Psychology of Men & Masculinities © 2021 American Psychological Association

2021, Vol. 22, No. 4, 611–626 ISSN: 1524-9220 https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000365

The Military Hypermasculine Mystique: Sex, Status,

and Emotional Control at the United States Military Academy
Hillary S. Schaefer1, Dave I. Cotting2, Eliot S. Proctor3, Diane M. Ryan1, and Richard M. Lerner1
1
Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development, Tufts University
2
Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia, United States
3
United States Army, United States

Although hostile expressions of masculinity have robust negative impacts in multiple domains among
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

civilian populations, in the military, masculinity is a rarer target of inquiry and remains a polarizing subject.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article examines hostile and hypermasculine attitudes that prior work suggests may be associated with
negative consequences for the social environment and men themselves in a U.S. military educational
environment (N = 1,560 freshmen and 499 graduating senior men). Multivariate moderated multiple
regressions (MMMR) linked military hypermasculinity facets (Machiavellian desire for status and control;
conformity to masculine norms including emotional control, violence tolerance, needing to win, and
impersonal sex preference; hostile and benevolent sexism) to performance outcomes including academics,
leadership, and fitness; perceptions of peers, leadership, and antibias programming; and behavior. Desire for
status, impersonal sex preference, violence tolerance, and benevolent sexism predicted negative perfor-
mance outcomes. Violence tolerance, emotional control, and hostile sexism were associated with poorer
perception of character education and/or anti-bias programming. Needing to win and control were
associated with positive performance outcomes. Healthy messaging surrounding emotions, sex, and
perception of women may help assuage toxic expressions of masculinity in the military. Contextualized
demonstration of the counterproductive aspects of military hypermasculinity might sidestep opposition to
altering hegemonic norms.

Public Significance Statement

Our results and the work of others show that hostile masculinities result in poor outcomes for men
holding these beliefs and for the social environment generally. In our sample, poor outcomes for
hypermasculine military attitudes included lower connection to peers, poorer grades and leadership, and
rejection of diversity training efforts. Our findings suggest that healthy messaging surrounding sex and
display of emotions are especially important to counteract problems associated with hypermasculine
military culture.

Keywords: hypermasculinity, sexism, military, diversity training, higher education

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000365.supp

As the military has historically drawn on the masculinization of
men to inculcate warrior attributes (Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978; Do &
Samuels, 2020), it may provide an environment to explore conse-
quences of certain expressions of masculinity. These include hyper-
masculinity, which is characterized by negative sexual attitudes about
Hillary S. Schaefer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1124-5479
Dave I. Cotting https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1798-5013
Diane M. Ryan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2102-8988
We sincerely thank the rest of the Project Arete team for their help and
support. This article was supported by a grant from the Templeton Religion
Trust (to Richard M. Lerner).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hillary
S. Schaefer, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Devel-
opment, Tufts University, 26 Winthrop Street, Medford, MA 02155,
United States. Email: hillary.schaefer@tufts.edu
women and an association of manly with being violent and powerful
(Mosher & Sirkin, 1984), and other hostile and toxic expressions
of masculinity that place high value on stereotypically male char-
acteristics, such as aggression, dominance, toughness, power, and
heterosexual prowess, and devalue stereotypically female-associated
characteristics, such as emotionality (Corprew et al., 2014; Turchik &
Wilson, 2010). These expressions of masculinity have consistently
been associated with severe negative consequences for men them-
selves, such as suicidality, and for others, including sexual assault
(Burns & Mahalik, 2011; Murnen et al., 2002; Stander et al., 2018).
In the military, qualitative investigations, examinations of doctrine,
and surveys of servicemembers describe a range of hostile and
hypermasculine attitudes as integral to, and adaptive in, military
identity and socialization along with other values, such as service
and sacrifice (Green et al., 2010; Hinojosa, 2010; Shields et al., 2017;
Woodward, 2000). However, it remains unclear whether those with
hostile expressions of masculinity are ultimately more or less suc-
cessful in this environment (Harway & Steel, 2015). It is vital to

611
 612 SCHAEFER, COTTING, PROCTOR, RYAN, AND LERNER
understand the professional outcomes of those with expressions of
masculinity that have strong connections to sexual assault and
harassment in particular, as these remain pervasive problems and
barriers to greater representation of women in the armed forces (Lane,
2020; Wilson, 2018).
The United States Military Academy (USMA) focuses on a
“culture of character growth” across 47 months with experiences
and training aiming to, “transform the identity of a cadet to that of an
Officer” (United States Military Academy [USMA], 2018, p. 25).
Notwithstanding a devotion to character education efforts, multiple,
independent investigations have found worse gender climates and
hostile masculine attitudes in military academies as compared to
civilian educational institutions, even when comparing military acad-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
emy cadets to cadets in civilian universities (Carroll & Clark, 2006;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Drake, 2006; Matthews et al., 2009; Robinson Kurpius & Lucart,
2000). Further delineation of military hypermasculinity, particularly
at USMA as an educational and military training environment staffed
predominately by servicemembers, may offer avenues for interven-
tion to foster healthy organizational climate in other environments
(Harway & Steel, 2015; Rosenstein et al., 2018). The primary aim of
this study was thus to understand how hostile, hypermasculine
attributes that have strong connections to gender-based mistreatment
and social dysfunction related to military outcomes, including per-
formance success and perceptions of others.
Military Hypermasculinity
Qualitative and theoretical works have used a social construc-
tionist approach to define a military hypermasculinity that includes
toughness, power, stoicism, aggression, and superiority over others,
even other groups within the military (e.g., Fox & Pease, 2012;
Shields et al., 2017). Conforming to masculine ideals and rejecting
what is considered feminine is considered key to military training
and socialization (Burns & Mahalik, 2011; McAllister et al., 2019);
such internalization of military hypermasculinity may be achieved
via crucibles aimed at “turning boys to men” (Arkin & Dobrofsky,
1978; Barrett, 1996). The tension between the military hypermas-
culine identity described by servicemembers, hostile masculinites as
an empirically supported risk factor for sexual assault/harassment,
and the problem of sexual assault/harassment in the military has
been noted (Richard & Molloy, 2020). However, defenders of the
benefits of military hypermasculinity tend to argue in favor of a
(hypermasculine) status quo, lest military effectiveness be compro-
mised (Titunik, 2008).
Although military hypermasculinity is more commonly qualita-
tively explored than its downstream effects investigated, available
studies show similar negative impacts as civilian settings. Toxic and
hypermasculine attributes are related to adverse health outcomes,
relationship problems, and suicide, although much of this work is in
Veterans and concerns difficulties in the military-to-civilian transi-
tion rather than during service (Braswell & Kushner, 2012; Cox &
O’Loughlin, 2017). However, other work has suggested that
although hypermasculinity does increase during military training,
attitudes toward intimate partner violence actually improve
(Hendrix, 2006). Whereas qualitative work encourages context
specificity and nuance in the definition of military masculinity
(Braswell & Kushner, 2012; Richard & Molloy, 2020), and quanti-
tative civilian work has also discouraged treating masculinity as a
monolith (e.g., Hammer et al., 2018), military-focused quantitative
studies have tended to utilize broad conceptualizations of hyper-
masculinity (Stander et al., 2018). Understanding the components
of military masculinity independently, as has been done in civilian
populations (Levant & Wimer, 2014), is yet understudied, obscuring
whether some aspects are in fact protective or beneficial, and for
what outcomes.
Whatever the course of military hypermasculinity for those who
express it, the impact on others is clear and these attitudes degrade
the military social environment. Military hypermasculinity has been
linked to antipathy toward women and gay men and to sexual assault
and harassment perpetration (Harris et al., 2018; Morris, 1996). It
also increases risk of hazing, bullying, sexual assault, and sexual
harassment risk for male victims and decreases reporting (Koeszegi
et al., 2014; O’Brien et al., 2015). The U.S. military continually
engages in educational attempts to improve climate and reduce
bullying/hazing, harassment, and sexual assault; some military
antibias programs have demonstrated efficacy (Rau et al., 2010),
but the overall evidence base for antisexism and antiharassment
programs is lacking (Orchowski et al., 2018). However, the effec-
tiveness of many antibias programs is questionable across profes-
sional contexts (Dobbin & Kalev, 2018; Lai et al., 2016), suggesting
that greater knowledge of interfering factors may have cross-context
relevance.
Several aspects of military hypermasculine culture suggest inter-
fering factors to the efficacy of such programs, although this has not
yet been addressed empirically; the belief that a negative climate is a
“natural” result of mixed-gender environments is alive and well
(Arbeit, 2017; Trobaugh, 2018) and military hypermasculinity can
be used to justify sexist beliefs (Do & Samuels, 2020). Attention to
individual-level beliefs systems is often unpopular; an initiative to
measure rape myths and hostile/benevolent sexism in National
Guard servicemembers was met with outcry (Kime, 2019). This
suggests hesitance to address individual and cultural factors that
civilian literature highlights (e.g., Abbey et al., 2011). Understand-
ing how militarily-relevant hypermasculine attributes interface with
gender climate education may help improve efficacy or provide
novel intervention targets (Becker et al., 2014; Dobbin & Kalev,
2018); any facets that interfere with anti-bias education and are also
in any way rewarded or selected for deserve particular attention
(Richard & Molloy, 2020). Due to the limited literature connecting
hostile expressions of masculinity to professional success in this or
related settings, below we review available work of such facets
hypothesized to be militarily relevant and influential on gender and
social climate, the key criteria for the present study.
Status, Control, and Power
Power is a fundamental and overarching expression of hostile
masculinities, which includes one’s relative status, superiority, and
control over others; these qualities may be particularly salient during
military training (Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978). Power, status, and
control themes are integral to conceptions of military masculinity
and leadership competence, but conflicting themes of belonging and
(institutionally mandated) egalitarianism are also present, obscuring
how individual intrapersonal levels of these attributes manifest in
military outcomes (Do & Samuels, 2020; Hale, 2012). Social or
interpersonal dominance is a well-studied manifestation of desire for
power and status; it overlaps with but is discernable from sexist
beliefs (Pratto et al., 2013) and increases with military training as a
 MILITARY HYPERMASCULINITY AT USMA
result of socialization (Nicol et al., 2007). Preoccupation with status
and control of others has also been associated with poorer reactions
to interventions that generally reduce prejudice, such as intergroup
contact (Kteily et al., 2019). Status and control are often studied
under larger umbrellas as part of social dominance or hostile
masculinity, but when investigated separately can show divergent
effects; desire for status, but not control, may be particularly
counterproductive to performance outcomes (Hutter et al., 2015).
Interpersonal control, conversely, appears more connected to gender
violence (Whitaker, 2013), including in a military academy context
(Callahan, 2009). This tension between control, power, and status as
associated with negative outcomes but also championed as a part of
military masculinity is key: Understanding how these facets operate
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
is important to contextualize who is ultimately successful (Klein &
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Gallus, 2018).
Impersonal Sex Preference
Impersonal sex behavior or self-reported preference for imper-
sonal sex has been linked to misperceptions of sexual intent and
sexual objectification of women (Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017;
Wegner & Abbey, 2016). Importantly, it has also been linked to
increased aggression toward and hostile perception of women after
being rejected (Woerner et al., 2018), and, as part of the confluence
model, is related to sexual assault perpetration, especially in con-
junction with hostility toward women (Abbey et al., 2011;
Malamuth et al., 1991). Civilian work suggests that impersonal
sex behavior is related to an erratic lifestyle and criminal behavior,
especially in youth and younger adults, and is indicative of negative
outcomes generally (LeBreton et al., 2013). This construct is less
commonly studied in a military population, and its relation to
professional outcomes and gender-climate-focused instruction is
unclear. Impersonal sex preference was also of particular interest
to the present study USMA’s character education included discus-
sions of “hookup culture” and healthy romantic relationships (Board
of Visitors, 2017).
Violence Tolerance
Most definitions of hostile expressions of masculinity include
some facet of tolerance of violence, and behaviorally hypermascu-
linity has been connected to interpersonal violence and aggressive
acts in a range of observational and empirical work (Parrott &
Zeichner, 2003; Scharrer, 2005; Whitley, 2001), including targeted
violence against women and gay men, but also more general
tendencies to expect positive outcomes from aggression and to
interpret neutral situations as hostile (instrumental aggression and
hostile attribution bias, respectively; e.g., Walters, 2007; Wharton
et al., 2014). However, the military context complicates the rela-
tionship somewhat. Military training has an overarching goal to
shape recruits into “professionals in violence” (Barrett, 1996) and
glorification of violence is characteristic of military identity and
training (Johnson, 2010); this is an undeniable background that may
alter the conceptualization, outcomes, and/or expression of mascu-
line aggression. Like many military hypermasculine components,
violence and aggression have been studied with respect to negative
impact on women (Koeszegi et al., 2014), but the role of violence
tolerance in military professional outcomes is understudied. This
could conceivably go in either direction: Either hypermasculine
613
aggression could be more problematic in a context already focused
on violence, or, as is sometimes purported in military doctrine and
expressed by servicemembers, the military may provide an envi-
ronment where individuals with tolerance for dangerousness and
(instrumental) violence can be shaped by rules (Barrett, 1996;
Hale, 2012).
Emotional Control
Military culture provides mixed messages about emotional dis-
plays that may ultimately hinder men’s ability to seek support and
express distress, despite some acceptance of certain emotions in
some contexts (McAllister et al., 2019). Emotions are generally
described as feminine, threatening to military effectiveness and
display rules sometimes resemble efficient emotion regulation (e.g.,
resilience; Ashley et al., 2017), and at other times are more akin to
suppression or overcontrol (e.g., stoicism; Green et al., 2010). This
is a nontrivial difference given the divergence of concomitants of
efficient emotion regulation versus suppression; emotion suppres-
sion is linked to strict gender norm beliefs and a slew of negative
outcomes including aggression, social impairment, disinterest in
seeking help when needed (Humphreys et al., 2009; Liaqat et al.,
2020). Men with high affiliation with masculine gender roles self-
report lower affect intensity, but this appears driven by intolerance
of internal experiences rather than genuinely attenuated intensity
(Berke et al., 2019; Cohn et al., 2010; Jakupcak et al., 2003).
Ultimately, emotional (over)control is physiologically counterpro-
ductive, as attempts to ignore or suppress reactions inhibit engage-
ment of effective coping mechanisms and resolution of stressors
(Roberton et al., 2012, 2014), and although emotional control is
consistently described as integral to military masculinity, whether or
not it is connected to success here is unclear.
Competitiveness/Needing to Win
Theoretical models of gender roles have highlighted competitive-
ness as a masculine attribute, especially in relation to military
masculinity (e.g., Archer, 2013), and may be exacerbated in
majority-male settings (Bird, 2003). Competitiveness may be par-
ticularly salient during military training (Swain, 2016); USMA in
particular utilizes a ranking system of cadets that ultimately deter-
mines outcomes such as job selection that is continuously calculated
over time (USMA, 2016a). Competitiveness has been linked to
control over partners and ultimately sexual assault risk in young men
(Caron et al., 1997). However, other studies have shown that,
among masculine norms, competitiveness can be protective in
some contexts (Iwamoto et al., 2010; Kaya et al., 2019). The utility
of competitiveness as a masculine attribute in either predicting
success or interfering with gender climate in a military setting is
unknown.
Hostility Toward Women
Some conceptualizations of hypermasculinities have included
hostile attitudes toward women as integral, whereas others have
not, somewhat complicating the overall literature on the influence of
sexism specifically versus hostile and toxic expressions of mascu-
linity that include sexism (Peters et al., 2007). When investigated
singularly, hostility toward women has strong empirical connections
 614 SCHAEFER, COTTING, PROCTOR, RYAN, AND LERNER
to negative outcomes for women and mixed-gender groups, includ-
ing intimate partner violence (Lisco et al., 2012; Renzetti et al.,
2018) and increased risk of sexual assault perpetration (Abrams
et al., 2003; Forbes et al., 2004). Even sexist humor, which may be
particularly common in a military setting (Cornelius & Monk-
Turner, 2019), serves to increase victim-blaming and self-reported
proclivity toward sexual assault (Thomae & Pina, 2015). In a
military setting, hostile sexism is associated with maltreatment of
female trainees (Barron & Ogle, 2014), and with negative attitudes
toward women in combat roles (Young & Nauta, 2013); ultimately,
hostile sexism erodes cohesion and have a negative impact on
retention of women (Moore, 2010). However clear the negative
impact of sexism on women, the effect of hostile sexism on those
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
with the belief is an understudied aspect of traditionally masculine
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
professional settings, and its risk for interference with antisexism
training has been suggested but not yet explored.
Benevolent Sexism
Hostile sexism is often considered in tandem with benevolent
sexism, or beliefs that women are inherently nurturing but weak, and
ergo should be limited to specific roles in society (Glick & Fiske,
2018). Hostility toward women is more directly connected to
violence against and derogation of women (Lisak & Roth, 1988),
whereas benevolent sexism is related to forces that limit women’s
roles in society (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Glick & Fiske, 2011).
Benevolent sexism is less commonly conceptualized as a hostile
expression of masculinity; however, it may be particularly relevant
in a military setting as traditional values of family to include the role
of the military wife are imbedded in military culture (e.g., Rosen
et al., 2003). Benevolent sexism relates to support of a majority-
male military and disapproval of female servicemembers (Uğurlu &
Özdemir, 2017; Young & Nauta, 2013), so it may be especially
important to military gender climate.
The Present Study
This study aimed to bridge military and civilian literature with a
nuanced coverage of both hostile facets of military hypermasculinity
and outcomes it might affect, under the premise that hypermascu-
linity can be counterproductive to men (and thus high endorsement
of hypermasculinity facets related to negative outcomes), even in a
military context (e.g., Green et al., 2010). Our selected expressions
of military hypermasculinity that have been connected to poor social
climate and are hypothesized to impact men included: Desire for
status and control, hostile and benevolent sexism, and conformity to
masculine norms of emotional control, violence tolerance, imper-
sonal sex preference, and competitiveness/needing to win. Out-
comes included key performance metrics from the three graded
programs at USMA (2018), including academic grade point average
(GPA), leadership grade, and physical fitness tests; behavioral
indicators; and perceptions of Officers and peers, and of antibias
education. The limited literature specific to our context, facets, and
outcomes precludes formulation of exhaustive expectations, but we
hypothesized that masculinity facets would generally relate to lower
performance, maladaptive behavior, and poorer social/institutional
perceptions, with a positive relationship between competitiveness
(winning) and performance expected (Kaya et al., 2019).
Like other military training environments, at USMA the trans-
formation of young adults over time through crucible experiences is
a key supposition but also may increase hypermasculinity and bring
negative concomitants (Braswell & Kushner, 2012; Hendrix, 2006).
To evaluate the effect of training we were also interested in
differences between freshmen and graduating seniors. By evaluating
military hypermasculinity facets for their influence on key outcomes
as moderated by length of training, we were able to build on existing
literature to disentangle productive versus counterproductive as-
pects of military hypermasculinity by what men do (de Boise, 2019;
Harway & Steel, 2015). In line with work suggesting increases in
hypermasculinity over the course of training (e.g., Callahan, 2009;
Hendrix, 2006), we generally expected significant moderation
effects of year, such that relationships between hypermasculinity
facets and outcomes would be stronger for seniors than freshmen.
Method
Participants, Procedure, and Data Sources
Participants were USMA freshman men from the graduating
classes of 2021 and 2022 (N = 1,560; 66% White, 13% Black,
10% Hispanic, 9% Asian, 2% other; 20% intercollegiate athlete) and
graduating senior men from the classes of 2017 and 2018 (N = 499
men; 71% White, 10% Black, 8% Hispanic, 8% Asian, 3% Other;
12% intercollegiate athlete). Demographic identifiers used were
those collected by USMA, which use male or female to identify
gender, and a single item for race and ethnicity.
For self-report measures, a battery of character-related question-
naires was given at two timepoints: Once to incoming freshman in
July, prior to summer training and the start of the academic year; in
the spring, a similar battery plus additional questions about experi-
ences at USMA was administered to all students. In the spring, the
questionnaire battery was administered during one class session of a
character education module (cadet character development program
[CCDP], explained below) that features small-group discussions
about topics related to character and leadership. The cadet discus-
sion facilitator read a statement about the voluntary and confidential
nature of the survey, and volunteers were then provided with time to
complete it online. For incoming freshman, the battery was admin-
istered as part of a larger assessment day on a paper survey, in which
students could volunteer to complete our questionnaire battery. For
freshman analyses, self-report data were used for incoming students
(prior to start of the academic year); for seniors, the spring adminis-
tration was used. Nonquestionnaire outcome data for the respective
time periods (freshman or senior year) were obtained from USMA’s
data warehouses and were connected by an anonymous identification
number in accordance with Institutional Review Board procedures.
Self-Reported Measures of Masculine Attributes
Measures were selected from a battery of questionnaires given as
part of a larger data collection effort. These attributes are detailed
below; for items see Appendix 1.
Conformity to Masculine Norms
Four subscales were selected from the Conformity to Masculine
Norms Inventory that related to our context (CMNI; Mahalik et al.,
2003). Playboy (impersonal sex preference), violence (violence
 MILITARY HYPERMASCULINITY AT USMA
tolerance), winning (needing to win), and emotional control have
been connected to negative outcomes, especially with respect to
gender and gender climate as reviewed above. For the present
sample, Cronbach’s α = .77, .75., .75, and .73 respectively. Other
subscales from this measure, such as primacy of work, were less
directly relevant to our focus on masculinity expressions that
influence gender and social climate. Heterosexual self-presentation
was also omitted as sexuality-related questions are not typically
assessed in our context. While conceptually relevant, power over
women was not used as the larger project necessitated surveying
women with identical questions; therefore, desire for status and
control from Machiavellianism, below, were used to assess power
and dominance-related attributes.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Status and Control
Three items from two subscales were taken from Machiavellian-
ism (Dahling et al., 2009): Control (e.g., “I enjoy having control
over other people”) and Status (e.g., “Status is a good sign of
success in life”). For the present sample, Cronbach’s α = .71 and
.77, respectively.
Hostile and Benevolent Sexism
Three items each were used from the Hostile and Benevolent
Sexism subscales of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick &
Fiske, 2018). This subscale forms the hostile sexism factor
(Hayduk & Littvay, 2012), and is one of the most commonly
used metrics of negative beliefs about women. For the present
sample, Cronbach’s α = .75 and .65 for hostile and benevolent
sexism, respectively.
Performance Outcomes
Program Grades
USMA performance outcomes included GPA from the academic
program and a military leadership grade given by a supervising
officer, which comprises about half of the total grade in the military
program for each semester (USMA, 2016b).
Army Physical Fitness Test
The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) consists of a 2-min effort
of push-ups, 2-min of sit-ups, and 2-mile run. All Soldiers, including
USMA cadets, complete this test twice a year. Raw scores were
converted to points according to U.S. Army Field Manual 7-22 (U.S.
Department of the Army, 2013). To limit multicollinearity, only
push-up and run scores were used; sit-up score was more highly
related to either push-ups or run (r = .56 and .55, respectively), than
push-ups and run related to each other (r = .46).
Perception of Peers, Leadership, Institutional Character
Values, and Programs
As part of the spring administration of questionnaires, we as-
sessed perception of USMA’s character development efforts and
internalization of USMA character values. To address the former,
students rated how influential various programs and experiences
were on a 1–5 scale to assess perception of specific experiences.
615
Two of these programs included sexual harassment assault response
prevention (SHARP) and CCDP; others not selected included, for
example, a challenging physical fitness experience. CCDP was a
small-group discussion series on character-related topics. It included
content directly related to gender–climate issues, including sessions
on “hookup culture” and toxic masculinity, as well as other themes,
such as racial diversity and the honor code. SHARP is an Army-wide
initiative to reduce instances of sexual assault, harassment, report
retaliation, and related problems (Arbeit, 2017); USMA’s program
included a day-long symposium on relationships and consent.
To assess perception of peers and leadership, we adapted three
items each from the Inventory for Parents and Peer Attachment
(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) and the Perceptions of Leadership
scale (Snyder et al., 2012), respectively. Cronbach’s α = .93 and
.82. For peer connection, we asked for agreement with the follow-
ing: “I trust fellow cadets,” “Other cadets care about me,” and
“Other cadets are there when I need them.” For perception of
leadership, we asked whether students’ commanding Officers:
“Demonstrate good examples of sound moral character?,” “hold
others accountable for their conduct,” and “promote and safeguard
the welfare of subordinates.”
Behavioral Reports
USMA staff, faculty, or student leaders may submit a behavioral
report in order to provide feedback to the student’s supervising
Officer. Reports are tagged as positive or negative and include
information about the event. Positive reports were often submitted
for volunteer work or exceptional academic performance, whereas
negative reports minor rule-breaking conduct. The majority of
reports (approximately 63% in the total sample) are submitted for
students in their freshman year, when students are most closely
supervised. Most students do not receive any behavioral reports their
senior year, so this outcome was only used for the freshman group.
Numbers of negative and positive reports for each student were
input in models.
Analytic Approach
Our primary hypotheses concerned the relationships between
masculinity facets in relating to key USMA outcomes. Two categories
of outcomes were available for all students: Performance measures
and self-reported perceptions. We also considered behavioral reports,
which were only tabulated for freshmen. Two multivariate moderated
multiple regressions (MMMR) assessed whether military hypermas-
culinity attributes were related to (a) performance outcomes (GPA,
leadership grade, AFPT run, and pushup scores) and (b) perceptions
(SHARP and character education, supervising Officers, peers), and
tested whether student year (freshman or senior) significantly
impacted the relationships between facets and outcomes (moderation
effect). For the year by masculinity facet moderation effects, includ-
ing all eight interactions was undesirable, as this full model had
Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) > 30, suggesting poor statistical
power and inflated standard errors (Thompson et al., 2017). To
combat this, nested models tested the sequential addition of modera-
tion effects for two variables at a time (status and control, playboy and
emotional control, violence and winning, hostile and benevolent
sexism). Pillai F-statistics determined whether the set of interactions
were kept, and the final models were interpreted. For freshmen only,
 616 SCHAEFER, COTTING, PROCTOR, RYAN, AND LERNER

Note. GPA = grade point average; APFT = Army Physical Fitness Test; SHARP = sexual harassment assault response prevention; Char ed = character education. In the correlation matrix, grey color
0.11**

0.07**

−0.37**
−0.41**
−0.19**
−0.11**

−0.20**
0.09*
−0.09*

0.05*

0.10*
two multiple regressions determined relationships between masculin-

0.01

−0.01
0.04

0.03

0.09
−0.04
18
ity attributes and positive and negative behavioral reports. Based on
previous work demonstrating differences in several of our key out-

−0.21**

−0.09**
−0.09**
0.22**
0.33**
−0.05*

0.06*
comes by race and athlete status (Schaefer et al., 2021), even when

0.02

0.03

−0.03

0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.08
17
SAT is accounted for, race, recruited athlete status, and SAT were
included as predictors for all models. This step helped assure that

0.17**

0.17**

0.18**
0.12*
0.10*
results were not simply due to third-variable effects of demographics

−0.05

−0.09
−0.06
−0.02
−0.04
−0.05
0.00
0.09

0.05
0.01
16
or educational background. MMMR models tested for omnibus
effects of masculinity facets on groups of outcomes and examined

0.14*
−0.10
0.04
−0.02
−0.08
−0.08
−0.09
0.03
−0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.02

0.03
whether seniors and freshmen differed in how these attributes influ-

15
enced outcomes; however, intercorrelated predictors in regression
models complicate interpretation of the relative impacts of significant

−0.27**

−0.25**
−0.3**

0.4**
−0.11*
terms, and correlations among our military hypermasculinity facets

−0.09
−0.06
−0.02

−0.08
0.08
−0.02
−0.07
−0.03
14
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

were expected (Thompson et al., 2017; Tonidandel & LeBreton,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2011). To address this, relative importance, a measure of partitioned

−0.18**

−0.15**
−0.14*

−0.11*

−0.12*
R2 of predictors that accounts for multicollinearity, provided supple-

−0.11

−0.06

0.08
0.01
−0.05
0.04
0.08
13
mental effect size information. Relative importance has been used to
address related masculinity factors in particular (LeBreton et al.,

0.11**

0.26** 0.17**
0.35** 0.28**
0.46**
0.08*

0.07*
2013), and assesses the unique role, and thus more stable estimate,

0.01

−0.07* −0.03
0.03

−0.08** −0.01
−0.09** 0.01
12
that related predictors have in a regression (Tonidandel & LeBreton,
2011). The lmg metric was used as it is the most commonly
recommended metric of importance and calculates the R2 of each

−0.05
0.05

−0.03
−0.02
0.01
11
predictor by averaging over all possible orders of predictors
(Groemping & Matthias, 2018). Relative importance models were

−0.17**

−0.10**

−0.08**

−0.14**
0.47**
−0.06*
run individually by the outcome but included the same predictors as

0.06

−0.02
−0.02
10

the MMMRs. R statistical software, Version 4.0.2 was used for all
analyses (R Core Team, 2013). 0.14**
−0.12**

−0.12**
−0.18**
−0.08*

−0.03
−0.02
−0.02
9

Results
0.21** 0.11**

0.10** −0.08**

0.20**
0.06*
0.20** −0.01

0.02
−0.02
8

Descriptive statistics and correlations among military hypermas-

culinity attributes and key outcomes described are given in Table 1
for freshmen and Table 2 for seniors. Nested MMMRs for perfor-
0.01
0.04
0.04
7

mance and perception outcomes first determined which moderation

effects for year were significant, then the two final models inter-
0.32**
0.22**
0.08**
0.66**
0.75**

preted. For the performance outcomes (GPA, leadership grade,

6

APFT run, and pushup scores), nested MMMRs demonstrated

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the Freshman Group

0.09** 0.01 0.17**

0.71**

that only the student year by hostile and benevolent sexism mod-
.93 0.28** 0.28** 0.00 0.07*

0.03 0.05
5

erators (entered together) contributed significantly to the model ( p =

.016, other ps > .5, see Supplemental Table 1 for details). They
4

indicated that the effects of other masculinity attributes were not

significantly different between freshmen and seniors. Results of this
3

model are presented in Table 3. Omnibus multivariate effects were

significant for all predictors except emotional control and the
benevolent sexism by year interaction. For the univariate effects,
2

status was negatively associated with leadership grade, and benev-

olent sexism and playboy were both negatively related to both GPA
.71
.76

.95
.66
.68

.85
.82
1.0
3.12 1.1
2.96 1.0
1.1

2.57 1.4
2.59 1.4

4.76 3.6
1.79 2.3
SD

and leadership grade. Violence and hostile sexism were negatively

90.4 15
APFT pushup score 90.3 13

related to GPA and run score. When examining relative weights,

indicates the outcome variables.
3.14
3.26
2.24

3.57
2.97
2.63

3.92
Mean

3.5
2.9

3.7

playboy and benevolent sexism contributed the most partitioned

variance among masculinity attributes negatively predicting GPA
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

and leadership grades. Winning was positively related to both fitness

Negative behaviors
SHARP perception
Char ed perception
Benevolent sexism

Positive behaviors
Officer perception
Emotional control
Desire for control

Leadership grade
Desire for status

APFT run score

Peer connection

scores, indicating that this masculine attribute was beneficial to

Hostile sexism

physical fitness performance, and control was positively related to

Variable

Violence
Winning

all outcomes except run. The hostile sexism by student year

Playboy
Table 1

GPA

interaction indicated that seniors, as compared to freshmen, had a

more positive relationship between hostile sexism and push-ups
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

(Figure 1, left).
 MILITARY HYPERMASCULINITY AT USMA 617

−0.18**

0.13**

0.18**
0.34**

Note. GPA = grade point average; APFT = Army Physical Fitness Test; SHARP = sexual harassment assault response prevention; Char ed = character education. In the correlation matrix, grey color
−0.15**
−0.14**

0.18**
0.11*

0.10*

0.10*
0.11*
For perception measures, results of the nested models demonstrated

0.07
0.09

−0.01

0.03
16 that there were significant moderators among the status and control
interactions, and for hostile and benevolent sexism ( p = .027 and

−0.14**

0.14**
−0.14**
0.11*
.0031, respectively; Supplemental Table 2). Omnibus effects of the
0.10*

0.10*
0.10*
0.09*

0.10*
0.12*
−0.04
0.04

0.02
−0.05
15

final MMMR were significant for emotional control, control, vio-

lence, benevolent sexism, and the hostile by year and status by year
interactions (Table 4). In terms of univariate effects, emotional
−0.14**
−0.18**

0.69**
−0.11*
0.05
0.04
−0.02

−0.06
−0.08
0.05

−0.05
0.06
−0.02
control and violence were negatively related to impressions of
14

SHARP (antisexual harassment education) and USMA’s character

education program. Benevolent sexism was positively related to
−0.13**
−0.23**

−0.14**
−0.10*

−0.11*
−0.10*

−0.10*
perception of character education. For perception of supervising
0.05
0.07
0.06

0.04

−0.03
13

officers and peer connection, there were positive student year moder-
ation effects (interactions) for control and negative interactions with
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

0.14**
0.13**

0.23**
0.25**
0.52**

hostile sexism (Figure 1, middle and right). Seniors had a stronger

0.10*
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

−0.02
0.05
−0.01
0.02
0.07
12

negative relationship between hostile sexism and these perceptions,

indicating that seniors high on hostile sexism had poorer perceptions
of their supervisors and less connection to peers. Status had the
−0.14**

0.13**

0.26**
0.31**
0.00
−0.03
0.03
0.04

−0.04
0.03

opposite effect, in the seniors with a strong desire for status perceived
11

supervising Officers and their peers more positively.

For behavioral reports, which were only tabulated for freshmen,
−0.16**

0.33**

only status, control, emotional control, and playboy had significant

−0.01
−0.08
0.02
0.05
0.06
−0.06
−0.08
10

effects (Table 5). Playboy was associated with more negative and
fewer positive behavioral reports; Machiavellian desire for control
−0.17**

demonstrated the opposite pattern. High desire for status was related
−0.05
0.02

−0.03
−0.01
0.04

−0.03
−0.1*
9

to fewer positive reports, and emotional control was significantly

related to more negative behavioral reports.
−0.23**

0.12**
0.39**
0.10*
0.11*

0.00
0.02
8

Discussion
Understanding how certain expressions of masculinity manifest in
0.27**
0.21**
0.15**
0.17**

0.10*

regard to professional outcomes of USMA cadets helps illuminate

0.07
7

how these beliefs operate naturalistically, and has implications for

academic, military, and traditionally masculine occupational settings.
0.13**
0.18**

0.37**
−0.10*
0.02

The military context represents a specific environment and results

6

must be interpreted with that specificity in mind, but it is also an ideal

setting to evaluate effects of military hypermasculinity on men, given
−0.10*
−0.04
0.03

0.05

the military’s position culturally and historically as a bastion of

5

masculine development (Barrett, 1996; Do & Samuels, 2020). The

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Graduating Seniors

results of the present study argue for a nuanced consideration of

0.11*
0.00

0.06

military hypermasculinity via its facets and context-specific out-

4

comes, and, in line with hypotheses, demonstrate how hostile facets

0.20**

of masculinity can be counterproductive even to those holding these

0.06
3

beliefs. In most cases, agreement with hostile masculine attributes was

associated with poorer performance, worse conduct, lower impres-
0.45**

sions of others, and rejection of antibias and character education

2

efforts.
Impersonal sex preference (CMNI-playboy) was related to poorer
.84

.96
.88
.89

.50
.61

.94
.83
1.1

1.1

1.1
1.2

1.1
1.2

grades and behaviors, which agreed with prior work in college

SD

14
11

students and young men generally (Abbey et al., 2011; Malamuth

et al., 1991; Waterman et al., 2020). Most work on impersonal sex
Mean

3.03
3.25
2.36

2.27
3.22
3.93
3.61
2.94
3.11

3.87
3.84

indicates the outcome variables.

3.2
3.1

2.2
89.3
91.4

uses it as an outcome to uncover belief systems underlying the

behavior. The current results demonstrate that impersonal sex as a
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
APFT pushup score
SHARP perception
Char ed perception
Benevolent sexism

stated preference is associated with poorer functioning and was

Officer perception
Emotional control
Desire for control

Leadership grade
Desire for status

APFT run score

Peer connection

similar to work that has connected it to lifestyle instability (LeBreton

Hostile sexism
Variable

et al., 2013). Healthy messaging surrounding sex and relationships

Violence
Winning

might be particularly important for young servicemembers in par-

Playboy
Table 2

GPA

ticular given different narratives surrounding impersonal sex, which

can focus on sex despite “undesirable” characteristics of a partner
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

or fear of negative consequences of a continuing relationship

 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

618

Table 3
Multivariate Moderated Multiple Regression for Performance Outcomes

Univariate tests
GPA Leadership grade Run Push-ups
MV
Variable F B t p RW B t p RW B t p RW B t p RW

SAT 138*** .0027 21 <.001 .29 .0002 1.2 .21 .026 .005 1.3 .20 .0049 −.0052 −1.5 .13 .0012
Recr. athlete 17*** −.052 −1.3 .19 .028 −.38 −7.5 <.001 .07 .86 .71 .48 <.001 1.1 1.1 .29 .0022
Race 7.7*** −.24 −4.9 <.001 .061 −.48 −7.7 <.001 .051 −9.2 −6.2 <.001 .045 −3.5 −2.7 .0074 .013
Year 28.2*** −.023 −.21 .83 .02 .11 .78 .43 .073 −11 −3.4 <.001 .0029 −6.7 −2.3 .024 <.001
Status 3.3* −.013 −.83 .41 .0022 −.07 −3.4 <.001 .017 −.93 −1.9 .059 .0042 −.61 −1.4 .16 <.001
Control 4.3** .076 3.8 <.001 .0091 .066 2.6 .0095 .0027 .79 1.3 .19 .0018 1.1 2.1 .034 .0041
Playboy 2.8* −.042 −2.7 .0062 .007 −.051 −2.5 .011 .0052 −.31 −.65 .52 .0023 −.021 −.05 .96 <.001
Emot control .77 −.0021 −.14 .89 <.001 .012 .61 .54 <.001 −.051 −.11 .92 <.001 −.56 −1.3 .18 .0016
Violence 5.3*** −.064 −3.6 <.001 .0029 .0048 .21 .83 .0011 −1.1 −2.1 .036 .0016 −.07 −.15 .88 <.001
Winning 3.3* .033 1.8 .068 .0020 .00087 .038 .97 .0012 1.5 2.8 .0053 .0057 1.4 2.9 .0039 .0072
Hostile sexism 2.4* −.040 −1.96 .050 .0078 −.016 −.71 .48 .004 −1.5 −2.8 .005 .0031 −.76 −1.6 .11 <.001
Benev sexism 3.2* −.052 −2.7 .0063 .010 −.074 −3.0 .0024 .018 −1.0 −1.8 .079 .0014 .028 .055 .96 <.001
Hostile × Year 2.6* −.029 −1.0 .29 <.001 .043 1.2 .22 <.001 1.2 1.4 .15 .0021 1.7 2.3 .021 .0051
Benev × Year 2.1 .068 2.4 .016 .003 .031 .86 .39 .0015 1.5 1.8 .072 .0038 .28 .38 .71 <.001
Adjusted R2 = .43 Adjusted R2 = .24 Adjusted R2 = .067 Adjusted R2 = .024
Note. Multivariate (MV) tests were run on (4,1163) df for all continuous predictors, gender, and recruited athlete covariates. Race had (16, 4664) df for the MV test, and for univariate effects the White–Black
SCHAEFER, COTTING, PROCTOR, RYAN, AND LERNER

student contrasts are shown for brevity, as this has the most power. Univariate effects are gray if nonsignificant at the multivariate level and bolded if significant. Positive betas for the year interaction indicate
that the slope is more positive for seniors as compared to freshmen. SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test; GPA = grade point average; RW = relative weight, or partitioned R2 for that variable controlling for
multicollinearity.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
 MILITARY HYPERMASCULINITY AT USMA
(Berry-Cabán et al., 2020). We did not assess whether impersonal sex
preference was more detrimental due to objectification of partners,
avoidance of close relationships, desire to affirm masculinity, the
behavior itself, or any other aspect. Dismantling this effect in future
work may help refine interventions in social skill-focused and sex-
positive (vs. abstinence) perspective (Carter, 2018). Attention toward
impersonal sex and its driving factors might not only reduce risk of
sexual assault (Logan-Greene & Cue Davis, 2011), but also reduce
general negative consequences for those with this inclination. Anti-
objectification education, which has shown efficacy in a general
population, might be useful here too (Guizzo & Cadinu, 2020).
Results concerning emotional control and violence tolerance
(CMNI-violence), themselves linked via emotional intelligence
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and regulation in prior work (García-Sancho et al., 2014;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Roberton et al., 2012), are also important. Both attributes were
associated with rejection of both character and antisexism educa-
tion; emotional control was further associated with poorer social
connection and violence tolerance with poorer performance out-
comes. Emotional overcontrol is one aspect of poor emotional
functioning marked by to reduced ability to regulate emotions
and low tolerance of the experience of emotions (Berke et al.,
2018); prior work has connected it to intimate partner violence,
as well as suicide risk and alcohol use in military populations (Berke
et al., 2019; Burns & Mahalik, 2011). The messaging surround
emotions in the military is complex (McAllister et al., 2019), but at
minimum military culture paints emotions as something “touchy-
feely” to be managed (Sewell, 2009; Shields et al., 2017). Even
measures of self-control in a military setting can actually capture the
negative, rigid aspects of emotional overcontrol, underscoring how
imbedded emotional control is in the military concept of discipline
and self-control (Bergmann et al., 2019).
Stoicism is a popular movement in the military that traditionally
focused on efficient emotion regulation but has turned toward
Figure 1
Relationships Between Pushup Score and Hostile Sexism, and Between Officer Perception and Sexism and Status, That Were Significantly
Different Between Freshmen and Graduation Seniors
Seniors
Officer impression
Pushup score
Freshmen
Hostile sexism
Note. As compared to freshmen, seniors had a more positive relationship between push-ups and sexism, and between their perception of supervising Officers
and their preoccupation with status. Seniors had a more negative relationship between their perception of supervising Officers and their level of hostile sexism.
See the online article for the color version of this figure.
619
emotional suppression in a military context (Evans, 2011;
Sherman, 2010) and elevated to the status of a character attribute
(Sherman, 2007; Stricker et al., 2017). However, a barrage of
literature links restricted emotionality to negative consequences
for self and others (e.g., Cohn et al., 2010). Arguably, stoicism
as currently practiced better resembles a rebranding of alexithymia,
specifically Normative Male Alexithymia, which has clear connec-
tion to poor outcomes (Karakis & Levant, 2012). Attempts to
counteract stoicism messages and encourage emotional flexibility
might care to discuss aspects and skills individually, which can
sidestep some of the gendered association with emotionality
(Petrides et al., 2004), and present a flexible and nuanced view
of emotions that allows men to express previously taboo emotions
such as distress and fear.
Not all associations between military hypermasculinity and out-
comes were counterproductive. Needing to win (CMNI-winning)
was positively related to improved physical performance and no
negative outcomes, which is supported by other work highlighting
the protective effects of competitiveness and how it relates to a
masculine identity of top physical fitness (Kaya et al., 2019;
Messner, 1992). Control was positively related to grades and
peer perception, and for seniors, status was positively related to
perceptions of leaders. These constructs were taken from Machia-
vellianism; work on Machiavellianism and narcissism suggest these
constructs are associated with higher impression management but
poorer insight, suggesting that status and control might be somewhat
motivating in this context (Park & Colvin, 2014; Smith & Webster,
2017). The negative relationship between status and leadership
performance suggested that there are limits to the utility of such
motivation, however. In the same way that antisocial and Machia-
vellian attitudes can be addressed (Whitehead et al., 2007), under-
scoring the negative personal consequences of a preoccupation with
status on important outcomes might loosen adherence to this value
Freshmen Seniors
Freshmen
Seniors
Hostile sexism Status
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

620

Table 4
Multivariate Moderated Multiple Regression for Perception Questionnaires

Univariate tests
SHARP perception Char education perception Officer perception Peer connection
MV
Variable F B t p RW B t p RW B t p RW B t p RW

SAT 2.4* −.0011 −2.6 .011 .014 −.0011 −2.7 .0062 .011 .0000074 .023 .98 <.001 −.00032 −1.1 .26 <.001
Recr athlete 2.4* .15 .95 .34 .0077 −.092 −.67 .50 <.001 −.061 −.53 .60 <.001 −.27 −2.6 .0085 .009
Race 2.0* .28 1.5 .15 .019 −.12 −.73 .47 .0097 .32 2.3 .021 .009 −.11 −.88 .38 .011
Year 4.0** −1.5 −2.4 .015 .018 −.24 −.47 .64 .0027 −.48 −1.1 .28 .0014 .052 .14 .89 .0021
Status .91 −.079 −.84 .40 <.001 −.14 −1.7 .086 <.001 −.13 −1.9 .061 .0024 −.074 −1.2 .22 .0023
Control 3.3* −.071 −.59 .56 <.001 .13 1.3 .21 .0014 .075 .85 .40 .0042 .24 3 .0025 .012
Playboy .76 .037 .7 .48 <.001 .012 .27 .78 <.001 −.069 −1.8 .073 .0095 −.074 −2.2 .031 .013
Emot control 3.9** −.14 −2.5 .012 .0066 −.17 −3.7 <.001 .017 −.03 −.76 .45 <.001 −.068 −1.9 .050 .010
Violence 3.1* −.21 −3.4 <.001 .026 −.14 −2.6 .01 .010 .0027 .059 .95 <.001 −.027 −.68 .50 <.001
Winning .80 −.0096 −.16 .88 .0038 −.037 −.7 .49 .0038 .055 1.2 .22 .0049 .046 1.2 .25 .0033
Hostile sexism 8.2*** −.2 −2.5 .012 .022 −.06 −.89 .37 .0084 .066 1.2 .25 .014 −.026 −.52 .61 .020
Benev sexism 2.5* .12 1.4 .17 .0075 .17 2.2 .028 .013 −.055 −.84 .40 .0028 −.047 −.81 .42 <.001
Status × Year 3.8** .078 .69 .49 .0053 .15 1.5 .13 .0031 .27 3.3 .0011 .011 .18 2.4 .017 .0042
Control × Year 1.7 .25 1.7 .081 <.001 −.0001 −.001 1.0 <.001 .000019 0 1.0 <.001 −.15 −1.6 .12 <.001
Hostile × Year 5.1*** .015 .16 .87 <.001 −.031 −.36 .72 <.001 −.3 −4.2 <.001 .016 −.15 −2.4 .017 .0054
Benev × Year 1.8 −.021 −.2 .84 <.001 −.08 −.89 .38 .0042 .17 2.2 .028 .0086 .10 1.5 .14 0.0011
Adjusted R2 = .11 Adjusted R2 = .070 Adjusted R2 = .065 Adjusted R2 = .072
SCHAEFER, COTTING, PROCTOR, RYAN, AND LERNER

Note. Multivariate (MV) tests were run on (4,632) df for all continuous predictors, gender, and recruited athlete covariates. Race had (16, 2540) df for the MV test, and for univariate effects the White–Black
student contrasts are shown for brevity, as this has the most power. Univariate effects are gray if nonsignificant at the multivariate level and bolded if significant. Positive betas for the year interaction indicate
that the slope is more positive for seniors as compared to freshmen. SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test; SHARP = sexual harassment assault response prevention; RW= relative weight, or partitioned R2 for that
variable controlling for multicollinearity.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
 MILITARY HYPERMASCULINITY AT USMA 621

Table 5
Multiple Regression Models for Behavioral Reports Among Freshmen

Positive behavior reports Negative behavior reports

Variable B t p RW B t p RW

SAT .0023 2.6 .011 .020 −.0023 −3.8 <.001 .023

Recruited athlete −2.8 −10 <.001 .089 .16 .88 .38 .0039
Race .21 .62 .54 .0033 1.3 5.8 <.001 .039
Status −.31 −2.7 .0064 .0092 .11 1.5 .13 .0033
Control .35 2.5 .012 .0035 −.26 −2.8 .0050 .0057
Playboy −.29 −2.7 .0081 .0070 .13 1.8 .075 .0040
Emotional control .04 .36 .72 <.001 .15 2.0 .042 .0030
Violence .23 1.8 .072 .0033 .13 1.5 .12 <.001
Winning −.061 −.48 .63 .0024 .10 1.3 .21 .0014
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Hostile sexism −.14 −1.4 .16 .0035 .0078 .12 .90 <.001
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Benevolent sexism .0062 .06 .95 .0012 .11 1.6 .10 .0043
Adjusted R2 = .13 Adjusted R2 = .074
Note. Tests were run on 1257 df for continuous predictors and for race the White-Black student statistics are shown for brevity, as this has the most power.
Significant masculinity attributes are bolded for clarity. SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test; RW= relative weight, or partitioned R2 for that variable controlling for
multicollinearity.

system by demonstrating how it is counterproductive. Alternatively,
aspects of a preference for control could be related to self-regulation
and a desire to achieve in a ranked, highly competitive environment
(Tangney et al., 2004). As noted above the assessment and messag-
ing surrounding “control” is complicated in a military environment,
but it appears that some aspects of interpersonal control operate in a
positive manner for younger military trainees.
Poor perception of character education and antisexism training
was an important outcome to this study; addressing low interest in,
or acceptance of, prejudice reduction education is vital, as this
motivation may be key to program efficacy (e.g., Devine et al.,
2012). Like many military and professional environments, USMA
exerts considerable time and resources toward antibias and character
education efforts (USMA, 2018), and, like many other professional
environments, sexism and other biased attitudes persist. Hostile
sexism was related to negative perceptions of antisexism training,
and with previous research suggested that these beliefs are detri-
mental to antibias efforts (Cundiff et al., 2009). For freshmen,
attitudes were measured at entry to USMA and the perception
measures collected at year-end; hostility toward women appeared
to influence perception of organizational values and education over
a relatively long period of time. Emotional control and violence
tolerance were also associated with rejection of both types of
education efforts. Benevolent sexism was linked to better perception
of character education, suggesting the messages were well perceived
by those individuals; it is encouraging that these individuals might
be particularly receptive to USMA’s character education program,
given the link between benevolent sexism and objections to women
in service (e.g., Uğurlu & Özdemir, 2017; Young & Nauta, 2013).
These findings may help further contextualize the limited efficacy of
antibias programming and possibly identify intervention targets
when programs are less effective than desired (Applebaum,
2019; Dobbin & Kalev, 2018). Whether tailoring antibias education
efforts to the needs of those most likely to reject it increases
antiprejudice motivation and program efficacy is an important future
direction.
There are several important limitations to the current research.
Importantly, our freshman and senior groups were separate samples,
albeit of two class cohorts each; whether effects reflect development,
or an artifact of other cohort differences, cannot be determined. In
addition, our focus was on professional performance, institutional
perception, and other more generalized effects. We did not address
how sexism impacts others, or whether individuals concerningly
high on any factor were at increased risk for perpetuating harass-
ment/bullying, assault, or bias (Inesi & Cable, 2015). We also
identified masculine attributes hypothesized to be important in
this setting, which does not preclude the importance of other
possible manifestations, such as fragile masculinity (DiMuccio &
Knowles, 2020).
Additionally, USMA students reporting high levels of hostile
sexism, violence tolerance, or emotional control believed that
antibias and character education programming were ineffective;
however, this finding does not address whether these programs
were, in fact, effective in reducing sexist beliefs in these students or
others. The nature and content of character development and anti-
sexism education at USMA varies by year, even across the cohorts
sampled, which is common to military interventions (Orchowski
et al., 2018). Others have stressed the need to standardize and
critically evaluate these educational efforts (Gidycz et al., 2018).
The results of this study suggested that facets of military hyper-
masculinity undermine the character development efforts of USMA
and hostility toward women undercuts SHARP programming;
however, whether these results would generalize broadly to other
interventions is an important direction for future work.
Finally, these data concern U.S. young adult military trainees in a
specific educational environment, and how results generalize to the
general military, or other traditionally masculine environments, is
unknown. The question of why military hypermasculinity persists
despite negative consequences to character, social, and performance
outcomes, cannot be answered by these data. Our results underscore
that, even in a traditionally masculine environment, military hy-
permasculinity is often counterproductive; therefore, how indivi-
duals succeed and ultimately gain power despite poorer abilities and
behavior is a crucial question for future work. In line with hypothe-
ses, most moderation effects demonstrated that the strength of
relationship between hypermasculinity facets and outcomes was
 622 SCHAEFER, COTTING, PROCTOR, RYAN, AND LERNER
stronger for seniors as compared to freshmen; in conjunction other
work suggesting hypermasculinity may increase with training (e.g.,
Callahan, 2009), this may indicate that hypermasculinity is more
salient over time in this environment. Notably, for seniors, hostile
sexism was associated with higher physical performance (push-
ups); in the larger Army, applications to tracks for high profile
positions and “star” opportunities highlight physical fitness scores
as one of few performance metrics. Therefore, the positive connec-
tion between hostile sexism and occupational success demonstrated
by Cheng et al. (2020) might be most salient postgraduation,
especially for selection into “star” tracks that afford cumulative
advantages over the course of the career, and tend to elevate the
values and priorities of previous cohorts (Corona, 2011; Moore &
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Trout, 1978). As the Army transitions to a new fitness test, which is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
more holistic and better translates to relevant physical tasks versus
the APFT, but also places greater emphasis on muscular strength/
endurance (United States Army, 2019), further evaluation of mili-
tary promotion and retention is crucial to demonstrate whether
hostile expressions of masculinity are as counterproductive in the
greater military as at USMA, or if this finding reverses.
Conclusion
In this study, impersonal sex preference, emotional control, vio-
lence tolerance, and hostile sexism were associated with negative
consequences. Targeted education surrounding healthy relationships,
anti-objectification of women and sexual partners generally, and more
nuanced views of emotion and aggression might help subvert the
negative consequences to self and others of these hypermasculinity
facets. Vitally, hostility toward women remains an imperative focus
for intervention in a military context and may relate to rejection of
educational efforts, implying that those who reject antisexism mes-
saging providing by USMA are those who need it most. As the
military moves to an increasingly interpersonal leadership develop-
ment strategy (Fallesen et al., 2011), and in other contexts where
gender remains salient and antibias efforts have been less than
effective, full consideration of the factors that contribute to gendered
maltreatment and poor social relationships is crucially important.
Military hypermasculinity has been connected to sexual assault,
aggression, and degradation of social climate in decades of work,
yet remains a crucial omission and apparent elephant in the room in
military efforts to address toxic workplace climates. Perhaps demon-
stration of the counterproductive aspects of military hypermasculinity
in terms of leadership, behavior, and character can help organizations
more confidently identify and eradicate their negative concomitants.
References
Abbey, A., Jacques-Tiura, A. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Risk factors for
sexual aggression in young men: An expansion of the confluence model.
Aggressive Behavior, 37(5), 450–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20399
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of
stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism
in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111
Applebaum, B. (2019). Remediating campus climate: Implicit bias training is
not enough. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(2), 129–141. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9644-1
Arbeit, M. R. (2017). “Make sure you’re not getting yourself in trouble”:
Building sexual relationships and preventing sexual violence at the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point. Journal of Sex Research, 54(8), 949–
961. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1207055
Archer, E. M. (2013). The power of gendered stereotypes in the US Marine
Corps. Armed Forces and Society, 39(2), 359–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0095327X12446924
Arkin, W., & Dobrofsky, L. R. (1978). Military socialization and masculin-
ity. Journal of Social Issues, 34(1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1540-4560.1978.tb02546.x
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and
peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psycho-
logical well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
16(5), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939
Ashley, W., Tapia, J., Constantine Brown, J. L., & Block, O. (2017). Don’t
fight like a girl: Veteran preferences based on combat exposure and gender.
Affilia, 32(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109916685800
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How
it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 35(5), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.270
Barrett, F. J. (1996). The organizational construction of hegemonic mascu-
linity: The case of the US Navy. Gender, Work and Organization, 3(3),
129–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.1996.tb00054.x
Barron, L. G., & Ogle, A. D. (2014). Individual differences in instructor
attitudes underlying maltreatment and effective mentoring in basic mili-
tary training. Military Psychology, 26(5–6), 386–396. https://doi.org/10
.1037/mil0000053
Becker, J. C., Zawadzki, M. J., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Confronting and
reducing sexism: A call for research on intervention. Journal of Social
Issues, 70(4), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12081
Bergmann, J. S., Renshaw, K. D., & Paige, L. (2019). Psychological well-
being in Iraq and Afghanistan veterans: Risk and protective factors.
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 11(4),
434–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000416
Berke, D. S., Reidy, D., & Zeichner, A. (2018). Masculinity, emotion
regulation, and psychopathology: A critical review and integrated model.
Clinical Psychology Review, 66, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr
.2018.01.004
Berke, D. S., Reidy, D. E., Gentile, B., & Zeichner, A. (2019). Masculine
discrepancy stress, emotion-regulation difficulties, and intimate partner
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(6), 1163–1182. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0886260516650967
Berry-Cabán, C. S., Orchowski, L. M., Winstead, T. L., Metzger, E. C., &
Kazemi, D. M. (2020). Conceptualizations of hooking up among male
soldiers: A qualitative analysis. Military Medicine, 185(Suppl. 1), 355–
361. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz230
Bird, S. R. (2003). Sex composition, masculinity stereotype dissimilarity and
the quality of men’s workplace social relations. Gender, Work and
Organization, 10(5), 579–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00212
Board of Visitors. (2017). Annual report. United States Military Academy.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/usma-media/inline-images/about/board_of_
visitors/board_of_visitors_2017_annual_report.pdf
Braswell, H., & Kushner, H. I. (2012). Suicide, social integration, and
masculinity in the U.S. military. Social Science & Medicine, 74(4),
530–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.031
Burns, S. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2011). Suicide and dominant masculinity
norms among current and former United States military servicemen.
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 42(5), 347–353. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0025163
Callahan, J. L. (2009). Manifestations of power and control: Training as the
catalyst for scandal at the United States Air Force Academy. Violence
Against Women, 15(10), 1149–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780
1209344341
Caron, S. L., Halteman, W. A., & Stacy, C. (1997). Athletes and rape: Is there
a connection? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85(Suppl. 3), 1379–1393.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1997.85.3f.1379
 MILITARY HYPERMASCULINITY AT USMA
Carroll, M. H., & Clark, M. D. (2006). Men’s acquaintance rape scripts: A
comparison between a regional University and a Military Academy. Sex
Roles, 55(7), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9102-3
Carter, A. (2018). Reducing sexual victimization on college campuses: The
impact of a collegiate-level human sexual behavior course on students’
level of sexual assertiveness. Seton Hall University Dissertations and
Theses (ETDs). https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2607
Cheng, P., Shen, W., & Kim, K. Y. (2020). Personal endorsement of
ambivalent sexism and career success: An investigation of differential
mechanisms. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(6), 783–798.
Cohn, A. M., Jakupcak, M., Seibert, L. A., Hildebrandt, T. B., & Zeichner, A.
(2010). The role of emotion dysregulation in the association between
men’s restrictive emotionality and use of physical aggression—ProQuest.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
a0018090
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Cornelius, C., & Monk-Turner, E. (2019). I’ll trade you skittles for a
blowjob: Assessing the role of anti-female memes in military sexual
harassment and assault. Journal of Political and Military Sociology,
46(1), 221–260. https://doi.org/10.5744/jpms.1008
Corona, V. P. (2011). Career patterns in the U.S. Army Officer Corps. Public
Organization Review, 11(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-
010-0114-7
Corprew, C. S., Matthews, J. S., & Mitchell, A. D. (2014). Men at the
crossroads: A profile analysis of hypermasculinity in emerging adulthood.
Journal of Men’s Studies, 22(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms
.2202.105
Cox, D. W., & O’Loughlin, J. (2017). Posttraumatic stress mediates traditional
masculinity ideology and romantic relationship satisfaction in veteran men.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(4), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/
men0000067
Cundiff, N. L., Nadler, J. T., & Swan, A. (2009). The influence of cultural
empathy and gender on perceptions of diversity programs. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1548051809334193
Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and
validation of a new Machiavellianism Scale. Journal of Management,
35(2), 219–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318618
de Boise, S. (2019). Editorial: Is masculinity toxic? NORMA, 14(3), 147–
151. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2019.1654742
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012). Long-
term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking interven-
tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
DiMuccio, S. H., & Knowles, E. D. (2020). The political significance of
fragile masculinity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 25–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.010
Do, J. J., & Samuels, S. M. (2020). I am a warrior: An analysis of the military
masculine-warrior narrative among U.S. Air Force Officer Candidates. Armed
Forces & Society, 47(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X20931561
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2018). Why doesn’t diversity training work? The
challenge for industry and academia. Anthropology Now, 10(2), 48–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182
Drake, M. J. (2006). Ambivalence at the academies: Attitudes toward women
in the military at the federal service academies. Social Thought &
Research, 27, 43–68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23250020
Evans, J. (2011). Why is stoicism so popular in the US Army? Philosophy for
Life. https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/why-is-stoicism-so-popular-
in-the-us-army
Fallesen, J. J., Keller-Glaze, H., & Curnow, C. K. (2011). A selective review
of leadership studies in the US Army. Military Psychology, 23(5),
462–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.600181
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. (2004). First- and
Second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and
hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association with
623
college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion.
Violence Against Women, 10(3), 236–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077
801203256002
Fox, J., & Pease, B. (2012). Military deployment, masculinity and trauma:
Reviewing the connections. Journal of Men’s Studies, 20(1), 16–31.
https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.2001.16
García-Sancho, E., Salguero, J. M., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2014).
Relationship between emotional intelligence and aggression: A systematic
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 584–591. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.007
Gidycz, C. A., Wyatt, J., Galbreath, N. W., Axelrad, S. H., & McCone, D. R.
(2018). Sexual assault prevention in the military: Key issues and recom-
mendations. Military Psychology, 30(3), 240–251. https://doi.org/10
.1080/08995605.2018.1489663
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 35(3), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311414832
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2018). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. In S. T. Fiske (Ed.),
Social cognition (pp. 116–160). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315187280-6
Green, G., Emslie, C., O’Neill, D., Hunt, K., & Walker, S. (2010). Exploring
the ambiguities of masculinity in accounts of emotional distress in the
military among young ex-servicemen. Social Science & Medicine, 71(8),
1480–1488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.015
Groemping, U., & Matthias, L. (2018). Package ‘relaimpo’. Relative
importance of regressors in linear models (R package version).
Guizzo, F., & Cadinu, M. (2020). Women, not objects: Testing a sensitizing
web campaign against female sexual objectification to temper sexual
harassment and hostile sexism. Media Psychology, 0(0), 1–29. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2020.1756338
Hale, H. C. (2012). The Role of Practice in the Development of Military
Masculinities. Gender, Work and Organization, 19(6), 699–722. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00542.x
Hammer, J. H., Heath, P. J., & Vogel, D. L. (2018). Fate of the total score:
Dimensionality of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46
(CMNI-46). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(4), 645–651.
https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000147
Harris, R. J., McDonald, D. P., & Sparks, C. S. (2018). Sexual Harassment in
the Military: Individual Experiences, Demographics, and Organizational
Contexts. Armed Forces and Society, 44(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0095327X16687069
Harway, M., & Steel, J. H. (2015). Studying masculinity and sexual assault
across organizational culture groups: Understanding perpetrators. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 16(4), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0039694
Hayduk, L. A., & Littvay, L. (2012). Should researchers use single in-
dicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation
models? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), Article 159.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-159
Hendrix, T. (2006). The effects of military training to men’s attitudes toward
intimate partner violence. [Doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State
University. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1164236965
Hinojosa, R. (2010). Doing hegemony: Military, men, and constructing a
hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Men’s Studies, 18(2), 179–194. https://
doi.org/10.3149/jms.1802.179
Humphreys, T. P., Wood, L. M., & Parker, J. D. A. (2009). Alexithymia and
satisfaction in intimate relationships. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 46(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.002
Hutter, K., Füller, J., Hautz, J., Bilgram, V., & Matzler, K. (2015). Machia-
vellianism or morality: Which behavior pays off in online innovation
contests? Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(3), 197–228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1099181
Inesi, M. E., & Cable, D. M. (2015). When accomplishments come back to
haunt you: The negative effect of competence signals on women’s
 624 SCHAEFER, COTTING, PROCTOR, RYAN, AND LERNER
performance evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 68(3), 615–657. https://
doi.org/10.1111/peps.12083
Iwamoto, D. K., Liao, L., & Liu, W. M. (2010). Masculine norms, avoidant
coping, asian values and depression among Asian American Men. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 11(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0017874
Jakupcak, M., Salters, K., Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2003). Masculinity
and Emotionality: An investigation of men’s primary and secondary
emotional responding. Sex Roles, 49(3), 111–120. https://doi.org/10
.1023/A:1024452728902
Johnson, B. (2010). A few good boys: Masculinity at a military-style charter
school. Men and Masculinities, 12(5), 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1097184X09342228
Karakis, E. N., & Levant, R. F. (2012). Is normative male alexithymia
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
associated with relationship satisfaction, fear of intimacy and communi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cation quality among men in relationships? Journal of Men’s Studies,
20(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.2003.179
Kaya, A., Iwamoto, D., Brady, J., Clinton, L., & Grivel, M. (2019). The role
of masculine norms and gender role conflict on prospective well-being
among men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 20(1), 142–147. https://
doi.org/10.1037/men0000155
Kime, P. (2019, October 14). The Pentagon is asking if women have a
‘quality of purity few men possess.’ Military Times. https://www.milita
rytimes.com/pay-benefits/2019/10/11/the-pentagon-is-asking-if-women-
have-a-quality-of-purity-few-men-possess/
Klein, M., & Gallus, J. A. (2018). The readiness imperative for reducing
sexual violence in the US armed forces: Respect and professionalism as the
foundation for change. Military Psychology, 30(3), 264–269. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2017.1422949
Koeszegi, S. T., Zedlacher, E., & Hudribusch, R. (2014). The war against the
female soldier? The effects of masculine culture on workplace aggression.
Armed Forces and Society, 40(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/009
5327X12460019
Kteily, N. S., Hodson, G., Dhont, K., & Ho, A. K. (2019). Predisposed to
prejudice but responsive to intergroup contact? Testing the unique benefits of
intergroup contact across different types of individual differences. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1368430217716750
Lai, C. K., Skinner, A. L., Cooley, E., Murrar, S., Brauer, M., Devos, T.,
Calanchini, J., Xiao, Y. J., Pedram, C., Marshburn, C. K., Simon, S.,
Blanchar, J. C., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Conway, J., Redford, L., Klein, R. A.,
Roussos, G., Schellhaas, F. M. H., Burns, M., : : : Nosek, B. A. (2016).
Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across
time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 1001–1016.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000179
Lane, A. (2020). Women in the Canadian armed forces. In T. Juneau, P.
Lagassé, & S. Vucetic (Eds.), Canadian defence policy in theory and
practice (pp. 351–364). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
26403-1_20
LeBreton, J. M., Baysinger, M., Abbey, A., & Jacques-Tiura, A. J. (2013).
The relative importance of psychopathy-related traits in predicting imper-
sonal sex and hostile masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences,
55(7), 817–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.009
Levant, R. F., & Wimer, D. J. (2014). Masculinity constructs as protective
buffers and risk factors for men’s health. American Journal of Men’s
Health, 8(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988313494408
Liaqat, H., Malik, T. A., & Bilal, A. (2020). Impact of masculinity and
normative male alexithymia on interpersonal difficulties in young adult
males. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8(2), 2. https://
doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/mjcp-2488
Lisak, D., & Roth, S. (1988). Motivational factors in nonincarcerated
sexually aggressive men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55(5), 795–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.795
Lisco, C. G., Parrott, D. J., & Tharp, A. T. (2012). The role of heavy episodic
drinking and hostile sexism in men’s sexual aggression toward female
intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37(11), 1264–1270. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010
Logan-Greene, P., & Cue Davis, K. (2011). Latent profiles of risk among a
community sample of men: Implications for sexual aggression. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1463–1477. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260510369138
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J.,
Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to
Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3–
25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991).
Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a
national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59(5), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.670
Matthews, M. D., Ender, M. G., Laurence, J. H., & Rohall, D. E. (2009). Role
of group affiliation and gender on attitudes toward women in the military.
Military Psychology, 21(2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600
902768750
McAllister, L., Callaghan, J. E. M., & Fellin, L. C. (2019). Masculinities and
emotional expression in UK servicemen: ‘Big boys don’t cry’? Journal of
Gender Studies, 28(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2018
.1429898
Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of mascu-
linity. Beacon Press.
Mikorski, R., & Szymanski, D. M. (2017). Masculine norms, peer group,
pornography, Facebook, and men’s sexual objectification of women.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10
.1037/men0000058
Moore, B. L. (2010). Effects of sexual harassment on job satisfaction,
retention, cohesion, commitment and unit effectiveness: The case of the
air force. State University of New York at Buffalo United States. https://
apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD1044614
Moore, D. W., & Trout, B. T. (1978). Military advancement: The visibility
theory of promotion. The American Political Science Review, 72(2), 452–
468. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954104
Morris, M. (1996). By force of arms: Rape, war, and military culture. Duke
Law Journal, 45(4), 651–782. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372997
Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality
constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18(2), 150–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(84)90026-6
Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If ” boys will be boys,” Then
girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates
masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11), 359–375. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1020488928736
Nicol, A. A. M., Charbonneau, D., & Boies, K. (2007). Right-wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in a Canadian military
sample. Military Psychology, 19(4), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08995600701548072
O’Brien, C., Keith, J., & Shoemaker, L. (2015). Don’t tell: Military culture
and male rape. Psychological Services, 12(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10
.1037/ser0000049
Orchowski, L. M., Berry-Cabán, C. S., Prisock, K., Borsari, B., & Kazemi,
D. M. (2018). Evaluations of sexual assault prevention programs in
military settings: A synthesis of the research literature. Military Medicine,
183(Suppl. 1), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usx212
Park, S. W., & Colvin, C. R. (2014). Narcissism and discrepancy between
self and friends’ perceptions of personality. Journal of Personality, 82(4),
278–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12053
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity oh
physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
4(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.70
 MILITARY HYPERMASCULINITY AT USMA
Peters, J., Nason, C., & Turner, W. M. (2007). Development and testing of a
new version of the hypermasculinity index. Social Work Research, 31(3),
171–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/31.3.171
Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Martin, G. N. (2004). Estimates of emotional
and psychometric intelligence: Evidence for gender-based stereotypes.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10
.3200/SOCP.144.2.149-162
Pratto, F., Çidam, A., Stewart, A. L., Zeineddine, F. B., Aranda, M., Aiello,
A., Morselli, D.,Chryssochoou, X., Cichocka, A., Cohrs, J. C., Durrheim,
K., Eicher, V., Foels, R., Górska, P., Lee, I.-C., Licata, L., Liu, J. H., Li, L.,
Meyer, I., : : : Henkel, K. E. (2013). Social dominance in context and in
individuals. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4(5), 587–599.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663
Rau, T. J., Merrill, L. L., McWhorter, S. K., Stander, V. A., Thomsen, C. J.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Dyslin, C. W., Crouch, J. L., Rabenhorst, M. M., & Milner, J. S. (2010).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Evaluation of a sexual assault education/prevention program for male U.S.
Navy personnel. Military Medicine, 175(6), 429–434. https://doi.org/10
.7205/MILMED-D-09-00218
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www
.R-project.org/
Renzetti, C. M., Lynch, K. R., & DeWall, C. N. (2018). Ambivalent sexism,
alcohol use, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 33(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260
515604412
Richard, K., & Molloy, S. (2020). An examination of emerging adult military
men: Masculinity and U.S. military climate. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 21(4), 686–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000303
Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2012). Emotion regulation and
aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 72–82. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.006
Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2014). Maladaptive emotion
regulation and aggression in adult offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law,
20(10), 933–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.893333
Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Lucart, A. L. (2000). Military and civilian
undergraduates: attitudes toward women, masculinity, and authoritarian-
ism. Sex Roles, 43(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10070850
15637
Rosen, L. N., Knudson, K. H., & Fancher, P. (2003). Cohesion and the
culture of hypermasculinity in U.S. Army units. Armed Forces and
Society, 29(3), 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X0302900302
Rosenstein, J. E., Angelis, K. D., McCone, D. R., & Carroll, M. H. (2018).
Sexual assault and sexual harassment at the US military service academies.
Military Psychology, 30(3), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605
.2017.1422950
Schaefer, H. S., Callina, K. S., Powers, J., Kobylski, G., Ryan, D., & Lerner,
R. M. (2021). Examining diversity in developmental trajectories of cadets’
performance and character at the United States military academy. Journal
of Character Education, 17(1), 59–80.
Scharrer, E. (2005). Hypermasculinity, Aggression, and Television Vio-
lence: An Experiment. Media Psychology, 7(4), 353–376. https://doi.org/
10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_3
Sewell, G. F. (2009). Emotional Intelligence and the Army Leadership
Requirements Model. Military Review, 89(6), 93–98.
Sherman, N. (2007). Stoic warriors: The ancient philosophy behind the
military mind. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
oso/9780195315912.001.0001
Sherman, N. (2010, May 30). A crack in the Stoic’s Armor. Opinionator. https://
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/a-crack-in-the-stoic-armor/
Shields, D. M., Kuhl, D., & Westwood, M. J. (2017). Abject masculinity and
the military: Articulating a fulcrum of struggle and change. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 18(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000114
Smith, M. B., & Webster, B. D. (2017). A moderated mediation model of
Machiavellianism, social undermining, political skill, and supervisor-rated
625
job performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 453–459.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.010
Snyder, J. A., Fisher, B. S., Scherer, H. L., & Daigle, L. E. (2012). Unsafe in
the camouflage tower: Sexual victimization and perceptions of Military
Academy leadership. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(16), 3171–
3194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512441252
Stander, V. A., Thomsen, C. J., Merrill, L. L., & Milner, J. S. (2018).
Longitudinal prediction of sexual harassment and sexual assault by male
enlisted Navy personnel. Military Psychology, 30(3), 229–239. https://
doi.org/10.1037/mil0000171
Stricker, A. G., Arenas, F. J., Westhauser, T. C., & Hawkins-Scribner, T.
(2017). Positive education of stoic warriors as reflective practitioners in the
profession of arms. Reflective Practice, 18(1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10
.1080/14623943.2016.1251415
Swain, J. (2016). Changing the identities of young army recruits and new
ways of looking at hegemonic forms of military masculinity. Culture,
Society and Masculinities, 8(1), Article 1. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/
eprint/1536147/
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control
predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal
success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
Thomae, M., & Pina, A. (2015). Sexist humor and social identity: The role
of sexist humor in men’s in-group cohesion, sexual harassment, rape
proclivity, and victim blame. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 28(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0023
Thompson, C. G., Kim, R. S., Aloe, A. M., & Becker, B. J. (2017). Extracting
the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics from
typical regression results. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(2),
81–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1277529
Titunik, R. F. (2008). The myth of the macho military. Polity, 40(2),
137–163. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300090
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A
useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psy-
chology, 26(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9204-3
Trobaugh, E. (2018). Women, regardless: Understanding gender bias in U.S.
Military Integration. Joint Force Quarterly, 88(1), 46–53. https://ndupress
.ndu.edu/Publications/Article/1411860/women-regardless-understanding-
gender-bias-in-us-military-integration/
Turchik, J. A., & Wilson, S. M. (2010). Sexual assault in the U.S. military: A
review of the literature and recommendations for the future. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 15(4), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.01.005
Uğurlu, N. S., & Özdemir, F. (2017). Predicting attitudes toward the
masculine structure of the military with Turkish identification and ambiv-
alent sexism. Sex Roles, 76(7–8), 511–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-016-0676-0
United States Army. (2019). Army Combat Fitness Test: Initial operation
capability. Center for Initial Military Training. https://usacimt.tradoc.army
.mil/assets/Army%20Combat%20Fitness%20Test%20-%20IOC%20Guide%
20-%20OCT%202019.pdf
United States Military Academy. (2016a). Academic program (Redbook).
https://www.westpoint.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/RedBook_GY2020_
20170803.pdf
United States Military Academy. (2016b). Military program (Greenbook).
https://www.westpoint.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/ABOUT/Student%
20Consumer%20Info/Greenbook%20(Military).pdf
United States Military Academy. (2018). Developing leaders of character.
https://www.westpoint.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/ABOUT/Superintendent/
Developing%20Leaders%20of%20Character%202018.pdf
U.S. Department of the Army. (2013). The Army profession, Army doctrine
reference publication no. 1. Department of the Army. https://irp.fas.org/
doddir/army/adrp1.pdf
Walters, G. D. (2007). Measuring proactive and reactive criminal thinking
with the PICTS: Correlations with outcome expectancies and hostile
 626 SCHAEFER, COTTING, PROCTOR, RYAN, AND LERNER
attribution biases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(4), 371–385.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506296988
Waterman, E. A., Wesche, R., Leavitt, C. E., & Lefkowitz, E. S.
(2020). Fraternity membership, traditional masculinity ideologies,
and impersonal sex: Selection and socialization effects. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 21(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/me
n0000209
Wegner, R., & Abbey, A. (2016). Individual differences in men’s misper-
ception of women’s sexual intent: Application and extension of the
confluence model. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 16–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.027
Wharton, M., Day, A., Mohr, P., Gerace, A., & Howells, K. (2014). The
impact of masculinity on anger arousal in ambiguous situations. Journal of
Relationships Research, 5, Article e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2014.1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Whitaker, M. P. (2013). Centrality of control-seeking in men’s intimate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
partner violence perpetration. Prevention Science, 14(5), 513–523. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0332-z
Whitehead, P. R., Ward, T., & Collie, R. M. (2007). Time for a
change: Applying the good lives model of rehabilitation to a high-
risk violent offender. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 51(5), 578–598. https://doi.org/10
.1177/0306624X06296236
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward
homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45(11), 691–721. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1015640318045
Wilson, L. C. (2018). The prevalence of military sexual trauma: A meta-
analysis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 19(5), 584–597. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1524838016683459
Woerner, J., Abbey, A., Helmers, B. R., Pegram, S. E., & Jilani, Z. (2018).
Predicting men’s immediate reactions to a simulated date’s sexual rejec-
tion: The effects of hostile masculinity, impersonal sex, and hostile
perceptions of the woman. Psychology of Violence, 8(3), 349–357.
https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000172
Woodward, R. (2000). Warrior heroes and little green men: Soldiers, military
training, and the construction of rural masculinities. Rural Sociology,
65(4), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00048.x
Young, L. M., & Nauta, M. M. (2013). Sexism as a predictor of attitudes
toward women in the military and in combat. Military Psychology, 25(2),
166–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094958
Received March 29, 2021
Revision received July 27, 2021
Accepted July 27, 2021 ▪