An Alternative Account of Anti-Effeminacy Bias: Reputation Concerns and Lack of Coalitional Value Explain Honor-Oriented Men’s Reluctance to Befriend Feminine Men

An Alternative Account of Anti-Effeminacy Bias: Reputation Concerns and Lack of Coalitional Value Explain Honor-Oriented Men’s Reluctance to Befriend Feminine Men. Pelin Gul, Ayse K. Uskul. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, October 17, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220963665

Abstract: Anti-effeminacy bias follows a specific pattern with men showing stronger anti-effeminacy bias against male targets than women. Previous explanations focused on men’s higher tendency to stigmatize feminine men as homosexual and motives to maintain a dominant group status. Here, we suggest that certain expressions of anti-effeminacy bias may rather be a manifestation of men’s reputation management motives for coalition formation, and be amplified among high (vs. low) masculine honor-oriented men. In three studies with samples from the United Kingdom and Turkey, we showed that men perceived feminine (vs. masculine) male targets as lower on coalitional value and were more reluctant to befriend them, yet this applied only to high (not low) honor-oriented men. Honor-oriented men’s friendship reluctance was mediated by concern with losing reputation by association with targets lacking coalitional value. These findings extend understanding of anti-effeminacy bias by drawing attention to men’s reputation concerns for coalitional reasons and individual differences.

Keywords: anti-effeminacy bias, friendship, coalitional psychology, masculine honor, reputation concerns

General Discussion

This research examined a novel mechanism through which men express anti-effeminacy bias, focusing on friendship reluctance as a particular expression. Drawing on the CVT (Winegard et al., 2016) and research on reputation management, we hypothesized that a large part of men’s reluctance to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) men is driven by concern with losing reputation by association with targets lacking masculine coalitional value (e.g., toughness, strength, dominance). Moreover, based on the masculine honor as an individual difference perspective (Saucier & McManus, 2014), we proposed this mechanism to be amplified among men who strongly endorse masculine honor ideals, as these are men who are dispositionally sensitive to protecting their own reputation.

Across three studies, using samples from the United Kingdom and Turkey, results provided support for our hypotheses. Study 1 showed that perceiving feminine (vs. masculine) targets as lacking coalitional value in masculine tasks (e.g., strength, toughness, dominance) explained men’s reluctance to befriend them. Studies 2 and 3 extended the coalitional value account by demonstrating that concern with reputation loss by association with feminine targets is another important mechanism through which men express anti-effeminacy bias. Importantly, all three studies showed that these relationships applied more strongly to men who endorsed high (vs. low) levels of masculine honor. Furthermore, Study 1 showed that findings were unique to men’s evaluation of male targets, but did not generalize to female perceivers or female targets, and Study 3 confirmed that feminine male targets were perceived as lacking coalitional value only with regard to tasks that require typically masculine traits and skills, but not those that would require other traits and skills. Finally, we ruled out alternative explanations for our findings by showing that perceived homosexuality did not predict men’s reluctance to befriend feminine targets (all studies), and that our proposed mechanism continued to hold after controlling for participants’ similarity to the targets and social dominance orientation (Studies 2 and 3).

Theoretical Contributions

The present research offers a significant contribution to our understanding of anti-effeminacy bias. The central finding of the present research is that certain expressions of anti-effeminacy bias such as friendship reluctance may be a manifestation of men’s reputation management concerns. Importantly, we found this to be the case only for high honor-oriented men. In contrast, in some cases, low honor-oriented men reported that being seen affiliated with a feminine (vs. masculine) man would even increase their reputation, and reported higher desire to befriend him. Unlike the predominant explanations of anti-effeminacy bias which were not designed to differentiate between individuals (precarious manhood hypothesis, see Bosson et al., 2012; status incongruity hypothesis, see Moss-Racusin et al., 2010), our findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences in dispositions and motives, and caution against treating men as a homogeneous group when examining anti-effeminacy bias.

Our research also contributes to the literature on masculine honor from an individual difference perspective. We showed that, despite the classification of Turkey and the United Kingdom as “honor” and “dignity” cultures, respectively, in both cultures, only high (not low) honor-oriented men’s reputation concern by association with feminine targets manifested as a tendency to avoid befriending them. These results are consistent with Shackelford’s (2005) suggestion that men in all cultures have the psychological mechanisms that promote attending to personal reputations, yet these mechanisms can be differentially activated depending on individuals’ own dispositions as well as the threats and opportunities afforded by particular social situations. Note that, however, our aim was not to test whether activation of reputation concerns and its manifestation as anti-effeminacy bias would generalize to men in all cultures. Such a test would require evidence from a diverse set of cultures.

In addition, our research showed that men who value masculine honor are not limited to protecting their reputation through aggressive and confrontational behaviors as most studies to date have shown (e.g., Barnes et al., 2012; Saucier et al., 2016; Vandello et al., 2008). Here, we have shown that men can also protect their reputation through subtle behaviors such as avoiding friendships with feminine men. Thus, our research directs attention to a different strategy through which men can protect their reputation in the everyday life, and adds to a limited number of studies investigating nonaggressive ways of maintaining reputation by individuals who value masculine honor ideals.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Limitations of this study included reliance of only self-report measures and the use of scenarios describing hypothetical target persons. Behavioral laboratory measures (e.g., sitting distance, eye contact) would help test whether participants’ behaviors coincide with their self-reported evaluations. Nevertheless, using scenarios enabled us to systematically vary the variable of primary interest—target’s gender expression—and provided important insights from two cultural groups into psychological mechanisms underlying anti-effeminacy bias.

Another limitation is that we used a single conceptualization of anti-effeminacy bias—unwillingness to be friends—which is often considered a voluntary association between people. Future studies may examine whether reputation concerns manifest in biased preferences when interacting with coworkers or kin, as well as other more direct expressions of anti-effeminacy bias such as punishment, exclusion, or derogation.

When assessing participants’ reputation concerns in Study 2, the outgroup members (male strangers) were not described as aggressive rivals who can cause harm to the participants. If these other male strangers were presented as outgroup aggressors, participants’ concern with losing reputation for formidability could become more salient and predict men’s reluctance to befriend feminine men. Thus, future research may find that depending on social situations, self-protection motives could also drive certain expressions of anti-effeminacy bias in addition to motives for coalition formation.

Our findings also have implications for understanding the functional basis of antigay bias. Previous research has suggested that homophobic attitudes and expressions are strategic attempts to prevent the risk of contamination from pathogens (see Filip-Crawford, & Neuberg, 2016). However, our research suggests that, at least to the extent that homosexual targets have visible cues of effeminacy, certain behavioral indicators of antigay bias (such as avoiding affiliation with gay men) may be strategic attempts to prevent reputation risk. Future research would benefit from studying different manifestations of antigay bias (avoidance vs. aggression) by manipulating the target’s sexual activity (gay vs. straight sex) and gender conformity (masculine vs. feminine appearance) to provide a more nuanced understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying different types of antigay bias.

Our proposed mechanism of anti-effeminacy bias applied only to highly masculine honor-oriented men and was specific to coalitional value in traditionally masculine tasks which require traits such as strength, courage, toughness, and dominance. However, we would like to stress that masculine traits and skills are not the only ways men can bring coalitional value. There are as many valuable traits, skills, and abilities as there are many different types of teams and coalitions in society. What traits an academic or a business team would value in a man would be different than what a male rugby team would value in a teammate. As shown here in Study 3 and by Winegard et al. (2016), the coalitional value account did not hold when men evaluated the coalitional value of feminine targets in tasks whose success does not require masculine skills (business, chess, poetry). Accordingly, we assume that anti-effeminacy bias may become nonexistent in coalitional contexts in which success would require traits such as empathy, creativity, intellectual, and verbal abilities. Other than raising awareness about anti-effeminacy bias, creating and encouraging the existence of occupations and activities, which require a diverse set of socially important skills for achieving success other than traditional masculinity, may help reducing bias against feminine men. Future studies are needed to follow up on these suggestions and implications of the current research.