Final Project: Research ProposalIn Weeks 1 through 9, you have created all the sections to be included in the research proposal. This week, you will collate all these sections and create the final dra

Put simply, masculinity can be understood as “hard won and easily lost” (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). Indeed, masculinity in both industrialized and “preindustrial” societies has been observed and described in anthropological research as a “precarious or artificial state that boys must win against powerful odds” (Gilmore, 1990, p.11). Thus, masculinity is thought to produce significant psycho- logical challenges for men across cultures. As such, when any man encounters actual or perceived challenges to masculine status, he may be vulnerable to invoking stereotypical masculine behaviors to maintain a sense of power and control (Moore & Stuart, 2005; Vandello & Bosson, 2013).Several laboratory-based, experimental studies provide empiri- cal support for these assumptions, highlighting aggression in par- ticular as a social behavior through which men may seek to reassert manhood (e.g.,Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, & Weaver, 2008;Weaver, Vandello, Bosson, & Burnaford, 2010).

Specifically, laboratory research demonstrates that threats to mas- culinity (i.e., stimuli designed to challenge the status conferred to men by traditional gender roles) elicit aggression-related cogni- tions and actions in men (Weaver et al., 2010) and that men use situational cues to justify their aggressive behavior (for a review seeVandello & Bosson, 2013). Furthermore, in a series of exper- iments, Bosson and colleagues not only demonstrated that chal- lenges to men’s gender status elicited displays of physical aggres- sion, they were also able to establish that a public display of aggressive readiness reduced men’s anxiety-related cognitions in the wake of a gender threat (Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, & Arzu Wasti, 2009). Taken together, research on pre- carious manhood has filled important gaps in the literature by providing empirical evidence that masculine stereotyped behavior may be potentiated by the desire to mitigate negative affect pro- duced by gender threat.

Despite laudable advances made by the precarious manhood paradigm in forwarding understanding of fundamental emotional and behavioral components of masculinity, masculine-specific cognitiveprocesses have yet to be fully incorporated into this empirical literature. In other words, how do men process gender- salient events and derive evaluations about their own masculinity?

Although gender threat is assumed to adversely affect how men evaluate their manhood, this supposition has not been directly assessed, nor has research established whether the evaluation of oneself as insufficiently masculine is itself predictive of engage- This article was published Online First February 15, 2016.

Danielle S. Berke, Dennis E. Reidy, Joshua D. Miller, and Amos Zeichner, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Danielle S. Berke, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013. E-mail:[email protected] 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. Psychology of Men & Masculinity© 2016 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 18, No. 1, 62– 691524-9220/17/$12.00http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000036 62 ment in gender-stereotyped behavior in direct response to threats to gender status.

The assumption that self-evaluative cognitive processes underlie gender-threatened men’s engagement in gender-stereotyped be- havior is compatible with longstanding sociocognitive theory re- garding the effect of incompatible beliefs about the self on emo- tional distress. For example, self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, Klein, Strauman, 1985) posits that incompatibilities arising be- tween theactual self(i.e., the representation of attributes that individuals or perceivers believe an individual possesses) and the ought self, (i.e., the representation of attributes that one believes they should possess) result in either the absence of positive out- comes or the presence of negative outcomes, generating either depression or anxiety/agitation respectively. In terms of incompat- ibilities in masculine self-perception, evidence suggests that boys learn to expect that violations of masculine norms result in nega- tive social consequences (Fuchs & Thelen, 1988;Zeman & Gar- ber, 1996) including social condemnation and negative psycholog- ical consequences (Rummell & Levant, 2014). Therefore,gender role discrepancy(perceived failure to conform to socially pre- scribed masculine gender role norms) is theorized to precipitate anxious or agitated affect and attendant behavior as a function of disruptive inconsistencies in self-perception. As such, empirical validation of this theory necessitates direct measurement of gender role discrepancy in the context of gender threat.

A further avenue for extending the validity of the precarious manhood construct relates to the types of stereotyped-behaviors to which it has been empirically linked. The laboratory examinations reviewed above have exclusively utilized aggression analogues to model the impact of gender-threatening feedback on men’s behav- ior. However, threats to masculinity are reasonably expected to increase risk for engagement in a broader array of masculine stereotyped behavior. Indeed, dominant cultural repertoires of masculinity include not only behavior with deleterious interper- sonal consequences (e.g., aggression) but also choices that impact on men’s intrapersonal experience of pain and suffering.

Regarding pain in particular, shared cultural beliefs about pain are posited to both reflect and maintain dominant masculinity ideologies (Bernardes, Keogh, & Lima, 2008). For example, cross- cultural research analyzing gendered beliefs on appropriate pain behavior indicates that patriarchal cultures including Euro Amer- ican, Japanese, and Indian samples, share the belief that overt pain expressions are more appropriate in women than men (Hobara, 2005;Nayak, Shiflett, Eshun, & Levine, 2000). Moreover, re- search on gender role expectations indicates that men believe the typical man is more tolerant to pain than the typical woman, which may account, in part, for the finding that men are less willing to express pain than women (McCaffery & Ferrell, 1992;Robinson et al., 2001). Similarly, qualitative studies investigating dominant discourses of masculinity among athletes have documented com- mon themes pertaining to pain. Specifically, willingness to persist in play despite pain warning signs or injury is represented as the ultimate expression of masculinity (Howe, 2001;White, Young, & McTeer, 1995). However, the situationally specific conditions under which men may be more or less likely to endure pain have yet to be clearly elucidated, particularly as they relate to the experience of masculine threat and gender role discrepancy. As such, the inclusion of pain tolerance adds to the multimethod assessment of men’s response to gender-threatening contexts. Purpose and Hypotheses The purpose of the current study was to build on the work of Vandello and Bosson (2013)by assessing the effect of gender- threatening feedback on men’s self-perceived gender role discrep- ancy. Moreover, we aimed to elucidate the impact of dynamic changes in masculine self-perception on affective arousal and the enactment of a heretofore untested stereotyped masculine behavior within the literature, the endurance of painful stimuli. Direct assessment of gender role discrepancy in the context of gender- threatening and gender-stereotyped contexts allows for empirical validation of a core theoretical assumption regarding precarious manhood, namely that masculinity can be understood as a rela- tional, contextual, and dynamic process of ongoing (re)construc- tion. To this end, several hypotheses were put forth:

1. It was expected that the current study would replicate the work ofBosson and colleagues (2009)by demonstrating that men exposed to gender-threatening feedback would evince higher levels of aggression and anxiety-related cognitions than those receiving nonthreatening feedback.

2. Given the theoretical proposition that men engage in stereotyped masculine behavior to regain masculine sta- tus (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), it was hypothesized that men exposed to gender-threatening feedback would en- dure higher levels of pain than their nonthreatened coun- terparts.

3. Consistent with self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1985), exposure to gender-threatening feed- back was also hypothesized to predict changes in mas- culine self-perception, such that men would experience heightened levels of gender role discrepancy following this feedback.

4. State changes in gender role discrepancy from baseline to post gender-salient feedback were hypothesized to pre- dict emotion activation and pain tolerance.

5. Lastly, we predicted that endurance of painful stimuli would function to reaffirm masculine status and therefore be associated with a subsequent decrease in gender role discrepancy. Method Participants A sample of 246 men was recruited from the psychology de- partment’s research participant pool at a large university in the Southeastern United States for a study titled “Gender Knowledge, Cognitive Processing, and Pain Tolerance.” Participants were in- formed that the study comprised an online questionnaire session and a laboratory session that would take place on two separate occasions. Of those men who responded to the advertisement by completing the online questionnaire, more than 87% (n 215) attended the laboratory session. Three of these men, who did not identify as exclusively heterosexual (i.e., gay, queer, bisexual, or transgender) on the demographics questionnaire, were excluded 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. 63 GENDER THREAT, EMOTION ACTIVATION, AND PAIN from analyses given our goal to investigate behavior in heterosex- ual men. The final analytic sample comprised 212 men and was demographically representative of the university community from which it was derived. The mean age of the sample was 19.48 (SD 1.49), 66.4% Caucasian, 18.3% Asian, 7.1% African Amer- ican/Black, 1.8% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 5.7% Hispan- ic/Latino, and 1.3% indicating “other” for ethnic background. The majority of participants, 98.6%, indicated that they were single, whereas only 1.4% were in a committed relationship/long-term partnership. All participants provided IRB-approved informed consent and received partial academic credit for their participation.

Measures Demographic Questionnaire.Participants were adminis- trated a demographic questionnaire with questions pertaining to age, ethnicity, relationship status, and sexual orientation. Age was indicated by filling in a blank, whereas ethnicity was reported by selecting among the following categories, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African Amer- ican, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, or Other.

Similarly, relationship status and sexual orientation were reported by selecting among a series of representative categories.

Masculine gender role discrepancy (Reidy, Berke, Gentile, & Zeichner, 2014).The Masculine Gender Role Discrepancy Stress scale (MGRDS) was used to assess men’s experience of gender role discrepancy. The MGRDS contains five questions pertaining to the experience of (a) perceived gender role discrep- ancy (e.g., “I am less masculine than the average guy,” “Most women I know would say that I’m not as masculine as my friends”) and five questions pertaining to the experience of (b) distress stemming from the discrepancy (e.g., “I wish I was more manly,” “I worry that women find me less attractive because I’m not as macho as other guys”). The MGRDS has a two-factor structure that includes Gender Role Discrepancy and Discrepancy Stress, both of which demonstrate strong internal consistency (Reidy et al., 2014). For the purposes of the current study, only the Gender Role Discrepancy subscale was used as we were interested in the unique effects that gender role discrepancy may have on pain tolerance and anxiety and aggression-related cognition, inde- pendent of the stress that men explicitly identify as driven by such discrepancy. The Gender Role Discrepancy subscale has been shown to relate to harmful externalizing behavior for men in previous research. For example, Reidy and colleagues demon- strated that boys endorsing higher levels of perceived gender role discrepancy were more likely to endorse some history of sexual teen dating violence (Reidy, Smith-Darden, Cortina, Kernsmith, & Kernsmith, 2015). In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the 5-item discrepancy scale was .95.

Computerized gender knowledge test.The “gender knowl- edge test” was created as a 32-item adaptation fromRudman and Fairchild (2004)and utilized as a cover for providing participants bogus gender feedback. Participants were informed that the mea- sure assesses “basic gender knowledge,” and included 16 multiple- choice items assessing knowledge about stereotypically masculine topics (sports, auto mechanics, and home repair) and 16 items measuring knowledge about stereotypically feminine topics (cook- ing, childcare, and fashion). In actuality, participants were pro- vided bogus feedback regarding their scores on this test and thetest items themselves were not scored. Items ranged from moder- ately difficult to very difficult to maximize the believability of false feedback. For example, one masculine item required identi- fying the first people to use flamethrowers in battle (Turks or Greeks) whereas a feminine test required identifying the first company to invent hair coloring (L’Oreal or Clairol).

Word completion task.This task was developed as an ad- aptation of methodology utilized in previous laboratory exam- inations of the effects of gender threat (Bosson et al., 2009)on emotion activation. A 27-item questionnaire described to par- ticipants as a “word completion task” was used to measure the cognitive accessibility of words related to anxiety and aggres- sion. Of the 20 word fragments, it was possible to complete seven with either aggression-related words or aggression- unrelated words: KI __ __ (kill), __ IGHT (fight), BLO__ __ (blood), B __ T __LE (battle), __ __ RDER (murder), __ UNCH (punch), STA __ (stab). The total number of aggressive word completions served as a measure of activation of aggression- relevant cognitive-affective networks. Additionally, it was pos- sible to complete seven words with either anxiety-related words or anxiety-unrelated words: THREA__ (threat), STRE__ __ (stress), __ __SET (upset), __OTHER (bother), SHA__ E (shame), __EAK (weak), and LO__ER (loser). The total num- ber of anxiety word completions served as a measure of acti- vation of anxiety-relevant cognitive-affective networks. The remaining 13 word stems were designed to be completed to form neutral words (e.g., account, engine, picture). These filler items were included to minimize the potential for detection of the word completion task as a measure of participant affective arousal. Past research has demonstrated that this type of word completion task is a valid measure of aggressive and anxiety- related cognitions. For example, this methodology has been utilized to assess the impact of violent media on access to aggressive cognitions (Anderson et al., 2003,2004;Carnagey & Anderson, 2005) and access to anxiety cognitions in the face of gender threat (Vandello et al., 2008).

Pain tolerance.To assess pain tolerance in response to pres- sure, a Wagner Instruments (Greenwich, CT) FDIX 50 algometer 1cm 2rubber tip probe was applied to the supinator muscle on the participants’ nondominant upper arm at increasing pressure until it reached a subjective level of pain that the participant did not want to increase further. In the current study, pressure level was re- corded as Lbf (poundforce). This procedure was repeated three times (Ms 1–3: 22.1, 21.0, and 21.2, respectively;SDs 9.3, 9.2, and 9.2, respectively). An algometer composite score was used comprising the average of three values. Cronbach’s alpha for the composite of the three algometer readings was .95. Procedure In an initial questionnaire session, participants were provided an informational letter allowing them to provide informed consent following which a questionnaire battery was completed including the demographic questionnaire and a baseline measure on gender role discrepancy (T1). A second, experimental phase was sepa- rated by one week to minimize participant fatigue effects and to mitigate any priming cues associated with questionnaire content.

For the experimental session, participants presented to a small classroom and were randomly assigned to one of the two experi- 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. 64 BERKE, REIDY, MILLER, AND ZEICHNER mental conditions described below (Threat vs. Control). Partici- pants were oriented to the computerized “Gender Knowledge Test,” and left to complete it in private. Following completion of the test, computer generated bogus feedback about their perfor- mance was provided. Men assigned to the threat condition received gender discrepant feedback about their percentile rank compared with other men (i.e., 27th percentile), whereas men assigned to the control condition received gender congruent feedback about their percentile score (i.e., 73rd percentile). Additionally, all men were presented with a visual scale anchored with “feminine gender identity” and “masculine gender identity” at each end. An arrow pointing toward the feminine end was used to indicate the “average woman’s score” and an arrow toward the male end indicated the “average man’s score.” For the men assigned to the threat condi- tion, an arrow labeled “your score” appeared near the average woman’s score, while the “your score” arrow presented to men in the control condition appeared near the average man’s score.

Next, participants were administered the measure of gender role discrepancy a second time (T2). Men were instructed verbally and in the written directions to respond based on their feelings and beliefs “at this moment.” Participants were then asked to complete “a measure of cognitive processing” and presented with the com- puterized word-completion task. After the word-completion task, participants’ pain tolerance was assessed as described above. Fol- lowing the third pain tolerance trial, participants were presented with a third administration of the gender role discrepancy measure (T3) with state-salient instructions (i.e., “answer based on how you feel at this moment”) before they were assigned class credit, thanked, and debriefed. The debriefing procedure included discus- sion of the IRB-approved deception component of the study.

Specifically, participants were informed that the gender knowledge feedback provided by the experimenter was bogus, rather than a reflection of their actual gender knowledge. To guard against unlikely, yet possible, residual unpleasant effects attributable to participation in the experiment, all participants were provided the opportunity to discuss any concerns with the experimenter, the research supervisor, and given information regarding locally ac- cessible mental health resources.

Manipulation Check The validity of the masculine threat manipulation was assessed in a brief interview that included questions about the feedback provided. Participants were asked to recall whether their score on the gender knowledge was more consistent with female gender identity or male gender identity, and whether they remembered the percentile score they earned. No participant indicated believing that the feedback was bogus. All participants correctly recalled the gender feedback provided and approximate percentile score “earned.” Results Preliminary Analyses Random group assignment was expected to produce, on aver- age, an equal distribution of scores on pertinent demographic and predictor variables across the two experimental groups. To confirm this assumption, a series of one-way analyses of variance wereperformed with age, ethnicity, relationship status, and participant’s baseline gender role discrepancy as the dependent variables. These analyses revealed no significant group differences. To determine the effect of multicollinearity among the multiple administrations of the gender role discrepancy measure, a regression analysis specifying pain tolerance as the dependent variable was performed to estimate variance inflation factors (VIF) for each predictor variable (i.e., the degree to which the variance of the estimated regression coefficient is “inflated” by the existence of correlation among the predictor variables in the model). A VIF of 1 indicates no correlation among predictor variables, and hence no inflation in regression coefficient estimates. VIFs exceeding 4 warrant further investigation (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), whereas VIFs exceeding 10 are signs of multicollinearity at a level requiring correction. In the current sample, the variance-inflation factors of T1, Baseline Discrepancy (VIF 2.29), T2 (VIF 3.07), and T3 (VIF 2.19) were all below suggested cutoffs. Principal Analyses A 5-phase analytic plan was specified to systematically model hypothesized interrelations among gender threat, self-perceived gender role discrepancy, emotion activation, and pain tolerance.

First, Pearson product–moment correlations were computed be- tween aggression, anxiety (as measured by the total number of aggression and anxiety word completions respectively) and exper- imental condition to test hypothesis 1, in which we predicted that men exposed to gender-threatening feedback would evince higher levels of aggression and anxiety-related cognitions than those receiving nonthreatening feedback. Results indicated thatexperi- mental condition was significantly correlated with total number of ambiguous word stems completed in aggressive,r .23,p .01 but not anxiety-related terms,r .03,p .63, meaning that exposure to gender-threatening feedback activated only aggression-specific cognitive affective networks. Second, consistent with hypothesis 2 (i.e., men exposed to gender-threatening feedback wouldendure higher levels of pain than their nonthreatened counterparts) and our stated goal of adding to the multimethod assessment of the impact of gender threat on men’s behavior, a correlation was computed between pain tolerance and experimental condition.

Results revealed that experimental condition was significantly and positively associated with pain tolerance,r .29,p .01, indicating that gender-threatened men endured significantly more painful pressure than their nonthreatened counterparts. Pearson product–moment correlations for all pertinent study variables (i.e., experimental condition, pain tolerance, gender role discrepancy at all three time points, and emotion activation: anxiety and aggres- sion) are provided inTable 1.

Third, to test our hypothesis that men would experience heightened levels of gender role discrepancy following gender-threatening feed- back, we regressed T2 gender role discrepancy scores on experimen- tal condition, controlling for baseline gender role discrepancy scores.

Results of the full model proved to be significant,F(2, 210) 142.66; p .01;R 2 .58. Additionally, the condition term accounted for significant variance in T2 gender discrepancy scores in the model 0.12;p .01, indicating that receipt of gender-threatening feedback significantly predicted men’s self-perceptions of gender role discrep- ancy following gender feedback, independent of their perceptions at baseline. 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. 65 GENDER THREAT, EMOTION ACTIVATION, AND PAIN Fourth, we hypothesized that state changes in masculine self- perception would predict emotion activation and pain tolerance. As such, three hierarchical regression models were constructed spec- ifying aggression, anxiety, and pain tolerance as the pertinent dependent variables of interest. In each model, baseline gender role discrepancy was entered as a control in the first step and T2 gender role discrepancy was entered as the independent variable of interest. When emotion activation variables (i.e., anxiety; aggres- sion) were considered as the dependent variables, neither the full model for anxiety,F(2, 210) 0.20;p .82;R 2 .00, nor that for aggression,F(2, 210) 0.23;p .10;R2 .02, reached significance. In other words, when controlling for baseline dis- crepancy scores, T2 gender role discrepancy was not a significant predictor of emotion-activation. Although a trend emerged for the full model predicting pain tolerance,F(2, 210) 2.79;p .06; R 2 .03, results revealed that this effect was driven by baseline rather than T2 gender role discrepancy scores. Regression coeffi- cients for each step of hypothesis 4 analyses are presented inTable 2.

In the final phase of our analysis, we tested hypothesis 5 (i.e., that endurance of painful stimuli would be associated with a subsequent decrease in gender role discrepancy), by regressing T3 gender role discrepancy on a condition by pain tolerance interac- tion term, controlling for T2 gender role discrepancy. Results of this analysis (summarized inTable 3) indicated that the pain by condition term was not a significant predictor of T3 gender role discrepancy when controlling for T2 gender role discrepancy scores. These results suggest that the endurance of pain by gender- threatened men did not meaningfully impact their self-perceived gender role discrepancy following engagement in a stereotyped masculine behavior relative to their self-perceived gender role discrepancy following the gender threat. Discussion The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether gender role discrepancy precipitates men’s experiences of distress and stereotypic masculine behavior in the face of masculine threat(Bosson & Vandello, 2011). The current study builds on previous literature in its design and findings by directly assessing the impact of gender threat on cognitive self-evaluative processes and by assessing the impact of changes in self-perceived gender role discrepancy on a methodologically rigorous laboratory expression of stereotyped masculine behavior (i.e., tolerance of painful pres- sure). It was expected that gender-threatened men would show greater aggression and anxiety-related emotion activation and greater tolerance of painful pressure than their nonthreatened counterparts. Further, we hypothesized that gender threat would predict changes in masculine self-perception and that this evalua- tion of self-perceived masculine discrepancy would be associated with emotion activation and pain tolerance. Lastly, we tested the assumption that engagement in stereotyped masculine behavior would serve to reaffirm masculine status (Bosson et al., 2009)in terms of an effect of such behavior on subsequent self-perceived gender role discrepancy. Although several hypotheses were sup- ported, results of the current study also revealed null and novel Table 2 Estimated Effects of Gender Role Discrepancy on Emotion Activation and Pain Tolerance Controlling for Baseline Scores Dependent variableAggressionParameter estimate Anxiety Pain tolerance pvalue pvalue pvalue Step 1 T1 .14 .05 .03 .68 .14 .05 Step 2 T1 .08 .46 .01 .94 .23 .03 T2 .08 .43 .05 .64 .13 .22 Note. Aggression Total number of ambiguous word stems completed as aggressive words; Pain tolerance Composite score of average algom- eter readings across three pain tolerance trials; T1 baseline gender role discrepancy score; T2 gender role discrepancy score assessed after gender feedback; T3 gender role discrepancy score assessed after pain tolerance assessment. p .05.

Table 3 Estimated Effects of Gender Threatened Participants’ Endurance of Pain on T3 Gender Role Discrepancy Controlling for T2 Scores Dependent VariableT3 Parameter estimate pvalue Step 1 T2 .73 .00 Step 2 T2 .74 .00 Condition Pain tolerance .05 .29 Note.T3 gender role discrepancy score assessed after pain tolerance assessment; T2 gender role discrepancy score assessed after gender feedback; Condition Pain tolerance interaction term representing the cross-product of the dummy-coded condition variable and the pain toler- ance composite variable. p .01. Table 1 Bivariate Correlations of All Measured Variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Condition — .29 .07 .18 .13 .03 .23 2. Pain tolerance — .14 .05 .13 .07 .10 Gender role discrepancy 3. T1 — .75 .62 .03 .14 4. T2 — .73 .04 .14 5. T3 — .08 .06 Emotion activation 6. Anxiety — .04 7. Aggression — Note. Pain tolerance Composite score of average algometer readings across three pain tolerance trials; T1 baseline gender role discrepancy score; T2 gender role discrepancy score assessed after gender feedback; T3 gender role discrepancy score assessed after pain tolerance assess- ment; Anxiety Total number of ambiguous word stems completed in anxiety-related terms; Aggression Total number of ambiguous word stems completed in aggressive terms.

p .05. p .01. 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. 66 BERKE, REIDY, MILLER, AND ZEICHNER patterns of findings, specifically highlighting the salience of gen- der threat on men’s experience of gender role discrepancy and their willingness to endure pain.

First, consistent with previous studies, men exposed to gender- threatening feedback evinced more aggressive-related emotion ac- tivation than those receiving nonthreatening feedback. The signif- icant effect of condition on completion of ambiguous word stems in aggressive terms replicates the work ofBosson and colleagues (2009)and supports theory regarding the impact of discrepant feedback about the self on emotional distress (Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1985). However, contrary to expectations, gender threat did not significantly impact anxiety-related emotion activation for men in our sample. This inconsistent finding may relate to gender socialization of emotion. As men are socialized to restrict expres- sions of emotion, with the exception of anger (e.g.,Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-Waxler, 2005), it is possible that men in our study, when given the opportunity to complete both aggression and anxiety word stems in the same task, were more likely to exhibit aggres- sion than anxiety (a vulnerable emotion) in the face of gender threat. Moreover, it is possible that participants experienced a broader range of emotions than those objectively assessed in the current study. As such future research might examine emotions beyond aggression and anxiety, or consider qualitative assessment of emotion.

Adding to the multimethod assessment of behavioral responses to masculine threat, we found that gender-threatened men endured significantly more pain than their nonthreatened counterparts. This finding is consistent with a key assumption of precarious manhood (Vandello et al., 2008), which posits that threats to masculine status should activate gender stereotyped cognitive-affective net- works in the service of reasserting masculine status. If cultural scripts for manhood sanction endurance of pain as a way of demonstrating masculine status (e.g.,Howe, 2001;White et al., 1995), then masculine threat should prime arousing, action- oriented feelings that “prepare” men to endure greater levels of pain. The finding that gender-threatened men demonstrate greater tolerance suggests that this behavior serves a socially expressive function (i.e., appearing tough and, by extension, appearing mas- culine). This finding also extends the generalizability of previous studies, which have been limited in associating gender threat with readiness to engage in aggression specifically (e.g.,Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Gender-threatened men’s willingness to endure higher levels of pain in the current study expands understanding of the scope of men’s behavioral response to threatening contexts.

The finding that exposure to gender threat exerts an effect on men’s perception of gender role discrepancy is another novel and important contribution of the current study. Indeed, results indi- cated that men assigned to the gender threat condition, as opposed to the control condition, reported higher levels of perceived gender role discrepancy, irrespective of their baseline discrepancy scores.

Taken together with the finding that gender-threatened men were more likely to experience aggressive arousal, these results provide compelling support for the notion that aggression-related cogni- tions and emotions may prepare gender-threatened men to inhibit the expression of pain when they perceive themselves as falling short of masculine norms.

However, the expectation that masculine reappraisal following gender threat would directly predict emotion arousal and pain tolerance was not supported, nor did endurance of painful pressureresult in a reaffirmation of self-perceived masculine status in terms of an effect of such behavior on subsequent self-perceived gender role discrepancy. These results suggest that although men may endure pain to align their behavior with prescribed dictates of manhood, this social performance may not be effective in mitigat- ing the experience of gender role discrepancy. These data are consistent withBosson and Vandello’s (2011)theoretical charac- terization of manhood as “hard won, and easily lost.” Several limitations of this study merit comment. Given the carefully controlled conditions of this laboratory study, general- ization into the real world is uncertain. More research is necessary to ascertain whether gender-threatened men would be equally willing to endure pain in the context of more externally valid settings such as an athletic or medical environment. Moreover, it is likely that individuals vary in terms of their reactivity to gender- threatening contexts. As such, future studies should seek to inte- grate models of state processes by which men’s self-perceived gender role discrepancy impacts affective arousal and attendant behavior, with an understanding that trait differences and cultural context likely determine which men are particularly sensitive to gender threats and most inclined to respond by engaging in a stereotypic manner. Additionally, participants in this study were a relatively homogenous sample of men. Thus, caution should be exercised in generalizing findings outside the population of Cau- casian, high-school graduates, enrolled in a Southeastern U.S.

university. As such, the external validity of future studies would be further bolstered by the inclusion of a noncollegiate sample with a greater diversity across age, ethnicity, race, and class, particularly as these variables are relevant to the formation of contextual appraisals of gender in social interactions. Age in particular may inform the experience of gender role discrepancy, as evidence suggests that older men may be less sensitive to gender threat (Wills & DePaulo, 1991); as such future research may benefit from the inclusion of middle-aged and older men. Despite these limita- tions, the results of the present study provide interesting new data on the effects of self-evaluative cognitive processes on men’s engagement in stereotyped behavior beyond aggressive action tendencies. Taken as a whole, these data support continued study of masculinity as a socially driven cognitive-affective process embedded within the context of social interactions.

Above and beyond such immediate implications, the study find- ings also contribute to the larger goal of utilizing empirically informed theory to design intervention efforts aimed at the reduc- tion of men’s negative behavioral health outcomes. This laboratory model of precarious manhood supports the theory that men may engage in stereotyped masculine behavior as a means of regaining masculine status and ostensible control over interpersonal situa- tions associated with feelings of vulnerability and negative affect arousal, despite evidence that such behavior may fail to mitigate perceived gender role discrepancy. Thus, gender-threatened men are vulnerable to a self-perpetuating cycle of tenuous self- evaluation, negative affect, and ineffective strategies for resolving these experiences. As the dysregulated expression of negative affect has been identified as a core pathological process in PTSD (McFall, Fontana, Raskind, & Rosenheck, 1999), substance abuse (Foran & O’Leary, 2008), and depressive disorders (Pasquini, Picardi, Biondi, Gaetano, & Morosini, 2004), the current study also has significant translational applications to clinical contexts.

Although this study was explicitly designed to model the impact of 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. 67 GENDER THREAT, EMOTION ACTIVATION, AND PAIN men’s self-perception on public displays of stereotyped masculine behavior, it may also be possible for men to develop private, internal processes by which to regulate affect and associated action urges triggered by the perception of oneself as falling short of masculine norms. Such strategies may be of particular clinical relevance, as the help-seeking context of therapy itself is likely to elicit masculine discrepancy stress for some men (Addis & Ma- halik, 2003) thereby providing ample opportunity for clinicians to model alternative interpretations and reactions to gender-salient cues. As such, interventions designed to challenge norms about “real men” and bolster skills for managing challenging emotions and situational stressors may be an important focus for efforts aimed at reducing men’s negative behavioral health outcomes. References Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking.American Psychologist, 58,5–14.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0003-066X.58.1.5 Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960 –971.

Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Jr., Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. C. (2004). Violent video games: Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36,199 –249.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/S0065-2601(04)36004-1 Bernardes, S. F., Keogh, E., & Lima, M. L. (2008). Bridging the gap between pain and gender research: A selective literature review.Euro- pean Journal of Pain, 12,427– 440.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain .2007.08.007 Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20,82– 86.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402669 Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Arzu Wasti, S. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggres- sion.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35,623– 634.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331161 Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The effects of reward and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior.Psychological Science, 16,882– 889.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01632.x Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental social- ization of emotion expression: Gender differences and relations to child adjustment.Emotion, 5,80 – 88.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5 .1.80 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences(3rd ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress:

Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations.Behavior Modification, 11,123–136.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/01454455870112001 Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review.Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1222–1234.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.05.001 Fuchs, D., & Thelen, M. H. (1988). Children’s expected interpersonal consequences of communicating their affective state and reported like- lihood of expression.Child Development, 59,1314 –1322.http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/1130494 Gilmore, D. D. (1990).Manhood in the making. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Higgins, E., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different as- pects of depression and anxiety.Social Cognition, 3,51–76.http://dx .doi.org/10.1521/soco.1985.3.1.51 Hobara, M. (2005). Beliefs about appropriate pain behavior: Cross-cultural and sex differences between Japanese and Euro-Americans.European Journal of Pain, 9,389 –393.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2004.09 .006 Howe, P. (2001). An ethnography of pain and injury in professional rugby union: The case of Pontypridd RFC.International Review for the Soci- ology of Sport, 36,289 –303.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1012690010 36003003 Kimmel, M. S. (2006).Manhood in America: A cultural history(2nd ed.).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men.Professional Psychol- ogy: Research and Practice, 27, 259 –265.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0735-7028.27.3.259 McCaffery, M., & Ferrell, B. R. (1992). Do you know the value of a non-narcotic?Nursing, 22,48 –51.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00152193- 199210000-00018 McFall, M., Fontana, A., Raskind, M., & Rosenheck, R. (1999). Analysis of violent behavior in Vietnam combat veteran psychiatric inpatients with posttraumatic stress disorder.Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 501–517.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024771121189 Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). A review of the literature on masculinity and partner violence.Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 46 – 61.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.46 Nayak, S., Shiflett, S., Eshun, S., & Levine, F. (2000). Culture and gender effects in pain beliefs and the prediction of pain tolerance.Cross- Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 34, 135–151.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106939710003400203 O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing twenty-five years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications.The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 358 – 445.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057 Pasquini, M., Picardi, A., Biondi, M., Gaetano, P., & Morosini, P. (2004).

Relevance of anger and irritability in outpatients with major depressive disorder.Psychopathology, 37,155–160.http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/ 000079418 Pleck, J. H. (1976). The male sex role: Definitions, problems, and sources of change.Journal of Social Issues, 32,155–164.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02604.x Pleck, J. H. (1981).The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F.

Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.),A new psychology of men(pp. 11–32).

New York, NY: Basic Books.

Reidy, D. E., Berke, D. S., Gentile, B., & Zeichner, A. (2014). Man enough? Masculine discrepancy stress and intimate partner violence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 68,160 –164.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.021 Reidy, D. E., Smith-Darden, J. P., Cortina, K. S., Kernsmith, R. M., & Kernsmith, P. D. (2015). Masculine discrepancy stress, teen dating violence, and sexual violence perpetration among adolescent boys.Jour- nal of Adolescent Health, 56,619 – 624.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .jadohealth.2015.02.009 Robinson, M. E., Riley, J. L., III, Myers, C. D., Papas, R. K., Wise, E. A., Waxenberg, L. B., & Fillingim, R. B. (2001). Gender role expectations of pain: Relationship to sex differences in pain.The Journal of Pain, 2, 251–257.http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/jpai.2001.24551 Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance.Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,157–176. 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. 68 BERKE, REIDY, MILLER, AND ZEICHNER Rummell, C. M., & Levant, R. F. (2014). Masculine gender role discrep- ancy strain and self- esteem.Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 419 – 426.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035304 Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14,101–113.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/a0029826 Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,1325–1339.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012453 Weaver, J. R., Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., & Burnaford, R. M. (2010).

The proof is in the punch: Gender differences in perceptions of action and aggression as components of manhood.Sex Roles, 62,241–251.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9713-6 White, P., Young, K., & McTeer, W. (1995). Sport, masculinity, and theinjured body. In D. Sabo & D. F. Gordon (Eds.),Men’s health and illness: Gender, power, and the body(pp. 158 –182). London, UK: Sage.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243757.n8 Wills, T. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1991). Interpersonal analysis of the help-seeking process. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.),Handbook of social and clinical psychology(pp. 350 –375). New York, NY: Per- gamon Press.

Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain:

It depends on who is watching.Child Development, 67,957–973.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131873 Received July 26, 2015 Revision received December 9, 2015 Accepted January 5, 2016 Division 51 – Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity Please visit http://division51.net/join-division-51/join-division-51-now/ for complete member- ship information and to join.

Membership benefits include:

●Subscription to the Division journal,Psychology of Men and Masculinity; ●Networking opportunities with a diversity of people who share similar interests; ●Formal and informal avenues to provide mentoring; ●Opportunity to be recognized for scholarship, clinical practice, service, and leadership; ●Student members and early career professionals also may develop leadership skills through involvement in (1) the Division’s Interest Groups, (2) an elected position on the Division’s Board of Directors, and/or (3) the Research to Practice and Policy Leadership Development Institute.

●Venues for dialogue on clinical and scholarly issues relevant to men at (1)Division’s biennial Psychotherapy with Men Conference, (2) annual mid-year retreats, and (3) small group discussions facilitated by Division’s interest groups. 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. 69 GENDER THREAT, EMOTION ACTIVATION, AND PAIN