Sunday, October 11, 2015

Willer Reading Outline!

Megha Majumder
I. Reading!
- Author: Robb Willer, Christabel L. Rogalin, Bridget Conlon, and Michael T. Wojnowicz!
- Title: Overdoing Gender: A test of the Masculine Overcompensation Thesis!
II. Summary (Thesis: men react to masculine insecurities and their masculinity being
threatened with more extreme demonstrations of their masculinity)!
- Research questions asked: Do men overcompensate in response to gender identity
threats? (p 4) When men respond to threats with masculinity striving, are they
seeking to restore a fundamental aspect of their self-concept that they deeply value,
or restore repetitional standing in the eyes of others? (p 45)!
- Existing literature/hypothesis: *main: Theories of Masculinity (Connell 1987) and
Theories of Identity (Maass et al. 2003)!
- Masculine overcompensation can be attributed to Freuds notion of reaction
formation ([1898] 1962), or tendency of individuals to respond to the suggestion
that they possess a socially unacceptable trait by enacting its opposite, often in the
extreme.!
- Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996) concluded that a certain identity theory grounding
the Willer paper: homophobia may be a case of reaction formation for men with
same-sex attraction and strong concerns about the social implications of being
seen as gay masculinity theory, which argues that masculinity is both more
narrowly-defined (making masculinity more easily threatened) and socially-valued
(making men more motivated to recover it) than femininity. Second, theories of
identity, which argue that individuals tend to react to feedback that threatens valued
identities with overcompensation, enacting attitudes and behaviors associated with
the identity to a more extreme extent than they would have in the absence of
threats.!
- Connel (1983) concluded that while definitions of masculinity vary across contexts,
within a given culture men are typically measured against a monolithic standard of
hegemonic masculinity. Dominance and control are key in hegemonic masculinity
in America.!

1
 Sunday, October 11, 2015
- There is a slow, and somewhat stagnant halting acceptance of expressions of self
associated with femininity in boys (Kimmel and Mahler 2003; Pascoe 2005). !
- The standards of true masculinity are so exacting as to be virtually unattainable,
leading men to continually strive to satisfy them (Connell 1987; 1995).!
- Kimmel emphasizes the role of men as a sort of gender police, describing
homophobia as the fear among men that other men will detect their insufficient
masculinitymasculine status is relative and hierarchical (1994). Thus, as one
man establishes his masculine standing, he necessarily diminishes the standing of
other men.!
- MacMillan and Gartner found that employed wives of unemployed husbands face
a greater risk of domestic abuse, perhaps because their employment constitutes a
threat to the masculinity of their spouse (1999).!
- social psychologists found that men whose masculinity was threatened via bogus
feedback on a gender identity survey were more likely to subsequently sexually
harass a female participant in the study (Maass et al. 2003). This body of research
supports masculinity theorists contention that men are highly responsive to their
masculine status!
- Lit reviews conclusions: From this literature we cull two main theoretical claims: 1)
a narrower definition exists for what are acceptable and respected masculine, as
opposed to feminine, traits, and 2) masculinity tends to be more respected than
femininity (e.g., Ridgeway 2011). !
- Data set and methodology: !
- Study design: Gender identity survey (Bem Sex Role inventory) -> Survey
Feedback for Study 2 (Gender Identity Confriming/Diconfirming) creating a 2x2
design, participants M/F -> Assessment of dependent measures !
- Dependent measures: a) interest in SUV, Support for Iraq War, homophobic
attitudes, persistence on a strength test!
- Type of research: experimental for study 1, and survey-based: a 2 (participants
were men/women) x 2 (participants gender identity was threatened/not)
experimental design. One hundred and eleven undergraduate students (60 women,
51 men) at a large, Eastern private university participated in the study for pay plus
the option of extra credit in a sociology class. Result: The masculinity of
threatened men = greater support for the Iraq War + more negative views of

2
 Sunday, October 11, 2015
homosexuality in comparison to unthreatened men. Women = no significant
differences across conditions in their reported attitudes.!
- Study 2: also experimental, and survey-based. Replicated methodology of Study 1,
employing new dependent measures, including a standard measure of desire for
dominance and support for dominance hierarchies, social dominance orientation;
support for the Iraq War and opposition to homosexuality is that each is related to
conservatism in the contemporary U.S. Aspects of political conservatism serve as
dependent measures. (Double blind type because feedback sheets were given to
RAs prior to the session and sealed so that theyd be unaware of the experimental
condition.)!
- Study 3: predicts that perceptions that the status of men in the larger society is
declining may also threaten mens masculinity, large-scale survey. Respondents
were from data from the 2007 American Values Survey only approximately 2.7%
of contacted respondents consented to participate, and the samples demographic
make-up diverged from the U.S. population in various ways (e.g., older, more white,
more college-educated) and thus should not be taken as representative. !
- Study 4: Participants first completed a demographic questionnaire and gender
identity survey (Bem 1974). They were then given randomly determined feedback
on the results of their gender identity survey before being asked to complete a
Political and Religious Views Survey and a post-study questionnaire. At regular
intervals, their saliva would be collected and analyzed for testosterone (four times
in total). !
- Analysis and Argument!
- Argument is made through deductive reasoning, because the authors started off
with predictions based on conclusions derived from other studies and well-
regarded and semi-established patterns of behavior, particularly based on the
masculine overcompensation thesis, which states that men are likely to respond to
threats to their masculinity with more exaggerated or extreme demonstrations of
masculinity. Following that account, the paper test it with four studies (a lab
experiment, extension of the lab experiments findings, a large scale survey, and a
tracking of mens testosterone levels. !
- Evaluation/critique!
- I believe that the research is soundly conducted, and the information provided is
accurate based on its citations in other papers, and the theory it tests is well-

3
 Sunday, October 11, 2015
established. However, I have many qualms with the information provided during
experimental procedures, which I believe may have exaggerated or downplayed
the results. Firstly, participants were recruited by fliers advertising pay for
participation in a sociology experiment or by announcements in their
undergraduate sociology class. These are sociology students! Who are probably
more understanding and less likely to support wars and Bush anyway. Also, why is
support for the Iraq War, homophobia and interest in purchasing an SUV
considered masculine? I feel that Willer did not go into any depth regarding that
matter. It seems a bit construed. More specifically to experimentation, studies 1 and
2 demonstrated in laboratory settings that men whose masculinity was threatened
reacted with more extreme masculine attitudes, in particular views associated with
dominance. These studies were, however, conducted within a relatively small,
homogeneous population, creating external validity concerns. Thus making it a
non-representative sample, which makes it not so widely applicable, if anyone
cares for accuracy. For study 3, while the survey was not nationally representative
and is essentially a convenience sample, it does provide substantial sample
diversity. No explanation as to what substantial sample diversity meant exactly
was provided, thus making it pretty vague. In study 4, Fifty-four undergraduate
men at a large, Midwestern public university participated in the study for pay. This
is a problem, again, because its at a Midwestern university as opposed to an
eastern one which diverts from the uniformity of the samples across studies, and is
also not representative, again. The conclusions do seem reasonable, but the
samples used for each study probably skewed the data as it might have compared
to a representative sample.