participants, Mitchell and Ellis (2010) found
that participants ratings of men depicted in a videotape showed that their ratings of femininity
were higher and masculinity were lower when the target was labelled as being gay compared
with targets which were not labelled gay, regardless of where the label had come from and the
context in which the label was presented. Another recent study by Valentova, Rieger, Havlicek,
Linsenmeier, and Bailey (2011) found raters judgements of the sexual orientations of targets
were related to the raters judgements of the targets degree of gender conformity. This problem
is compounded by the use of derogatory epithets such as fag, especially by adolescent males, to
denigrate their male peers by implying their homosexuality to call into question their masculinity
(Fair, 2001).
Despite attitudes suggesting that homosexuality is incompatible with the hegemonic
masculinity, gradations exist in evaluations of homosexual mens masculinities. Fingerhut and
Peplau (2006) found gay men who performed traditionally masculine roles were rated less
feminine than those in traditionally feminine roles as well as being less similar to the gay
stereotype. Furthermore, a study by Cohen, Hall and Tuttle (2009) found that in ratings of
fictitious men (one masculine, one feminine), self-reported heterosexual male participants
reported liking masculine gay men more than effeminate gay men, whereas self-reported
heterosexual female participants liked both men equally. In a similar study by Blashill and
Powlishta (2009b), it was found that in ratings of fictitious men (either masculine or feminine
males labelled as gay, heterosexual, or unspecified sexual orientation) gender role performance
and sexual orientation act independently in affective judgements of men, with feminine targets

MEN AND OTHER MEN

rated negatively relative to masculine targets, and gay targets rated negatively relative to targets
of unspecified or heterosexual sexual orientations. Together, previous research therefore suggests
that gay masculinities do not constitute a singular monolithic oppressed masculinity. Instead, gay
masculinities, like masculinities in general, may be better understood as a spectrum of
masculinities where the severity of subjugation by hegemonic masculinity is more or less
inversely proportional to the degree to which the gay masculinities conform to masculine gender
role norms.
Masculine Identity
Previous research has shown that gender role violations in women have elicited backlash
effects in hypermasculine men (Reidy, Shirk, Sloan, & Zeichner, 2009; Rudman & Phelan,
2008). However, as previously predicted by Connells (1987; 2005) model of hegemonic
masculinity, research has shown that counter-stereotypical men also suffer backlash for not
conforming to masculine norms (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). In a study by Rudman and Fairchild
(2004), it was found that men and women who did not conform to gender stereotypes were more
likely to be victims of sabotage by hypermasculine men than men and women who conformed to
their socially expected gender roles. Furthermore, Rudman and Fairchild found that individuals
who did not conform to gender norms engaged in behaviours designed to avoid backlash for
gender nonconformity, including increased performance of gender role norms. Such avoidance
behaviours have the effect of maintaining and perpetuating gender stereotypes, thereby
legitimising the values of hegemonic masculinity and the established gender hierarchy. Further
evidence of the role of backlash against gender non-conformists in the maintenance of
hegemonic masculinity and the legitimising of patriarchy can be found in the personal attributes
which are targeted for violating masculinity. Moss-Racusin, Phelan and Rudman (2010) found

MEN AND OTHER MEN

evidence for the marginalisation of modest men who disconfirmed hegemonic masculinitys
privileging of mens power by subscribing to low status attributes such as weakness and
uncertainty, while not following the prescribed masculine, high status attributes of confidence
and ambition. Although modest men are not typically obvious threats to individuals due to
their restrained displays of power, it is understandable that such individuals would be threatening
to men who subscribe to hegemonic masculinity as the counter-stereotypical version of
masculinity presented is in itself a threat to the culturally and socially derived legitimacy of
hegemonic masculinity which relies on the complicity of members of society.
Masculinity Threat
Since males are motivated to conform to hegemonic masculinity lest they experience
backlash, any threat to a mans status as an exemplar of hegemonic masculinity can be expected
to be compromising to his identity as a member of the dominant group. Masculinity threat is thus
a form of prototypicality threat, where the individuals social identity as a good member is
challenged (Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003). This threat is different from other
types of social identity threat such as threats to a groups value or the legitimacy of hegemonic
masculinity, with the association between gender role norms and homophobia being due to
insecurities regarding ones own masculinity rather than the status of the hegemonic masculinity
(Wilkinson, 2004).
Previous research on social identity theory has shown that threats to social identities have
noticeable effects on social behaviour (e.g., Gmez, Morales, Hart, Vzquez, & Swann, 2011).
Like other forms of social identity threat, it is known that masculinity threat is associated with
compensatory behaviour (Maass et al., 2003). A study by Funk and Werhun (2011) found
evidence of compensatory behaviour (stronger hand grip) in participants exposed to masculinity

MEN AND OTHER MEN

threat compared with participants in the control condition. This compensatory behaviour
demonstrated that threats to a mans status as a good representative of the dominant group elicit
behaviour which increased the individuals performance of hegemonic masculinity. Furthermore,
Maass et al. (2003) showed that when masculinity was threatened, participants were more likely
to harass females sexually through the sharing of pornographic material. This sexual harassment
may be interpreted as an example of an assertion of patriarchal power by the male participants to
bolster their gender role performance after their masculinity had been undermined. Maass et al.
(2003) found that this was particularly true of participants who identified highly with hegemonic
masculinity, and that compensatory subjugation of females enhanced identification with
hegemonic masculinity.
As predicted by Connells (1987; 2005) model of hegemonic masculinity, previous
research has shown that besides the oppression of femininity, masculinity threat leads to the
subjugation of less privileged masculinities. A study by Falomir-Pichastor and Mugny (2009)
found that straight men who were more invested in their masculinity, and hence more threatened
by gay men with whom they share the same sex and gender category, displayed greater sexual
prejudice than their less heavily invested counterparts. However, a previous study had found
evidence to suggest that defensive reactions to masculinity threat were linked to negative affect
toward gay men who performed feminine roles and possessed feminine attributes, but not
masculine gay men (Glick et al., 2007). This again relates back to the spectrum of non-dominant
masculinities which show differing levels of privilege according to the level of conformity to the
dominant masculine gender roles.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

10

Homonegativity
The marginalisation of masculinities presents itself in varying ways. One manifestation of
the subjugation of masculinities is sexual prejudice and discrimination, specifically
homonegative or homophobic beliefs, attitudes and/or actions. Herek (2000) defined sexual
prejudice as negative attitudes directed at individuals because of their sexual orientation. Herek
(2000) referred specifically to straight individuals negative attitudes toward homosexual
behaviour, people of non-heterosexual orientation, and lesbian, gay and bisexual communities.
Sexual prejudice and discrimination directed at men is therefore understood to be characterised
by negative attitudes or behaviours toward a man because of his perceived difference in sexual
orientation (Falomir-Pichastor et al., 2010).
Earlier studies have shown that sexual prejudice directed at men tends to be more severe
than that directed at women, with the difference in negative attitudes toward gay men and that of
lesbians greater in straight male respondents than straight female respondents (Herek &
Capitanio, 1996; Kite & Whitley, 1996). These findings are expected given that subscription to
hegemonic masculinity entails opposition to femininity, especially in men who are perceived to
possess feminine attributes (Falomir-Pichastor et al., 2010). Given the finding by Moss-Racusin,
et al. (2010) that heterosexual men who are perceived to be less masculine are more likely to
suffer retaliation compared to their more gender-conforming counterparts, it is expected that men
who are perceived to be gay would also receive negative treatment given their apparent violation
of hegemonic masculinity. Indeed, evidence has been found to suggest that gender role violation
and sexual orientation are both independent factors influencing heterosexual individuals
evaluations of men (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009b; Levahot & Lambert, 2007). On the one hand,
gay men are evaluated negatively for their presumed femininity, whereas gay men are also

MEN AND OTHER MEN

11

evaluated negatively for their perceived deviance in sexual orientation. This two-pronged
motivation for sexual prejudice results in many gay men becoming victims of sexual prejudice
for being double violators (Levahot & Lambert, 2007). The evidence therefore suggests that
sexual prejudice directed at men is a result of both opposition to perceived differences in sexual
orientation as well as hostility toward perceived gender role violations (Blashill & Powlishta,
2009a, 2009b; Levahot & Lambert, 2007).
As previously detailed, threats to masculine identity are generally associated with
increases in negative affect toward femininity as a form of compensation for threatened
masculinity or to reaffirm masculine identity (Maass et al., 2003; Glick et al., 2007). Furthermore
it has been found that investment in a hypermasculine identity is related to a greater sense of
masculinity threat from gay men (Falomir-Pichastor & Mugny, 2009). It appears then that
masculinity threat is an important contributing factor toward homonegative attitudes and
behaviour.
Conclusion
Taken together, the literature indicates the role of hegemonic masculinity in the
perpetuation of sexual prejudice, particularly toward gay men. This is due to the definition of
hegemonic masculinity as marginalising and stigmatising non-heterosexual orientations
(Connell, 2005). Performance of hegemonic masculinity confers privilege to its performers
whereas the violation of its norms leads to backlash (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). Men are
therefore motivated to identify with and perform hegemonic masculinity, so threats to masculine
identity often lead to compensatory behaviours (Funk & Werhun, 2011; Maass et al., 2003). This
compensatory behaviour includes negative affect toward gay men, which was shown to be
greater toward gender-nonconforming gay men than gender-conforming gay men (Glick et al.,

MEN AND OTHER MEN

12

2007). This difference may be explained by sexual prejudice toward gay men being motivated by
two factors: deviance in sexual orientation and deviance in gender role performance (Blashill &
Powlishta, 2009b; Levahot & Lambert, 2007). It has been shown that straight men who perceive
greater difference between themselves and gay men present greater sexual prejudice than those
who perceive similarity (Falomir-Pichastor et al., 2010; Talley, 2004). The expectation would
therefore be that greater homonegativity would lead to greater masculinity threat and
consequently increased negative affect toward gender role violations. However, it has also been
found that sexual prejudice following masculinity threat occurs regardless of explicit beliefs
about sexual orientation (Talley & Bettencourt, 2008), suggesting the pervasive influence of
hegemonic masculinity and masculine identity regardless of personal subscription to its values.
Despite this wealth of research, it has not been established in the extant literature whether
there are any differences between gay men and straight men in the effect of masculinity threat on
anti-effeminacy affect. The present research therefore attempted to address these concerns by
exploring possible differences between heterosexual and gay men in the effect of masculinity
threat on the affective evaluations of masculine straight men, feminine straight men, masculine
gay men, and feminine gay men. Specifically, we made five predictions. First, we hypothesised
that different targets would be rated differently. Second, we hypothesised that participants who
were exposed to masculinity threat would rate targets differently, expressing greater overall
levels of negative affect toward the targets. Third, we predicted that participants experiencing
masculinity threat would rate feminine targets more negatively than those in the non-threat
condition. Fourth, we expected that, because gender role violation and sexual orientation both
influence heterosexuals evaluations of men, men who identified as straight would evaluate

MEN AND OTHER MEN

13

feminine targets and homosexual targets more negatively than men who identified as gay.
Finally, we hypothesised that this tendency would be exacerbated following masculinity threat.
Method
Participants
One hundred and sixty-eight male Australian citizens and permanent residents (118
straight, 50 gay) aged 1751 years (M = 23.77, SD = 4.69) participated in this study. One
hundred and fifty-four (91.7%) participants listed English as their primary language. Of the 14
whose primary language was not English, 7 (4.2%) listed their English ability as very fluent and
7 (4.2%) listed their English ability as fluent.
Procedure
Participants were informed that they were invited to participate in a study of
masculinity. Therefore, they would complete an anonymous online questionnaire inventory,
with their responses contribut[ing] to the scientific understanding of gender in our society.
Each participant completed the online survey individually and in private. Participants were asked
to provide demographic information and to complete the Australian Sex-Role Scale. They were
then randomly allocated to either the threat or non-threat condition, and next asked to read the
four vignettes (masculine straight, feminine straight, masculine gay, feminine gay). The order in
which the vignettes were presented was randomised. Subsequent to each vignette, participants
completed the emotion scale before continuing to the next vignette.
Demographics. This section required participants to provide details on their age in years,
sex, citizenship or permanent residency in Australia, their sexual orientation and whether English
was the participants primary language.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

14

Australian Sex-Role Scale. Form A of the Australian Sex-Role Scale consists of five
subscales of 10 items each. The subscales are positive masculine characteristics, negative
masculine characteristics, positive feminine characteristics, negative feminine characteristics,
and socially desirable gender-neutral characteristics. Participants were asked to indicate on a
seven-point Likert-type scale on the degree to which they felt the characteristic applied
themselves. For the purposes of the present study, we aggregated positive and negative
masculinity scores to create an overall masculinity score and positive and negative femininity
scores were aggregated to form an overall femininity score and gender-neutral scores were
ignored. Form A of the Australian Sex-Role Scale was chosen for its consistency in factor
structure and reliability across studies (Antill et al., 1980; Farnill & Ball, 1985; Hong, Kavanagh,
& Tippett, 1983; Russell & Antill, 1984). The reliability of the combined scales of Form A of the
Australian Sex-Role Scale has been previously demonstrated, with good reliability for overall
masculinity ( = .84) and overall femininity ( = .80) scales reported from a sample of 91 male
participants (Antill et al., 1980).
Threat stimulus. The threat and non-threat stimuli included a brief description of the
possible range of scores and means scores for masculinity and femininity as measured in the
Australian Sex-Role Scale. The threat stimulus provided a fictional femininity score one standard
deviation above the published mean and a masculinity score one standard deviation below the
mean. Therefore, the threat condition appeared to participants as follows:
One of the previous questionnaires measured masculinity and femininity. Possible scores
on masculinity range from 20 to 140, where higher scores indicate a stronger association
with either masculinity or femininity. On average, men score around 82 on masculinity,

MEN AND OTHER MEN

15

and around 79 on femininity. According to your responses in the previous questionnaire,

your score is:
Femininity: 91
Masculinity: 68
The non-threat stimulus provided a fictional femininity score one standard deviation
below the published mean and a masculinity score one standard deviation above the mean.
Therefore, the non-threat stimulus appeared to participants as follows:
One of the previous questionnaires measured masculinity and femininity. Possible scores
on masculinity range from 20 to 140, where higher scores indicate a stronger association
with either masculinity or femininity. On average, men score around 82 on masculinity,
and around 79 on femininity. According to your responses in the previous questionnaire,
your score is:
Femininity: 66
Masculinity: 96
Targets. The four types of targets were operationalised through four vignettes. The
vignettes were constructed based on the structure and content of targets used by Glick et al.
(2007). Vignettes for the masculine gay (MGM) and masculine straight men (MSM) were
constructed from traditionally gender conforming occupations, activities, organisations, and
gender roles, whereas the vignettes for the feminine straight (FSM) and feminine gay men
(FGM) consisted of traditionally gender-nonconforming occupations, activities, organisations,
and gender roles. Masculine and feminine occupations were drawn from correlations between
gender and rated preferences for 50 occupations as found by Lippa (2002). Masculine and
feminine activities and occupations were based on the target descriptions used by Glick et al.,

MEN AND OTHER MEN

16

2007). Gender roles were drawn from the Australian Sex-Role Scale, Bem Sex Role Inventory
(Bem, 1974), and the target descriptions used by Glick et al. (2007). Therefore, both the MGM
and MSM targets were described as preferring masculine activities (golfing and fishing), hobbies
(car restoration and woodwork), organisations (cricket club and rugby team), occupations (law
and mechanic) and gender roles (analytical, competitive, independent and ambitious). The FGM
and FSM targets were described as preferring feminine activities (shopping and musical and
dance productions), hobbies (painting and yoga), organisations (knitting club and local choir),
occupations (fashion designer and dancer) and gender roles (artistic, flamboyant, creative and
expressive). The sexual orientation of the target was signalled by an opening sentence indicating
that the target lived with a male or female partner.
Emotion scale. Participants completed an emotion scale for each of the vignettes by
rating their affective judgement on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1=not at all, 7=extremely) based
on the one used by Glick et al. (2007). Items included in this scale were comfort, admiration,
calm, content, secure, sympathetic, respectful, intimidation, insecurity, nervous, fearful, anger,
disgust, frustration, annoyance, contempt, and superiority.
Upon completion of the study, participants were directed to a document providing a full
debrief with extra care taken to reveal the true nature of the study and the fictitiousness of the
Australian Sex-Role Scale scores used in the threat and non-threat stimuli.
Results
Dependent variables: Based on past research, we grouped the fifteen items of the
emotion scale into three scales: fear, hostility, and discomfort (Glick et al., 2007). Fear ( = .87
for MSM, = .92 for FSM, = .89 for MGM, = .85 for FGM) was calculated as the mean of
the scores for the items corresponding to the emotions intimidation, insecurity, nervous, and

MEN AND OTHER MEN

17

fearful. Hostility ( = .85 for MSM, = .86 for FSM, = .88 for MGM, = .85 for FGM) was
calculated as the mean of the scores for the items corresponding to the emotions anger,
disgust, frustration, annoyance, contempt, and superiority. The items for the positive
emotions comfort, admiration, calm, content, secure, sympathetic, and respectful
were reverse scored and the mean was calculated to produce the discomfort scale ( = .74 for
MSM, = .79 for FSM, = .78 for MGM, = .80 for FGM) with a direction consistent with the
variables fear and hostility. Corrected item-total correlations were unproblematic for items in the
fear and hostility scales (r > .30). However, corrected item-total correlations were low for the
item sympathetic in the discomfort scale in MSM (r = .190), FSM (r = .26), and MGM (r = .
29), as well as being only marginally acceptable in FGM (r = .33). The item sympathetic was
therefore excluded from the final discomfort scale ( = .79 for MSM, = .83 for FSM, = .82
for MGM, = .83 for FGM). A mean negativity scale was calculated from the mean of fear,
hostility and discomfort.
Analysis. To examine group differences in emotional responses to different targets, a
mixed-design 2x2x4 ANOVA was conducted for each of the four dependent variables (fear,
hostility, discomfort, mean negativity), with threat (threat, non-threat) and sexual orientation
(straight, gay) as the between subject factors, and target (masculine straight, feminine straight,
masculine gay, feminine gay) as the repeated measures factor. Means for each of the dependent
variables appear in Table 1.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

18

Table 1 Sexual orientation, masculinity threat and negative affect toward MSM, MGM, FSM and
FGM
Masculinity threat
Straight
Gay

No threat
Straight

Gay

MSM
Fear
Hostility
Discomfort
Mean negative affect
FSM
Fear
Hostility
Discomfort
Mean negative affect
MGM
Fear
Hostility
Discomfort
Mean negative affect
FGM
Fear
Hostility
Discomfort
Mean negative affect

1.78
1.51
3.98
2.29

1.54
1.50
4.51
2.37

1.74
1.46
3.64
2.16

2.08
1.77
4.31
2.58

1.23
1.33
3.78
2.00

1.10
1.57
4.28
2.21

1.22
1.48
3.99
2.12

1.73
1.86
3.41
2.27

1.30
1.23
3.86
2.00

1.49
1.22
3.61
1.98

1.44
1.38
3.67
2.05

2.03
1.74
3.34
2.28

1.24
1.37
4.04
2.09

1.22
1.39
4.00
2.09

1.36
1.48
3.70
2.08

1.78
1.67
3.65
2.27

MEN AND OTHER MEN

19

As predicted by Hypothesis One, the target main effect was significant for fear, F(2.53,
414.67) = 12.74, p < .001, p2 = .07, observed power = .99; hostility, F(2.74, 450.18) = 3.15, p < .
001, p2 = .02, observed power = .70; discomfort, F (2.79. 457.07) = 6.37, p < .001, p2 = .04,
observed power = .96; and negative affect, F (2.83. 464.45) = 8.34, p < .001, p2 = .05, observed
power = .99. Pairwise t-tests using a Bonferroni correction (Field, 2009) demonstrated that
masculine straight men elicited significantly greater discomfort (M = 4.11) and mean negative
affect (M = 2.35) than masculine gay men (M = 3.62 and M = 2.07, respectively), t(457.07) =
4.27, p < .001 and t(464.45) = 4.49, p < .001, and elicited significantly greater fear (M = 1.78)
and mean negative affect (M = 2.35) than feminine straight men (M = 1.32 and M = 2.15,
respectively), t(414.67) = 4.88, p < .001 and t(464.45) = 3.22, p = .00, and feminine gay men (M
= 1.40 and 2.13, respectively), t(414.67) = 4.41, p < .001 and t(464.45) = 3.45, p = .004.
Feminine straight men (M = 1.56) elicited significantly greater hostility than masculine gay men
(M = 1.40), t(450.18) = 3.06, p = .015.
As predicted by Hypothesis Two, the masculinity threat main effect was significant for
fear, F(1, 164) = 6.96, p = .009, p2 = .04, observed power = .75; and hostility, F(1, 164) = 6.60,
p = .041, p2 = .03, observed power = .54, but not for discomfort, F(1, 164) = 1.68, ns; or mean
negative affect, F(1, 164) = 1.00, ns. Pairwise t-tests using a Bonferroni correction (Field, 2009)
demonstrated that, contrary to prediction, masculinity threat elicited significantly lower levels of
fear (M = 1.36) and hostility (M = 1.39) than were reported in the no masculinity threat
conditions (M = 1.67 for fear and M = 1.61 for hostility), t(164) = 2.64, p = .009 and t(164) =
-2.06, p = .041, respectively.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

20

Contrary to Hypothesis Three, the target x masculinity threat interaction was not
significant for fear, F(2.53. 414.67) = .14, ns; hostility, F(2.74, 450.18) = 1.10, ns; discomfort, F
(2.79. 457.07) = .11, ns; or mean negative affect, F (2.83. 464.45) = .46, ns.
As predicted by Hypothesis Four, the target x sexual orientation interaction was
significant for discomfort, F (2.79. 457.07) = 5.66, p = .001, p2 = .03, observed power = .93, but
not for fear, F(2.53. 414.67) = 1.37, ns; hostility, F(2.74, 450.18) = .98, ns; or mean negative
affect, F (2.83. 464.45) = .81, ns. Pairwise t-tests using a Bonferroni adjustment (Field, 2009)
indicated that for gay men, a masculine straight target (M = 4.41) elicited significantly greater
discomfort than feminine straight (M =3.85), t(457.07) = 2.76, p = .039; masculine gay (M
=3.48), t(457.07) = 4.86, p < .001; and feminine gay (M =3.84, SE = .23), t(457.07) = 2.83, p = .
03 targets. In contrast, straight participants showed equal levels of discomfort for all targets, all t
|.97|, ns.
As predicted by Hypothesis Five, the target x sexual orientation x threat interaction was
significant for discomfort, F (2.79. 457.07) = 3.07, p < .031, p2 = .02, observed power = .70, but
not for fear, F(2.53. 414.67) = .25, ns; hostility, F(2.74, 450.18) = .38, ns; or mean negative
affect, F (2.83. 464.45) = 1.09. Pairwise t-tests using a Bonferroni adjustment (Field, 2009)
revealed that this interaction occurred because when the masculinity of gay participants was
threatened, they rated feminine straight (M = 4.28) and masculine straight (M = 4.51) targets as
eliciting significantly more discomfort than masculine gay targets, (M =3.61), t(457.07) = 3.21, p
= .01. In contrast, when the masculinity of gay participants was not threatened, masculine
straight targets (M = 4.31) elicited significantly greater discomfort than both feminine straight
(M =3.41), t(457.07) = 3.24, p = .009, and masculine gay targets (M =3.34), t(457.07) = 3.70, p =
.002.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

21

Discussion
Overview of results
Masculinity threat had been associated with increased negative affect toward feminine
men. The present research attempted to explore the role of sexual orientation of individuals in
their ratings of negative affect following masculinity threat. Key findings of the present research
were that, contrary to the results of previous research, regardless of threat to masculinity,
masculine straight men elicited significantly greater discomfort and mean negative affect than
masculine gay men and significantly greater fear and mean negative affect than feminine straight
men and feminine gay men. Furthermore, feminine straight men elicited significantly greater
hostility than masculine gay men. Additionally, a masculine straight target elicited significantly
greater discomfort for gay participants than feminine straight, masculine gay and feminine gay
targets, especially when masculinity was threatened, whereas equal levels of discomfort were
expressed by straight participants toward all targets, regardless of any threat to masculinity.
Overall, results suggest that hypermasculinity and perceived difference in sexual orientation may
be more important than perceived gender role violation in motivating mens negative affect
toward other men. These results will be discussed in more detail and with reference to relevant
literature.
Target effects
Intriguingly, in the present research, for both gay and straight men, masculine targets
prompted more fear, discomfort and mean negative affect than feminine targets. It is
understandable that participants would feel these emotions toward a masculine straight target
considering that hegemonic masculinity is a privileged form of masculinity held up as the ideal
(Connell, 1987; 2005), and to which is attributed more power in Western society than other

MEN AND OTHER MEN

22

masculinities and femininity (Beasley, 2008). This would be especially true of a target designed
as a prototypical performer of hegemonic masculinity, a performance which is hardly normal in a
statistical sense (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Furthermore, the occupation of the masculine
straight target was that of a lawyer, which holds a higher socio-economic status in comparison to
the occupations of the other targets. Therefore, higher ratings of fear, discomfort and mean
negative affect toward this target may be due to the socio-economic status rather than the sexual
and gender orientation of the target. However, hegemonic masculinity is, by definition,
privileged, and so matching masculine and feminine occupations on socio-economic status is
difficult. The higher ratings of fear, discomfort and negative affect toward the masculine straight
target in comparison to some of the other targets may therefore be a result of the upward social
comparison to both the masculine and socio-economic status of the target.
Interestingly, ratings of hostility differed from ratings of fear and discomfort, with more
hostility elicited by the feminine straight target than the masculine gay target. It appears then that
feelings of hostility as a whole are higher toward gender role violations in the absence of
heteronormativity violations compared to heteronormativity violations in the absence of gender
role violations. This finding is in line with reports of gender-nonconforming straight men
suffering backlash (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). However, the findings suggest that gender
orientation may be more influential than sexual orientation in affective judgements of men,
whereas previous research had suggested that the opposite would be true (Schope & Eliason,
2004). Instead, the relatively low ratings of hostility toward the masculine gay man may reflect a
tacit approval of the targets masculine performance which falls short of the threatening
hegemonic masculine ideal, as appeared to be the case for ratings of discomfort.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

23

Men and other men: Differences according to sexual orientation

Also important in the present research was the finding that gay participants expressed
greater discomfort toward the masculine straight target than all other targets, whereas straight
participants showed no differences in their discomfort ratings between targets. In light of the
main effect of target and the hypermasculine nature of the masculine straight target, it is
understandable that gay participants would feel greater discomfort compared to their straight
counterparts in response to the masculine straight target, as this target can be threatening in three
areas which are represented in western hegemonic masculinity: socio-economic status, masculine
performance, and heterosexuality (Connell, 1987; 2005).
The perceived importance of gay men acting straight is not limited to straight men. A
study of gay, bisexual and questioning adolescent boys has shown that in these adolescents, it
was important to balance presentations of masculinity and femininity in order to avoid
homophobic violence (Wilson, Harper, Hidalgo, Jamil, Torres, & Fernandez, 2010). In a study of
rural gay mens life narratives in France and the United States, Annes and Redlin (2012) found
that gay men in these contexts adopted the ideals of hegemonic masculinity as the only script
through which gay men are permitted to present gay masculinity, leading these men to a
conscious rejection of femininity in themselves and others. In the course of the interviews,
American participants tended to recognise a gender continuum on which they were considered
less masculine than straight men, and acknowledged the importance of performing masculinity in
order to feel normal and to fit in (Annes & Redlin, 2012, p. 274). The present study,
however, gave no indication of gay participants favouring the masculine gay target to the
feminine gay target on any of the four emotion scales. The results of the present study may
therefore indicate the presence of a cultural difference between our sample of gay Australian men

MEN AND OTHER MEN

24

and the gay men in previous overseas studies in these communities understandings and
expectations of masculinity.
The finding of the present study that the gay participants expression of greater
discomfort toward the masculine straight target was exacerbated when their masculinity was
threatened, whereas straight participants showed no differences in their discomfort ratings,
regardless of threat to their masculinity, also warrants discussion. This finding indicates that
when their masculinity was threatened, gay participants alone psychologically distanced
themselves from the femininity of the feminine straight target but not the femininity of the
feminine gay target, suggesting some degree of identification with sexual orientation of the
feminine gay target or familiarity with the conflation of homosexuality with femininity. It is as
yet unclear from the present research whether or not these participants lower average sense of
comfort toward the feminine straight target was due to the femininity of the feminine straight
target or the relative counter-stereotypical novelty of the feminine-straight pairing.
Moreover, the relative sense of comfort of gay participants toward the feminine straight
target in the non-threat condition disappeared in the threat condition. A possible explanation for
this occurrence within the framework of hegemonic masculinity is that as a result of masculinity
threat, gay participants felt discomfort toward the hegemonic masculine straight target while
identifying with the masculine gay target, with the latter target becoming the only legitimate
form of gay masculinity as reflected in the rural gay masculinities described by Annes and
Redlin (2012). However, the difference between the feminine straight target and other targets
was not significant for gay participants in the threat condition, limiting any conclusions along
these lines.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

25

Limitations and Strengths of the Present Research

Previous studies have employed varying methods to induce masculinity threat. In a study
by Funk and Werhun (2011), masculinity threat was operationalised as verbal denigration of the
participants status as a good example of masculinity. Although such a method possesses greater
ecological validity through its reflection of real-world examples of masculinity threat, the ethical
and technological limitations of the online nature of the present study prevented the use of such a
threat. In order to replicate prototypicality threat through a computerised design, the threat
stimulus used in the present study utilised fictional scores of masculinity and femininity which
suggested that the participants scores were closer to the mean scores for females than males in
the wider population, as was done in previous studies by Glick et al. (2007) and Maass et al.
(2003). However, as the questionnaires were not administered on-site, participants
comprehension of the threat stimulus was not known. A further possibility which may explain the
unexpected results for threat is that the clinical appearance of the threat stimulus may have
resulted in identification with androgynous identity instead of the compensatory behaviour
detected in previous studies.
Besides the threat stimulus, the inclusion of other covariates beyond the scope of the
present study may refine and shed new light on the findings of the study. The limitations of selfreport measures in such studies are evident in the present study, as shown in the generally low
ratings across most items of the emotion scale. These low ratings may reflect socially desirable
response styles or low self-awareness of emotions. Indeed, previous studies have shown that
implicit and explicit prejudice may manifest themselves differently in response to masculinity
threat (Maass et al., 2003; Talley & Bettencourt, 2008). Studies such as the present study and the

MEN AND OTHER MEN

26

study performed by Glick et al. (2007) are therefore limited in their sensitivity to some substrata
of behaviour.
Despite these limitations, the present study extended the field of study into masculinity
threat and its associated behaviours. Previous research has provided a wealth of knowledge in the
area of masculine social identity, but the question of whether there are any differences between
gay men and straight men in the effect of masculinity threat on anti-effeminacy affect had not
been established. Consequently, the inclusion of a participant sexual orientation variable and the
addition of straight targets to the gay targets used by Glick et al. (2007) provide an important
contribution to the field.
The online administration of the questionnaires afforded the present study a final sample
of 168 valid respondents through referral sampling which is greater than the sample of 53
participants in the similar study by Glick et al. (2007) which had relied on student volunteers.
This was especially important due to the complexity of the research design. The online referral
sampling was therefore considered instrumental in providing the capacity to address the research
questions.
Conclusions and implications for future research
The results of the present study call into question the role masculinity threat plays in
negative affect toward gender and sexual orientation non-conformists as previously detected by
Glick et al. (2007). In contradiction to previous studies (Maass et al., 2003; Glick et al., 2007),
evidence for theoretical compensatory behaviour through higher negative affect toward nonhegemonic masculinities in response to masculinity threat was lacking. Indeed, there was no
evidence that masculinity threat led to participants rating any particular target more negatively
than those who were unexposed to masculinity threat. Even more surprisingly, masculinity threat

MEN AND OTHER MEN

27

appeared to lower ratings of fear and hostility, regardless of target or participant sexual
orientation.
The present studys exploration of sexual orientation as an influence in negative affect
toward different types of men provided a greater understanding of masculinities. The results
suggest that gay men feel greater feelings of discomfort toward masculine straight men
compared to other types of men, whereas among straight men, there are no differences in feelings
of discomfort in relation to men of varying sexual and gender orientation. Within the framework
of Connells (1987; 2005) model of hegemonic masculinity, this finding can be understood in
terms of gay men, as members of an underprivileged masculinity, reacting to performers of the
privileged hegemonic masculinity as a threat to their masculine identities, while seeing other
underprivileged masculinities as non-threatening. On the other hand, straight participants, on
account of their fulfilment of heteronormative values, do not detect threats to their masculine
identity in their relationships to other men. Similarly, it appeared that with the threat stimulus
used in the present study, straight men, in the security of their membership in straight
masculinity, do not perceive any form of masculinity as particularly threatening to their
masculine identities regardless of challenges to their masculinity, whereas in addition to
perceiving threat in performers of hegemonic masculinity, gay men also identify with masculine
gay men following masculinity threat.
To reconcile the present research with previous findings, the characteristics of the sample
must be taken into account. Future research may therefore incorporate individual difference
measures beyond the scope of the present study in order to address the discrepancies between the
results presented here and in previous research. For example, investment in a hypermasculine
identity is related to a greater sense of masculinity threat from gay men (Falomir-Pichastor &

MEN AND OTHER MEN

28

Mugny, 2009). The negative outcome of being perceived to a violator of hegemonic masculinity
is a motivator for gender conformity in men. This fear of retribution can lead to masculinity
consciousness (Taywaditep, 2001). Gay men have been shown to exhibit masculinity
consciousness (Pachankis, Westmaas & Dougherty, 2011), however, masculinity consciousness
appears to be a common phenomenon in straight men and boys as well (Bosson, Prewitt-Freilling
& Taylor, 2005; Phoenix, Frosh & Pattman, 2003). This masculinity consciousness is also related
to internalised homophobia, where gay masculinity is seen as less masculine and hence inferior
to straight masculinity, with the masculinity consciousness manifesting itself in the valuing of
masculine gender role performance as important to feeling normal and fitting in (Annes &
Redlin, 2012). It would be expected then that internalised homophobia would be related to
negative affective judgements of others who violate gender role norms. Measures of
homonegativity should therefore be explored in future research.
From a theoretical standpoint, the results of the present study suggest the assumption that
challenges to masculine social identity would lead to increased negativity to feminine men
should be re-examined for all its complexities. Furthermore, the usefulness of the theory of
hegemonic masculinity in explaining mens experiences of gender and sexuality has been given
further vindication. From a practical standpoint, the present study illuminates some of the factors
which may influence relationships between men of different sexual orientations. Much research
has been dedicated to the research of homonegativity perpetuated by straight individuals
(Blashill & Powlishta, 2009a, 2009b; Herek, 1989, 2000; Kite & Whitley, 1996; Levahot &
Lambert, 2007; Whitley, 2009), but less has been dedicated to factors which influence gay men
in their interactions with straight men. The present study begins to redress this absence by
offering a glimpse into gay mens emotional responses to hegemonic masculinity as represented

MEN AND OTHER MEN

by masculine straight men performing the culturally prescribed roles of men in comparison
with Other men.

29

MEN AND OTHER MEN

30

References
Annes, A. & Redlin, M. (2012). The careful balance of gender and sexuality: Rural gay men, the
heterosexual matrix, and effeminophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 256288.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.648881
Antill, J. K., Cunningham, J. D., Russell, G. & Thompson, N. L. (1981). An Australian Sex-Role
Scale. Australian Journal of Psychology, 33, 157168. doi:10.1080/00049538108258734
Beasley, C. (2008). Rethinking hegemonic masculinity in a globalizing world. Men and
Masculinities, 11, 86103. doi:10.1177/1097184X08315102
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology,42, 155162. doi:10.1037/h0036215
Blashill, A. J. & Powlishta, K. K. (2009a). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a
cure for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783739. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-96847
Blashill, A. J. & Powlishta, K. K. (2009b). The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on
evaluations of men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 10, 160173.
doi:10.1037/a0014583
Bosson, J. K., Prewitt-Freillino, J. L. & Taylor, J. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity
misclassification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552565.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552
Cohen, T. R., Hall, D. L. & Tuttle, J. (2009). Attitudes toward stereotypical versus
counterstereotypical gay men and lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 274281.
doi:10.1080/00224490802666233
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

31

Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. Sydney, Australia: Griffin Press.

Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept.
Gender and Society, 19, 829859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639
Fair, B. (2001). Constructing masculinity through penetration discourse: The intersection of
misogyny and homophobia in high school wrestling. Men and Masculinties, 14, 491504.
doi:10.1177/1097184X10375936
Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Martnez, C. & Paterna, C. (2010). Gender-roles attitude, perceived
similarity, and sexual prejudice against gay men. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13,
841848.
Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. & Mugny, G. (2009). ''I'm not gay. . . . I'm a real man!'': Heterosexual
men's gender self-esteem and sexual prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 35, 12331243. doi:10.1177/0146167209338072.
Farnill, D. & Ball, I. L. (1985). Male and female factor structures of the Australian sex-role scale
(form A). Australian Psychologist, 20, 205213. doi:10.1080/00050068508256166
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (3rd Ed.). London: Sage.
Fingerhut, A. W. & Peplau, L. A. (2006). The impact of social roles on stereotypes of gay men.
Sex Roles, 55, 273278. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9080-5.
Funk, L. C. & Werhun, C. D. (2011). Youre such a girl! The psychological drain of the
gender-role harassment of men. Sex Roles, 65, 1322. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9948-x.
Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klumpner, S. & Weinberg, E. (2007). Defensive reactions to
masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men.
Sex Roles, 57, 5559. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9195-3.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

32

Gmez, A., Morales, J. F., Hart, S., Vzquez, A. & Swann, W. B. (2011). Rejected and excluded
forevermore, but even more devoted: Irrevocable ostracism intensifies loyalty to the
group among identity-fused persons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37,
15741586. doi:10.1177/0146167211424580.
Herek, H. M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for research and policy.
American Psychologist, 44, 948955. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.6.948.
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 9, 192. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00051.
Herek, G. M. & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). Some of my best friends intergroup contact,
concealable stigma, and heterosexuals attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412424.
doi:10.1177/0146167296224007.
Hong, S., Kavanagh, K. & Tippett, V. (1983). Factor structure of the Australian sex-role scale.
Psychological Reports, 53, 499505. doi:10.2466/pr0.1983.53.2.499.
Kite, M. E. & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons,
behaviours, and civil right: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
22, 336353. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002.
Levahot, 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, 279292. doi:10.1080/01973530701503390.
Lippa, R. A. (2002). Gender-related traits of heterosexual and homosexual men and women.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 8398. doi: 10.1023/A:1014035302843.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

33

Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G. & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social
identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 853870. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2008). And now, the rest of the story: A commentary on Christine
Beasleys rethinking hegemonic masculinity in a globalizing world. Men and
Masculinities, 11, 104108. doi:10.1177/1097184X08315103.
Mitchell, R. W. & Ellis, A. L. (2010). In the eye of the beholder: Knowledge that a man is gay
promotes American college students attributions of cross-gender characteristics.
Sexuality and Culture, 15, 8099. doi:10.1007/s12119-010-9083-9.
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 and
Masculinity, 11, 140151. doi:10.1037/a0018093.
Pachankis, J. E., Westmaas, J. L. & Dougherty, L. R. (2011). The influence of sexual orientation
and masculinity on young mens tobacco smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 79, 2, 142152. doi:10.1037/a0022917.
Phoenix, A., Frosh, S. & Pattman, R. (2003). Producing contradictory masculine subject
positions: Narratives of threat, homophobia and bullying in 1114 year old boys. Journal
of Social Issues, 59, 179195. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.t01-1-00011.
Reidy, D. E., Shirk, S. D., Sloan, C. A. & Zeichner, A. (2009). Men who aggress against women:
Effects of feminine gender role violation on physical aggression in hypermasculine men.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 10, 112. doi:10.1037/a0014794.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

34

Ricciardelli, R., Clow, K. A. & White, P. (2010). Investigating hegemonic masculinity: Portrayals
of masculinity in mens lifestyle magazines. Sex Roles, 63, 6478. doi:10.1007/s11199010-9764-8.
Rudman, L. A. & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behaviour: The role of
backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 157176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157.
Rudman, L. A. & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 6179.
doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
Russell, G. & Antill, J. (1984). An Australian sex-role scale: Additional psychometric data and
correlations with self-esteem. Australian Psychologist, 19, 1318.
doi:10.1080/00050068408255412.
Schope, R. D. & Eliason, M. J. (2004). Sissies and tomboys: Gender role behaviors and
homophobia. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy, and
Research, 16(2), 73-97.
Talley, A. E. (2004). Understanding anti-gay hate crimes: Threats to self and defensive
distancing as precursors to aggression against homosexual men. (Masters thesis).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 1422969).
Talley, A. E. & Bettencourt, B. A. (2008). Evaluations and aggression directed at a gay male
target: The role of threat and antigay prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38,
647683. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00321.x.
Taywaditep, K. J. (2001). Marginalization among the marginalized: Gay mens anti-effeminacy
attitudes. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 128. doi:10.1300/J082v42n01_01.

MEN AND OTHER MEN

35

Valdes, F. (1995). Queers, sissies, dykes, and tomboys: Deconstructing the conflation of sex,
gender, and sexual orientation in Euro-American law and society. California Law
Review, 83, 1377. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3480882.
Valentova, J., Rieger, G., Havlicek, J., Linsenmeier, J. A. W. & Bailey, J. M. (2011). Judgements
of sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity based on thin slices of behaviour: A
cross-cultural comparison. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 11451152.
Wilkinson, W. W. (2004). Authoritarian hegemony, dimensions of masculinity, and male antigay
attitudes. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 121131. doi:10.1037/15249220.5.2.121.
Wilson, B. D. M., Harper, G. W., Hidalgo, M. A., Jamil, O. B., Torres, R. S. & Fernandez, M. S.
(2010). Negotiating dominant masculine ideology: Strategies used by gay, bisexual and
questioning male adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 169185.
doi:10.1007/s10464-009-9291-3.