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

doi:10.1177/0146167220963665

. 2020 Oct 17;47(8):1223–1248. doi: 10.1177/0146167220963665

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 ^1,^2,^✉, Ayse K Uskul ^1,²

PMCID: PMC8258715 PMID: 33073729

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

As part of his penmanship and character training, 16-year-old George Washington had copied the quote “Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company” which was 1 of the 110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation originally composed by French Jesuits. Although, at first, this civility rule seems outdated, modern social psychological literature shows that striving to have a “good” reputation is a fundamental goal of humans, and one’s reputation can be damaged by the company they keep (Goffman, 1963; Pryor et al., 2012). But what makes a man of “good” quality? Although many traits can contribute to perceiving a man as of “good” quality, one salient trait of a “good” man across cultures is avoiding all things feminine (Gilmore, 1990; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Throughout the history, feminine men have been perceived as less valuable to traditional male coalitions due to lacking qualities such as strength, toughness, and courage (Winegard et al., 2016), and consequently often been targets of harassment, hate, ridicule, and social exclusion, especially by other men (Fone, 2000).

In the current research, we argue that Washington’s quote may hint at a mechanism that could drive certain expressions of anti-effeminacy bias. Specifically, we suggest that some men may be reluctant to befriend feminine men because of concerns that their reputation may be damaged by association with targets who lack traits valuable to masculine coalitions (e.g., strength, toughness, dominance). Importantly, we suggest that this mechanism of anti-effeminacy bias is likely to be amplified among men who are more sensitive to their own reputation (i.e., masculine honor-oriented men).

The Patterns of Anti-Effeminacy Bias and Contemporary Explanations

Ample research shows that people judge men more negatively than women for having gender nonconforming expressions, and it is especially other men who show negative bias against gender nonconforming men (e.g., Feinman, 1981; Herek, 2000; Horn, 2007; Kite & Whitley, 1996). Several accounts have been put forward to explain this pattern in anti-effeminacy bias. One account provided by the homosexual stigmatization hypothesis suggests that there is a stronger perceived link between gender roles and sexual orientation for men than for women: A man who deviates from gender role expectations is more likely to be considered a homosexual than a woman. Evidence for this hypothesis includes findings demonstrating that male targets presented as having traits and mannerisms associated with the other sex lead to stronger perception of them being homosexual, but no such difference is observed for female targets (Deaux & Lewis, 1984; Martin, 1990; McCreary, 1994). According to this hypothesis, men’s (vs. women’s) stronger anti-effeminacy bias is driven by their perception of gender nonconforming male (vs. female) targets as more likely to be homosexual (e.g., Bosson et al., 2005).

An alternative account proposed by the coalitional value theory (CVT) asserts that anti-effeminacy bias is due to perceiving feminine men as lacking traits that are beneficial to traditionally masculine coalitions such as strength, toughness, and dominance (Winegard et al., 2016). According to the CVT, a long evolutionary history of between-coalitional competition and combat endowed men with a suite of psychological propensities designed to successfully form and regulate coalitions. These evolved psychological propensities manifest in a tendency to inspect the coalitional value of potential partners, and prefer and reward those who possess traits and skills that increase the coalition’s success. Although not yet empirically tested, the CVT also states that women display anti-effeminacy bias less than do men because women have not faced the selective pressures of coalitional conflict, and thus have not evolved psychological tendencies to inspect and vet men’s coalitional value to the same extent as men (Winegard et al., 2016).

A number of studies provide support for the CVT account of anti-effeminacy bias. For example, Winegard et al. (2016) found that men perceived male targets as lacking traits valuable to masculine coalitions such as dominance, strength, and assertiveness, when these targets were presented as having feminine interests, but not when they were presented as gay. Moreover, men with feminine interests, but not gay men, were less preferred for masculine activities (e.g., football and soldiering), and these ratings were due to perceiving them as lacking masculine traits. Further support for the CVT account comes from studies showing that both heterosexual and gay men are more biased against feminine than masculine gay men (Glick et al., 2007; Hunt et al., 2016).

In the current research, we aimed to test the CVT and the homosexual stigmatization accounts by applying them to a particular expression of anti-effeminacy bias: friendship reluctance. We also aimed to extend the CVT account by examining whether men’s reluctance to befriend feminine targets is driven by concern with losing reputation by association with these targets. To substantiate our hypothesis, we turn to theory and research on reputation by association.

Reputation by Association Concerns

Effectively managing one’s reputation is crucial for survival because who gets to participate in cooperative coalitions depends on individuals’ reputation. Because bad reputation can block one’s prospects for cooperating with others, people strive to avoid reputation damage by attending to cues and situations that might put one’s reputation at risk and adjusting their actions to manage observers’ impressions (Sperber & Baumard, 2012).

Reputation can be damaged by a person’s own actions, but also by the company they keep (Pryor et al., 2012). For example, reputation-by-association effects have been documented to occur for stigmatized individuals (e.g., disabled, mentally unhealthy, or overweight individuals; Burk & Sher, 1990; Goldstein & Johnson, 1997; Hebl & Mannix, 2003). Of particular relevance, Sigelman et al. (1991) found that a man who voluntarily chooses to associate with a gay man (by choosing him as a roommate) is perceived as possessing many of the same traits associated with gay men, such as weak, unmanly, and passive. Similarly, Neuberg et al. (1994) found that people reported more discomfort in a social interaction with a heterosexual man after watching a videotape of this man interacting with a gay friend. Applying these findings to anti-effeminacy bias, we argue that men may avoid befriending feminine men (who are perceived as lacking value in stereotypically masculine tasks) because they may intuit that such an association could lead observers to make similar negative attributions and damage their own reputation.

Individual Differences in Masculine Honor Ideals

Many contextual and individual difference factors may magnify men’s bias against feminine men. Several studies showed that anti-effeminacy bias is stronger among men who belong to masculine coalitions or subcultures (e.g., contact sports teams, military, street gangs; Adams, 2013; Herek, 1993; Lingiardi et al., 2005) and who adhere to traditional norms of masculinity (e.g., Keiller, 2010; Wilkinson, 2004).

A related factor that may heighten anti-effeminacy bias may be individual differences in men’s masculine honor endorsement. Individual men differ in how much they believe masculine reputation is an important matter for a man’s identity, depending on their culture of origin, socialization, or predisposition (e.g., Saucier & McManus, 2014). Studies found that men who strongly adhere to masculine honor ideals tend to be more receptive to potential cues and situations that may threaten their reputation, respond to reputation threats more aggressively, and engage in more stereotypically masculine behaviors (e.g., building a muscular physique, participation in masculine sports, avoiding participation in activities such as childcare) to protect and maintain their reputation (Gul & Uskul, 2019; Saucier & McManus, 2014; Saucier et al., 2018; Saucier et al., 2016). Building on this research, we propose that men who strongly endorse masculine honor may be more reluctant to associate with targets lacking coalitional value in masculine activities as they may reflect negatively on their reputation.

The Present Research

Across three studies, we tested our proposed mechanism through which men express anti-effeminacy bias, focusing on friendship reluctance as a particular expression of it. Study 1 focused on testing our prediction based on the CVT account: Men’s reluctance to befriend feminine men is primarily driven by perceiving them as lacking coalitional value in traditionally masculine tasks, but not by perceiving them as homosexual, and that this relationship is amplified among perceivers who strongly endorse masculine honor ideals. Studies 2 and 3 extended the CVT account by focusing on reputation concerns, and tested the prediction that men’s reluctance to befriend feminine men is driven by concern with losing reputation by association with targets lacking coalitional value.

Following methods used by other researchers (e.g., Glick et al., 2007; Hunt et al., 2016), we asked participants to evaluate profiles describing a male target who has feminine or masculine gender expressions. We used different operationalization of “reluctance to befriend” by assessing likelihood of being friends (Study 1) and desire to be friends (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, in Studies 1 and 2, we recruited samples from two different cultures (United Kingdom and Turkey). A large body of literature suggests that Turkey has an “honor culture” with strong norms that emphasize the importance of reputation and traditional masculinity (e.g., Uskul & Cross, 2019), whereas the United Kingdom has a “dignity culture” with egalitarian gender roles and less focus on honor (e.g., Guerra et al., 2013; Gul & Uskul, 2019). We predicted that our proposed individual-level mechanism would hold similarly in both samples, with possibly larger effect sizes in the Turkish than the UK sample.

In Study 1, we also examined female perceivers and female targets. If men exhibit more anti-effeminacy bias than women because of facing the sex-specific selective pressures of coalitional conflict which have led to an evolved tendency to estimate male (not female) targets’ coalitional value and prefer to affiliate with those high on coalitional value (Winegard et al., 2016), then findings should not generalize to female perceivers or female targets. Finally, we aimed to rule out alternative explanations by testing whether our proposed anti-effeminacy bias explanation continues to hold after controlling men’s perceived similarity to targets and social dominance orientation (Studies 2 and 3). By simultaneously putting several accounts of anti-effeminacy bias to test, and extending the CVT view by focusing on reputation concerns and individual differences in masculine honor endorsement, our research contributes to understanding of how certain expressions of anti-effeminacy bias arise.

Study 1

In Study 1, we tested the prediction that men would perceive feminine (vs. masculine) male targets as lower on masculine coalitional value and report more reluctance to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) male targets, and that these differences would be more pronounced among high (vs. low) honor-oriented men. In addition, we tested the prediction based on the CVT account that men’s reluctance to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) male targets would be explained by perceiving these targets as lacking masculine coalitional value, rather than as homosexual. Finally, we examined the prediction that the associations observed with men and male targets would not generalize to female perceivers or to female targets.

Method

Participants

U. K. sample

Inputting a small effect size (β = .15) into G*Power determined a sample size of 344 at 80% power for a three-predictor multiple regression analysis. The recommended sample was increased by approximately 30% to allow for exclusions based on incomplete responses. Final data consisted of 446 students recruited from a British university and via Prolific Academic (238 women; M_age = 21.27, SD_age = 5.24; 72% self-reported as White British).

Turkey (TR) sample

We recruited 375 students from different universities across Turkey through social media (190 women; M_age = 24.07, SD_age = 4.15; 81% self-reported as Turkish).

Design and procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions in a 2 (target sex: male vs. female) × 2 (gender expression: feminine vs. masculine) between-subjects design. They read a profile of a target male or a female described as having either feminine or masculine interests (see Supplemental Material [SM] for the profiles, and see Table 1 for the n in each condition). After reading the profiles, participants indicated their perception of the target on several characteristics.

Table 1.

Overview of the Number of Participants Included in Each Condition and in Each Sample in Studies 1, 2, and 3.

	Male targets		Female targets
	Feminine	Masculine	Feminine	Masculine
Study 1 (U.K. sample)
Male participants	51	55	51	51
Female participants	61	58	59	60
Study 1 (TR sample)
Male participants	47	52	43	43
Female participants	47	42	51	50
Study 2 (U.K. sample)			–	–
Male participants	53	55	–	–
Study 2 (TR sample)			–	–
Male participants	56	68	–	–
Study 3 (U.K. sample)			–	–
Male participants	76	75	–	–

Open in a new tab

Note. Female participants and female targets were used only in Study 1.

Measures

Manipulation check for target’s gender expression

On a single item, participants rated their perception of the target as feminine or masculine (1 = extremely feminine, 5 = neither masculine nor feminine, 9 = extremely masculine).

Perceived coalitional value

Participants rated the target’s coalitional value in four masculine traits taken from Winegard et al. (2016) on 9-point bipolar scales: submissive–dominant, timid–tough, weak–strong, cowardly–courageous.

Likelihood of being friends

Participants rated two items asking how likely they would be friends with the target and how likely they would enjoy interacting with the target (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely).

Perceived homosexuality

On a single item, participants rated the likelihood of the target to be homosexual (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). Due to an oversight, this was measured only in the U.K. sample.

Masculine honor ideals

Participants completed the 16-item Honor Ideology for Manhood (HIM) scale by Barnes et al. (2012) which consists of eight statements tapping into the characteristics of what should define a “real men” (e.g., “a real man is seen as tough in the eyes of his peers”) and eight statements tapping into men’s right to demonstrate physical aggression for personal and reputational defense (e.g., “A man has the right to act with physical aggression toward another man who calls him an insulting name”; 1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). The HIM scale allows for measuring both men’s and women’s adherence to masculine honor ideals. Scores on the HIM scale did not differ between the conditions (all ts < 1).

Results

Table 2 presents bivariate correlations and scale reliabilities, and Table 3 presents means and standard deviations by target sex and gender expression in the U.K. and TR samples. Supplemental Table S1 presents measurement invariance tests of the HIM scale in the two samples.

Table 2.

Study 1: Bivariate Correlations by Target Sex and Target’s Gender Expression.

	Study 1 (U.K. sample)					Study 1 (TR sample)				Study 1 (U.K. sample)					Study 1 (TR sample)
	Male targets					Male targets				Female targets					Female targets
	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4
Feminine gender expression
1. Perceived masculinity–femininity^a	–	.30^**	.29^**	−.23^*	−.63^**	–	.35^**	.38^**	−.37^**	–	−.08	−.15	−.02	.14	–	.03	.05	.02
2. Perceived coalitional value^b		–	.55^**	−.18	.29^**		–	.34^**	−.35^**		–	.27^**	−.07	.25^**		–	.31^**	−.02
3. Likelihood of being friends^c			–	−.24^*	−.17			–	−.57^**			–	−.08	−.004			–	−.16
4. Masculine honor ideals^d				–	.32^**				–				–	.03				–
5. Perceived homosexuality^e					–									–
Masculine gender expression
1. Perceived masculinity–femininity^a	–	.47^**	.03	.06	−.36^**	–	.29^**	−.04	.01	–	.30^**	−.32^**	.20	.40^**	–	.12	−.14	.17
2. Perceived coalitional value^b		–	.27^**	−.15	−.10		–	−.06	.18		–	−.07	.09	.14		–	.01	.30^*
3. Likelihood of being friends^c			–	.03	.19			–	.10			–	−.05	−.35^**			–	−.12
4. Masculine honor ideals^d				–	−.18				–				–	−.001				–
5. Perceived homosexuality^e					–									–
Reliability (Cronbach’s α)^f	–	.77	.80	.95	–	–	.72	.76	.95	–	.81	.74	.94	–	–	.89	.80	.92

Open in a new tab

9-point scale (1 = extremely feminine, 9 = extremely masculine). ^b9-point bipolar scale (1 = extremely high, 9 = extremely low). ^c7-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). ^d9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). ^e7-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). ^fPearson’s r is given for the two-item likelihood of being friends scale.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3.

Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations by Participant Sex, Target Sex, and Target’s Gender Expression on Dependent Variables.

	Study 1 (U.K. sample)		Study 1 (TR sample)		Study 1(U.K. sample)		Study 1 (TR sample)
	Male targets		Male targets		Female targets		Female targets
	Feminine	Masculine	Feminine	Masculine	Feminine	Masculine	Feminine	Masculine
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Male participants
Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	3.41 (1.61)	7.08 (1.16)	3.89 (1.10)	6.40 (1.09)	2.78 (1.32)	5.78 (1.55)	3.10 (1.16)	5.29 (1.69)
Perceived coalitional value^b	4.89 (1.04)	6.30 (1.18)	5.27 (1.19)	6.09 (1.56)	5.76 (1.15)	6.72 (0.86)	5.61 (1.57)	6.69 (1.61)
Likelihood of being friends^c	4.33 (1.33)	4.47 (1.49)	5.22 (1.39)	5.44 (1.24)	4.58 (1.12)	4.93 (1.12)	5.66 (1.36)	5.65 (1.48)
Masculine honor ideals^d	4.25 (1.62)	4.11 (1.70)	5.76 (1.57)	5.28 (1.81)	4.54 (1.34)	4.49 (1.66)	5.38 (1.28)	5.30 (1.67)
Perceived homosexuality^e	5.07 (1.00)	3.72 (0.80)	–	–	3.94 (0.91)	4.00 (1.11)	–	–
Female participants
Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	3.37 (1.53)	7.17 (1.50)	4.13 (1.26)	6.52 (0.96)	2.32 (1.07)	5.97 (0.95)	3.42 (0.96)	5.09 (1.32)
Perceived coalitional value^b	5.76 (1.05)	6.49 (1.38)	5.80 (1.56)	5.80 (0.93)	5.28 (1.20)	6.92 (1.23)	5.66 (1.88)	5.62 (2.49)
Likelihood of being friends^c	4.96 (1.26)	4.41 (1.04)	6.26 (0.94)	5.98 (0.70)	4.53 (1.17)	4.58 (1.36)	5.85 (0.93)	6.22 (1.04)
Masculine honor ideals^d	4.09 (1.77)	3.87 (1.49)	3.68 (1.69)	4.31 (1.87)	3.74 (1.39)	3.83 (1.46)	3.71 (1.47)	3.81 (1.72)
Perceived homosexuality^e	5.00 (0.98)	3.54 (1.00)	–	–	3.48 (1.11)	4.21 (0.75)	–	–

Open in a new tab

Manipulation check for target’s gender expression

The feminine male and the feminine female targets were perceived as more feminine than the masculine male and the masculine female targets, respectively—U.K. sample: male targets: t(216) = 18.98, p < .001, d = 2.56; female targets: t(216) = 20.17, p < .001, d = 2.73; TR sample: male targets: t(180) = 14.86, p < .001, d = 2.20; female targets: t(176) = 9.82, p < .001, d = 1.47. Thus, the manipulation of target’s gender expression was successful.

Moderation by masculine honor ideals

First, we examined whether men perceive feminine (vs. masculine) male targets as lower on masculine coalitional value, more likely to be homosexual, and report more friendship reluctance, and whether these effects are contingent upon men’s endorsement of masculine honor ideals. Toward this end, we conducted a set of moderation analyses using PROCESS (Model 1; Hayes, 2018) by mean centering the predictors for the computation of the interaction term. We calculated bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with 10,000 bootstrap samples for the conditional effects. Model summaries and the conditional effects are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively, and Figure 1 presents the simple slopes at high and low levels of HIM.

Table 4.

Study 1: Model Summary for the Association Between Target’s Gender Expression (GE), Masculine Honor Ideals (HIM), the GE × HIM Interaction, and Outcome Variables for Men and Male Targets.

Predictors	Perceived coalitional value			Likelihood of being friends			Perceived homosexuality
Predictors	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Study 1 (U.K. sample)
GE	.68^***	.11	[0.45, 0.90]	.05	.14	[−0.22, 0.33]	−.67^***	.09	[−0.85, −0.49]
HIM	−.05	.07	[−0.19, 0.09]	−.15^†	.09	[−0.32, 0.02]	.08	.06	[−0.03, 0.19]
GE × HIM	.16^*	.07	[0.02, 0.31]	.25^**	.09	[0.08, 0.42]	−.14^*	.06	[−0.25, −0.03]
	R² = .32, F(3, 87) = 13.61, p < .001			R² = .12, F(3, 87) = 3.78, p = .013			R² = .42, F(3, 87) = 21.06, p = .001
Study 1 (TR sample)
GE	.38^*	.16	[0.07, 0.69]	−.03	.14	[−0.30, 0.24]	–	–	–
HIM	−.00	.09	[−0.18, 0.18]	−.14^†	.08	[−0.30, 0.02]	–	–	–
GE × HIM	.17	.09	[−0.02, 0.35]	.35^***	.08	[0.19, 0.51]	–	–	–
	R² = .11, F(3, 77) = 3.15, p = .029			R² = .20, F(3, 77) = 6.57, p = .0005

Open in a new tab

Note. Gender expression (feminine = −1, masculine = 1). Unstandardized coefficients are presented.

^†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5.

Study 1: Conditional Effects of Gender Expression on the Outcome Variables at Low Levels (M − 1 SD) and High Levels (M + 1 SD) of Masculine Honor Ideals (HIM) for Men and Male Targets.

	Perceived coalitional value			Likelihood of being friends			Perceived homosexuality
	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Study 1 (U.K. sample)
Low HIM	.41^*	.16	[0.08, 0.73]	−.36^†	.20	[−0.75, 0.04]	−.44	.13	[−0.70, −0.18]
High HIM	.94^***	.16	[0.62, 0.27]	.46^*	.20	[0.07, 0.85]	−.90	.13	[−1.16, −0.65]
Study 1 (TR sample)
Low HIM	.09	.23	[−0.36, 0.55]	−.63^**	.20	[−1.03, −0.23]	–	–	–
High HIM	.66^**	.22	[0.23, 1.10]	.57^**	.19	[0.19, .95]	–	–	–

Open in a new tab

Note. Gender expression (feminine = −1, masculine = 1). Unstandardized coefficients are presented.

^†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1. — Simple slopes of interaction effects for men with low levels (M − 1 SD) and high levels (*M +* 1 SD) of masculine honor ideals (HIM) on the outcome variables. Men’s endorsement of masculine honor ideals significantly moderated the effect of feminine (vs. masculine) gender expression on perceived coalitional value of the male targets (Panel A), likelihood of being friends with the male targets (Panel B), and perceived homosexuality of the male targets (Panel C).

Perceived coalitional value

In both samples, overall, men perceived feminine (vs. masculine) male targets as lower on masculine coalitional value. Conditional effects showed that in the U.K. sample, men with high HIM were more likely to perceive the feminine (vs. masculine) male target as lower on masculine coalitional value. This was also the case for men with low HIM, but the association was less strong. Similarly, in the TR sample, men with high HIM were more likely to perceive the feminine (vs. masculine) male target as lower on masculine coalitional value, but this was not the case for men with low HIM.

Likelihood of being friends

In both samples, men’s likelihood of friendship did not differ between the feminine versus masculine male target. Conditional effects showed that in the U.K. sample, men with high HIM were less likely to befriend the feminine (vs. masculine) male target, whereas men with low HIM were marginally less likely to befriend the masculine (vs. feminine) male target. Similarly, in the TR sample, men with high HIM were less likely to befriend the feminine (vs. masculine) male target, whereas men with low HIM were less likely to befriend the masculine (vs. feminine) male target.

Female perceivers and female targets

To test whether these associations observed are unique to men and their assessment of male targets, we conducted the same moderation analyses with women as perceivers and targets. Model summaries and conditional effects for women perceiving male targets (Supplemental Tables S2 and S3), men perceiving female targets (Supplemental Tables S4 and S5), and women perceiving female targets (Supplemental Tables S6 and S7) are presented in SM.

Regarding coalitional value, results showed that women perceived the feminine (vs. masculine) male and female targets as lower on masculine coalitional value only in the U.K. sample. Men perceived the feminine (vs. masculine) female targets as lower on masculine coalitional value in both the U.K. and TR samples. The interaction effect was significant only in the U.K. sample and only with regard to women’s perceived coalitional value of the male targets. But the pattern of this interaction effect was different from the pattern observed among men. Only women with low HIM were more likely to perceive the feminine (vs. masculine) male target as lower on coalitional value, and women with high HIM did not differ in their perception.

Regarding friendship, in both samples, women’s reluctance to befriend feminine versus masculine male targets did not differ, and neither men nor women differed in their reluctance to befriend feminine versus masculine female targets. None of the interaction effects were significant. In summary, anti-effeminacy bias expressed in the form of friendship reluctance was unique to men’s evaluations of male targets, and, as expected, did not generalize to women’s perception of female or male targets, or men’s perception of female targets.

Test of the coalitional value account

To test our prediction that men’s reluctance to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) male targets would be explained by perceiving them as lacking masculine coalitional value, and that this would be more pronounced for high (vs. low) honor-oriented men, we conducted a moderated mediation analysis using PROCESS (Hayes, 2018; Model 59). We calculated bias-corrected 95% CIs for direct and indirect effects with 10,000 bootstrap samples (see Figure 2 and Table 6 for results).

Table 6.

Tests of Conditional Indirect Effects of the Mediated Moderation Model Presented in Figure 2.

	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Study 1 (British men)
Low HIM	.22	.13	[0.02, 0.23]
High HIM	.40	.16	[0.06, 0.70]
Study 1 (Turkish men)
Low HIM	−.03	.07	[−18, 0.09]
High HIM	.19	.12	[0.001, 0.42]

Open in a new tab

Note. HIM = Masculine honor ideals.

In the U.K. sample, the indirect effect of feminine (vs. masculine) target via perceived masculine coalitional value on friendship reluctance was significant for men with high HIM and low HIM, albeit the indirect effect was stronger for men with high HIM. In the TR sample, the indirect effect of feminine (vs. masculine) target via perceived masculine coalitional value on friendship reluctance was significant only for men with high HIM. Thus, our predictions based on the coalitional value account were supported.

Test of the homosexual stigmatization account

Results revealed a significant interaction effect on friendship reluctance. However, the indirect effects of feminine (vs. masculine) gender expression via perceived homosexuality on friendship reluctance were nonsignificant for both men with high HIM, b = .08, SE = .21, CIs = [−0.36, 0.47], and men with low HIM, b = −.04, SE = .15, CIs = [−0.30, 0.28], indicating that the homosexual stigmatization account was not supported.

Discussion

Study 1 conducted using two different samples supported our predictions derived from the CVT account by showing that men perceived feminine (vs. masculine) male targets as lower on masculine coalitional value and reported more reluctance to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) male targets. As predicted, these differences were generally observed among high (but not low) honor-oriented men, who are more sensitive to reputational concerns. In addition, high honor-oriented men’s reluctance to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) male targets was explained by perceiving the feminine (vs. masculine) targets as lacking masculine coalitional value, but not by perceiving them as homosexual. Further supporting to the CVT account, these associations held only for men’s evaluation of male targets, but did not generalize to men’s perception of female targets, or women’s perception of male/female targets. Finally, high honor-oriented men, regardless of whether they are from an honor or a dignity culture, were generally more receptive to inspecting other men’s coalitional value and avoiding friendships with those whom they perceive as lacking it.

Study 2

The aim of Study 2 was to replicate Study 1 results obtained with men and male targets using new samples from the United Kingdom and Turkey, and to extend the CVT account by introducing reputation maintenance concerns in our model. Thus, Study 2 tested the prediction that perceived reputation loss by association with targets lacking masculine coalitional value should predict men’s reluctance to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) men.

What would observers think of a man if they see him associated with another man who holds feminine characteristics? This may depend on who the observers are because different observers would value different affordances in a man (Cottrell et al., 2007). The presence of observers would in turn create motives for the actor to possess the traits valued by those observers, and to intuitively develop alertness to his reputation for those valued traits (Sperber & Baumard, 2012). If men’s reluctance to befriend a feminine man is essentially a manifestation of psychological mechanisms designed to form and maintain coalitions, then a man should especially be concerned of how his male friends would perceive him if they saw him associated with a feminine man. However, a man’s unwillingness to befriend a feminine man may be driven by goals other than coalitional reasons. For instance, if the observers are women (i.e., potential sexual mates), a man’s unwillingness to be affiliated with a feminine target might be driven by reputation concerns aimed at maintaining his mate value. Alternatively, if the observers are outgroup members, this might activate reputation concerns for self-protection reasons. To test each of these possibilities, we varied the type of observers present in the situation, and asked participants to report how they think their male friends, stranger men, and stranger women would perceive them if they were seen interacting with a feminine (vs. masculine) man. We collected information on how this interaction would reflect on participants’ reputation in terms of prestige, manliness, and attractiveness in the eyes of these different observers.

In addition, we aimed to rule out key alternative explanations of our findings. First, given that people prefer being friends with whom they perceive to have similar traits and interests (e.g., Montoya et al., 2008), lack of similarity may be an alternative factor that can explain honor-oriented men’s reluctance to befriend feminine targets. Moreover, social dominance orientation theory claims that many forms of intergroup biases are partly explained by individuals’ tendency to support dominance hierarchies among social groups (Pratto et al., 1994). Thus, preference for attributing an inferior group status to feminine men may be another alternative explanation for honor-oriented men’s reluctance to befriend feminine men. To rule out these alternative explanations, we examined whether our proposed mechanism of anti-effeminacy bias continues to hold after controlling for men’s perceived similarity to targets and social dominance orientation.

Method

Participants

U. K. sample

Inputting the interaction effect size obtained on the key outcome variable (friendship reluctance) from Study 1 (β = .25) into G*Power determined a sample size of 101 at .80 power. The recommended sample was increased by approximately 20% to allow for exclusions based on incomplete responses and attention check failures. We recruited 123 men living in the United Kingdom via Prolific Academic. Fifteen participants who failed to pass attention checks were excluded, leaving data from 108 men used in analyses (M_age = 23.73, SD_age = 4.80; 86% White British/European ethnicity).

Turkey (TR) sample

We recruited 136 men in Turkey through social media. Fourteen participants who failed to pass attention checks were excluded, leaving data from 122 men used in analyses (M_age = 28.09, SD_age = 5.75; 85% Turkish ethnicity).

Design and procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to read a profile of either a masculine or a feminine male target (see Table 1 for the n in each condition). To strengthen the gender expression of the target in scenarios, we made slight changes to the profiles used in Study 1 by including a few more hobby items and a description regarding the target’s appearance (see Horn, 2007 and SM for the profiles).

Measures

Manipulation check for target’s gender expression

The same item was used as in Study 1.

Perceived coalitional value

Because the traits used in Study 1 could be interpreted in ways that may not reflect value in traditionally masculine tasks (e.g., can be seen tough or fearless to wear pink), in this study, we restricted the assessment of coalitional value to items that emphasize physical features. We also changed the measurement scale from a bipolar scale to a unipolar scale to make the task less cognitively taxing by communicating to participants of only one category (e.g., strong) rather than two categories (e.g., strong and weak; see Gannon & Ostrom, 1996). Participants rated five items (1 = not at all, 7 = very much), asking how physically competent, physically capable, physically skilled, physically strong, and courageous they perceive the target. The items were averaged to form a measure of perceived coalitional value of the targets.

Perceived reputation loss by association

We generated multiple items which assessed participants’ ratings of how prestigious their male friends, how manly male strangers, and how attractive female strangers would find them if they were observed interacting with the target (1 = not at all/very unlikely, 7 = very much/very likely).

A factor analysis using an orthogonal rotation was conducted on these items to simplify the data analysis and eliminate the problem of multicollinearity in our mediation analyses. Results revealed a clear three-factor solution that accounted for 72.74%/75.31% in the U.K./TR sample. Five items measuring perceived loss of manliness (e.g., “How likely would other men watching the two of you get the impression that you are weak?”) loaded on the first factor (loadings ≥.756/.783 in the U.K./TR sample), five items measuring perceived loss of prestige (e.g., “How popular would your male friends find the two of you?”; reverse coded) loaded on the second factor (loadings ≥.624/.787 in the U.K./TR sample), and two items measuring perceived loss of attractiveness (e.g., “How likely would women watching the two of you find you attractive?”; reverse coded) loaded on the third factor (loadings ≥.804/.854 in the U.K./TR sample). The scores on these items were averaged to create measures of loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends, loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers, and loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers, respectively.

Desire to be friends

Participants rated nine items such as “how much they would like to be friends with the target?” and “how much they would like to interact with the target?” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Items were averaged to form a measure of desire to be friends.

Perceived similarity

Participants rated how much overlap they perceive between themselves and the target using the 7-point Inclusion of the Other in Self Scale (IOSS; Aron, Aron et al., 1992). We also asked how similar participants perceive themselves to the target (1 = not similar at all, 7 = extremely similar). These two items were highly correlated and averaged to create a measure of perceived similarity.

Perceived homosexuality

The same one item was used as in Study 1.

Masculine honor ideals

This was measured using the HIM scale as in Study 1. Participants’ scores did not differ between the conditions (t < 1).

Social dominance orientation

Participants completed the 4-item version of the Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale (Pratto et al., 2013) using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Removing one item (“we should not push for equality between groups”) in the TR sample significantly increased internal consistency. Participants’ scores did not differ between the conditions (t < 1).

Results and Discussion

Table 7 (U.K. and TR samples) presents bivariate correlations and scale reliabilities. Table 8 presents means and standard deviations by target’s gender expression in both samples. Degrees of freedom varied due to missing values in the TR sample (minimum df = 95).

Table 7.

Study 2 (U.K. Sample): Bivariate Correlations by Target’s Gender Expression.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Study 2 (U.K. sample)
Feminine gender expression
1. Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	–	−.57^**	.22	.32^*	−.21	−.37^**	.20	.28^*	.16	−.38^**
2. Perceived homosexuality^b		–	−.10	−.20	−.01	.12	−.36^**	−.24	−.14	.37^**
3. Perceived coalitional value^c			–	.43^**	−.52^**	−.01	−.04	−.01	−.26	−.28^*
4. Desire to be friends^b				–	−.70^**	.03	.07	.38^**	.03	−.53^**
5. Loss of prestige reputation in the eyes of male friends^d					–	.10	.05	−.34^*	.06	.35^*
6. Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers^e						–	.15	−.02	−.03	.12
7. Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers^e							–	−.02	.13	−.35^*
8. Perceived similarity^f								–	.15	−.34^*
9. Social dominance orientation^g									–	.03
10. Masculine honor ideals^h										–
Masculine gender expression
1. Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	–	−.06	.30^*	.00	.11	−.05	−.07	−.04	.19	.27^*
2. Perceived homosexuality^b		–	−.17	.02	−.03	.30^*	.08	−.05	−.43^**	−.11
3. Perceived coalitional value^c			–	.25	−.29^*	.05	−.10	.14	.03	.18
4. Desire to be friends^b				–	−.71^**	−.23	−.49^**	.77^**	−.09	.20
5. Loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends^d					–	.16	.50^**	−.68^**	.06	−.32^*
6. Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers^e						–	.03	−.34^*	−.10	−.18
7. Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers^e							–	−.36^**	−.17	−.47^**
8. Perceived similarity^f								–	.02	.26
9. Social dominance orientation^g									–	.23
10. Masculine honor ideals^h										–
Reliability (Cronbach’s α/Pearson’s r)	–	–	.88	.97	.90	.92	.82	.86	.72	.95
Study 2 (TR sample)
Feminine gender expression
1. Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	–	−.49^**	.21	.40^**	−.32^*	−.20	−.06	.48^**	−.05	−.44^**
2. Perceived homosexuality^b		–	−.27	−.39^**	.31^*	.27^*	.26	−.42^**	.01	.31^*
3. Perceived coalitional value^c			–	.56^**	−.59^**	.05	−.31^*	.41^**	−.52^**	−.36^*
4. Desire to be friends^b				–	−.61^**	.11	−.42^**	.65^**	−.29^*	−.49^**
5. Loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends^d					–	.05	.53^**	−.45^**	.09	.51^**
6. Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers^e						–	.15	.06	−.22	−.00
7. Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers^e							–	−.30^*	.02	.15
8. Perceived similarity^f								–	−.35^**	−.42^*
9. Social dominance orientation^g									–	.17
10. Masculine honor ideals^h										–
Masculine gender expression
1. Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	–	.05	.29^*	.05	−.09	.31^*	.20	−.16	−.04	.21
2. Perceived homosexuality^b		–	.22	.03	−.07	.30^*	.25^*	−.19	−.06	−.27^*
3. Perceived coalitional value^c			–	.15	−.13	.21	.28^*	−.16	−.13	.01
4. Desire to be friends^b				–	−.54^**	−.19	−.12	.45^**	−.06	.15
5. Loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends^d					–	−.12	.14	−.34^**	−.02	.13
6. Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers^e						–	.40^**	−.43^**	.11	−.30^*
7. Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers^e							–	−.43^**	−.14	−.01
8. Perceived similarity^f								–	.13	.18
9. Social dominance orientation^g									–	.06
10. Masculine honor ideals^h
Reliability (Cronbach’s α/Pearson’s r)	–	–	.87	.97	.93	.93	.85	.74	.67	.94

Open in a new tab

Note. For the two-item scales (self-perceived attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers and perceived similarity), reliability is given as Pearson’s r. For the rest of the multiple item scales, reliability is given as Cronbach’s α.

9-point scale (1 = extremely feminine, 9 = extremely masculine). ^b7-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). ^c7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very). ^d7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). ^e7-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). ^f7-point scale. ^g7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). ^h9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree).

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 8.

Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Masculine and Feminine Male Targets on Dependent Variables.

	Study 2 (U.K. sample)		Study 2 (TR sample)
	Masculine target	Feminine target	Masculine target	Feminine target
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	7.80 (0.70)	3.47 (1.28)	7.16 (1.01)	4.09 (1.00)
Perceived homosexuality^b	3.13 (1.12)	4.70 (1.05)	3.27 (1.32)	4.38 (1.41)
Perceived coalitional value^c	5.43 (0.74)	3.89 (0.96)	4.91 (0.87)	4.36 (1.31)
Desire to be friends^b	4.48 (1.47)	3.98 (1.19)	3.67 (1.37)	4.47 (1.51)
Loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends^d	3.63 (1.30)	4.16 (1.15)	3.96 (1.38)	4.63 (1.50)
Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers^e	2.33 (1.15)	3.50 (1.41)	2.33 (1.47)	3.08 (1.67)
Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers^e	4.35 (1.42)	4.42 (1.22)	4.18 (1.41)	3.79 (1.41)
Perceived similarity^f	3.58 (1.44)	2.37 (0.92)	2.90 (1.28)	2.50 (1.07)
Social dominance orientation^g	1.97 (0.85)	2.06 (0.99)	2.27 (1.35)	2.33 (1.20)
Masculine honor ideals^h	4.38 (1.60)	4.63 (1.87)	5.18 (1.70)	5.31 (1.94)

Open in a new tab

9-point scale (1 = extremely feminine, 9 = extremely masculine). ^b 7-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). ^c 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very). ^d 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). ^e 7-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). ^f 7-point scale. ^g 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). ^h 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree).

Manipulation check for target’s gender expression

Feminine target was perceived as significantly more feminine than the masculine target—U.K. sample: t(106) = 21.88, p < .001, d = 4.20; TR sample: t(118) = 16.69, p < .001, d = 3.05—indicating that the manipulation of target’s gender expression was successful.

Moderation by masculine honor ideals

A set of moderation analysis were conducted as in Study 1. Model summaries and conditional effects are presented in Tables 9 and 10, and simple slopes at high and low levels of HIM are presented in Figure 3. We conducted another set of moderation analysis controlling for perceived similarity and SDO (see results in Supplemental Tables S8a–b and Supplemental Figure S1).

Table 9.

Study 2: Model Summary for the Association Between Target’s Gender Expression (GE), Masculine Honor Ideals (HIM), the GE × HIM Interaction, and Outcome Variables.

Predictors	Perceived coalitional value			Desire to be friends			Perceived homosexuality			Loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends			Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers			Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers
Predictors	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Study 2 (U.K. sample)
GE	.76^***	.08	[0.60, 0.92]	.27^*	.11	[0.05, 0.49]	−.78^***	.10	[−0.98, −0.57]	−.27^*	.11	[−0.49, −0.05]	−.58^***	.12	[−0.83, −0.34]	−.08	.12	[−0.31, 0.15]
HIM	−.03	.05	[−0.12, 0.07]	.03	.07	[−0.10, 0.16]	.06	.06	[−0.06, −0.18]	−.03	.07	[−0.16, 0.10]	−.02	.07	[−0.17, 0.12]	−.33^***	.07	[−0.46, −0.19]
GE × HIM	.11^*	.05	[0.02, 0.21]	.24^***	.06	[0.11, 0.37]	−.14^*	.06	[−0.26, −0.02]	−.24^***	.06	[−0.37, −0.11]	−.11	.07	[−0.26, 0.03]	−.10	.07	[−0.23, 0.04]
	R² = .48, F(3, 104) = 32.36,p < .001			R² = .16, F(3, 104) = 6.66,p < .001			R² = .39, F(3, 104) = 22.39, p < .001			R² = .15, F(3, 104) = 6.21, p < .001			R² = .19, F(3, 104) = 8.22, p < .001			R² = .18, F(3, 104) = 7.73, p < .001
Study 2 (TR sample)
GE	.27^*	.11	[0.05, 0.48]	−.41^**	.12	[−0.66, −0.17]	−.55^***	.12	[−0.79, −0.31]	−.32^*	.12	[−0.56, −0.08]	−.38^**	.14	[−0.66, −0.10]	.20	.13	[−0.06, 0.45]
HIM	−.11^†	.06	[−0.23, 0.00]	−.11	.07	[−0.25, 0.03]	−.01	.07	[−0.14, 0.12]	.24^***	.07	[0.11, 0.38]	−.14^†	.08	[−0.30, 0.02]	.05	.07	[−0.10, 0.19]
GE × HIM	.12^*	.06	[0.01, 0.24]	.25^***	.07	[0.11, 0.39]	−.22^**	.07	[−0.35, −0.08]	−.14^*	.07	[−0.28, −0.01]	−.13	.08	[−0.28, 0.03]	−.06	.07	[−0.20, 0.09]
	R² = .14, F(3, 95) = 5.25,p = .002			R² = .20, F(3, 116) = 9.43,p < .001			R² = .21, F(3, 116) = 10.54, p < .001			R² = .19, F(3, 116) = 8.90, p < .001			R² = .10, F(3, 116) = 4.06, p = .009			R² = .03, F(3, 116) = 1.12, p = .343

Open in a new tab

Note. Gender expression (feminine = −1, masculine = 1). Unstandardized coefficients are presented.

^†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 10.

Study 2: Conditional Effects of Gender Expression on the Outcome Variables at Low (M − 1 SD) and High Levels (M + 1 SD) of Masculine Honor Ideals (HIM).

	Perceived coalitional value			Desire to be friends			Perceived homosexuality			Loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends			Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers			Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers
	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Study 2 (U.K. sample)
Low HIM	.57^***	.11	[0.34, 0.79]	−.21	.17	[−0.55, 0.13]	−.53^***	.14	[−0.82, −0.24]	.14	.16	[−0.17, 0.46]	−.39^*	.18	[−0.74, −0.04]	.09	.17	[−0.24, 0.41]
High HIM	.96^***	.12	[0.73, 1.19]	.69^***	.17	[0.34, 1.03]	−.1.03^***	.15	[−1.32, −0.74]	−.68^***	.16	[−1.00, −0.36]	−.78^***	.18	[−1.13, −0.43]	−.25	.17	[−0.58, 0.08]
Study 2 (TR sample)
Low HIM	.04	.15	[−0.26, 0.34]	−.87^***	.18	[−1.21, −0.52]	−.16	.17	[−0.50, 0.18]	−.06	.17	[−0.40, 0.29]	−.15	.20	[−0.55, 0.25]	.30	.18	[−0.07, 0.66]
High HIM	.49^**	.15	[0.19, 0.80]	.04	.18	[−0.31, 0.39]	−.94^***	.17	[−0.1.28, −0.61]	−.58^**	.17	[−0.92, −0.23]	−.61^**	.20	[−1.01, −0.22]	.10	.18	[−0.27, 0.46]

Open in a new tab

Note. Gender expression (feminine = −1, masculine = 1). Unstandardized coefficients are presented.

p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.

Figure 3. — Panel A = Study 2 (U.K. men), Panel B = Study 2 (TR men). Simple slopes of interaction effects on the outcome variables for men with low levels (M − 1 SD) and high levels (*M +* 1 SD) of masculine honor ideals (HIM).

Perceived coalitional value

In both samples, men perceived feminine (vs. masculine) targets as lower on masculine coalitional value. Conditional effects showed that in the U.K. sample, men with high HIM perceived the feminine (vs. masculine) target as lower on masculine coalitional value. This was also the case for men with low HIM, but the association was less strong. Similarly, in the TR sample, men with high HIM perceived the feminine (vs. masculine) target as lower on masculine coalitional value, but this was not the case for men with low HIM. These results replicated Study 1. When similarity and SDO were controlled, the patterns of conditional effects in both samples remained unchanged.

Desire to be friends

In the U.K. sample, men reported lower desire to be friends with the feminine (vs. masculine) target. But, surprisingly, in the TR sample, men reported higher desire to be friends with the feminine (vs. masculine) target. Conditional effects showed that in the U.K. sample, men with high HIM reported lower desire to be friends with the feminine (vs. masculine) target, whereas men with low HIM did not differ. In the TR sample, men with low HIM reported more desire to be friends with the feminine (vs. masculine) target, but men with high HIM did not differ. When similarity and SDO were controlled, the conditional effects showed the same patterns in the TR sample, but in the U.K. sample, the conditional effect became nonsignificant for men with high HIM.¹

Loss of prestige among male friends

In both samples, men perceived that being associated with feminine (vs. masculine) targets would lower their own prestige among male friends. Conditional effects showed the same trend in both samples: Only men with high HIM perceived that being associated with feminine (vs. masculine) targets would decrease their own prestige in the eyes of male friends. When perceived similarity and SDO were controlled, conditional effects showed the same patterns in the TR sample, but in the U.K. sample, the conditional effect for men with high HIM became nonsignificant.

Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers

In both samples, men thought that being associated with feminine (vs. masculine) targets would make them seem less manly in the eyes of male strangers. HIM did not moderate this effect.

Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers

Main and interaction effects were nonsignificant in both samples.

Test of the coalitional value account

To test our predictions that men’s reluctance to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) targets is due to perceiving them as lacking masculine coalitional value, and that this should be more pronounced for high (than low) honor-oriented men, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted as in Study 1 (see Figure 4 and Table 11 for the results). The indirect effect of feminine (vs. masculine) target via perceived coalitional value on desire to be friends was significant only for men with high HIM, but not for men with low HIM. This was the case in both samples. The conditional indirect effects remained unchanged when similarity and SDO were controlled.

Table 11.

Tests of Conditional Indirect Effects of the Mediated Moderation Model Presented in Figure 4.

	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Without control variables
Study 2 (U.K. men)
Low HIM	.18	.13	[−0.09, 0.43]
High HIM	.45	.18	[0.08, 0.80]
Study 2 (TR men)
Low HIM	.01	.04	[−0.08, 0.09]
High HIM	.29	.13	[0.08, 0.58]
With control variables
Study 2 (U.K. men)
Low HIM	.24	.12	[−0.01, 0.45]
High HIM	.33	.17	[0.01, 0.69]
Study 2 (TR men)
Low HIM	.01	.03	[−0.04, 0.08]
High HIM	.22	.11	[0.05, 0.47]

Open in a new tab

Note. The control variables were perceived similarity, social dominance orientation (SDO), and their interaction. HIM = Masculine honor ideals.

Test of the reputation by association account

Next, we tested an extension of the coalitional value account by introducing reputation concerns to the above model. We tested whether men’s reluctance to befriend a feminine (vs. masculine) target is due to men’s perceived reputation loss by association with targets lacking coalitional value, and whether this is more pronounced among high (than low) honor-oriented men. Toward this end, a moderated serial mediation analysis was conducted using PROCESS (Hayes, 2018; Model 92). We calculated bias-corrected 95% CIs for direct and indirect effects with 10,000 bootstrap samples. We conducted this analysis three times, each time entering one of the three reputation concern variables as a second mediator—perceived loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends, loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers, and loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers—and tested for a serial indirect effect. The serial indirect effect was significant only via perceived loss of prestige among male friends (see Figure 5 and Table 12 for the results). For the sake of brevity, we report the results only for this variable.

Table 12.

Tests of Conditional Indirect Effects of the Mediated Moderation Model Presented in Figure 5.

	Simple mediation via perceived coalitional value			Simple mediation via lossof prestige in the eyesof male friends			Serial mediation via perceived coalitional value ⇒ loss of prestige in the eyes of male friends
	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Without control variables
Study 2 (U.K. men)
Low HIM	.05	.09	[−0.12, 0.24]	−.22	.13	[−0.48, 0.03]	.13	.09	[−0.03, 0.30]
High HIM	−.01	.16	[−0.36, 0.27]	.01	.19	[−0.41, 0.31]	.46	.17	[0.18, 0.84]
Study 2 (TR men)
Low HIM	.004	.03	[−0.06, 0.07]	.06	.08	[−0.11, 0.20]	.004	.02	[−0.04, 0.04]
High HIM	.13	.11	[−0.04, 0.40]	.17	.11	[−0.04, 0.40]	.15	.07	[0.03, 0.32]
With control variables
Study 2 (U.K. men)
Low HIM	.16	.10	[−0.04, 0.37]	−.19	.10	[−0.37, 0.001]	.08	.05	[−0.02, 0.19]
High HIM	.02	.15	[−0.30, 0.31]	−.16	.14	[−0.49, 0.06]	.29	.13	[0.10, 0.60]
Study 2 (TR men)
Low HIM	.03	.01	[−0.04, 0.09]	.03	.04	[−0.07, 0.10]	.00	.01	[−0.02, 0.03]
High HIM	.08	.09	[−0.05, 0.31]	.04	.11	[−0.18, 0.26]	.13	.02	[0.07, 0.28]

Open in a new tab

Note. The control variables were perceived similarity, social dominance orientation (SDO), and their interaction with gender expression. HIM = Masculine honor ideals.

As expected, in both samples, the serial indirect effect of feminine (vs. masculine) target on desire to be friends via perceived masculine coalitional value and perceived loss of prestige was significant only for men with high HIM. The simple indirect effects via perceived masculine coalitional value and via perceived loss of prestige were nonsignificant. For men with low HIM, the serial and simple indirect effects were all nonsignificant. These patterns of results remained the same when similarity and SDO were controlled in the model.

Test of the homosexual stigmatization account

We found a significant interaction effect on desire to be friends in both the U.K. and TR samples. However, replicating Study 1 results, the indirect effects of feminine (vs. masculine) target via perceived homosexuality on desire to be friends were nonsignificant for both men with high HIM (U.K. sample: b = .14, SE = .16, CIs = [−0.10, 0.56], TR sample: b = .11, SE = .14, CIs = [−0.15, 0.43]) and men with low HIM (U.K. sample: b = −.20, SE = .13, CIs = [−0.47, 0.02], TR sample: b = .01, SE = .03, CIs = [−0.04, 0.09]). When similarity and SDO were controlled in the model, the pattern of results remained unchanged.

Discussion

Overall, Study 2 replicated Study 1 results and provided additional support for our prediction derived from the coalitional value hypothesis by showing that men’s lower desire to befriend a feminine (vs. masculine) man was explained by perceiving him as lower on masculine coalitional value, but not by perceiving him as homosexual. Furthermore, this process only applied to high honor-oriented men, and held beyond perceiving the feminine man as dissimilar to oneself or a preference for maintaining a dominant group status in society.

Study 2 unexpectedly revealed that high honor-oriented men were not more reluctant to befriend a feminine man than a masculine man in the Turkish sample. This nonsignificant finding may be due to the changes that were introduced to the scenarios which provided more information regarding the appearance of the targets to strengthen the gender expression manipulation. These changes may have caused Turkish participants to perceive the feminine target as more likable.² We should note, however, findings of the mediation analysis supported the coalitional value account in this sample, too.

Furthermore, results extended the coalitional value account, by showing that high honor-oriented men’s lower desire to befriend feminine (vs. masculine) targets was driven by perceived loss of reputation by association with targets lacking masculine coalitional value. This reputation concern was specific to a desire to maintain prestige among one’s ingroup members (i.e., male friends), rather than manliness or attractiveness in the eyes of outgroup members or women. Thus, high honor-oriented men were concerned about their own reputation as an ingroup coalitional partner, but not as a mate or an outgroup rival.

Study 3

Results from Studies 1 and 2 provided support for the coalitional value account, and Study 2 extended this account by demonstrating how reputation concern through social connections and coalitions can manifest as reluctance to befriend feminine men. However, inferences based on Studies 1 and 2 might be limited by two aspects of our design. First, these studies used an indirect measure of reputation loss which focused on participants’ ratings of the extent to which their male friends would be willing to socialize with them and the target and enjoy interacting with both of them. Although these items (e.g., thinking one’s friends would not be willing to join them) can imply a loss of reputation, they do not directly measure the perception that one’s own individual reputation may be affected if one was seen socializing with a feminine target. Second, we used a limited operationalization of coalitional value by adopting only a subset of the items from Winegard et al. (2016), and left out a wide range of masculine traits and abilities (e.g., assertive, risk-taker, ability in football, ability as soldier). We sought to address these limitations in Study 3, this time collecting data from a U.K. sample only. To do so, we used a more direct operationalization of reputation loss by adding items that tapped into loss of one’s own dominance, status, and prestige, and a broader operationalization of coalitional value which included a variety of traits and abilities beneficial to traditionally masculine tasks, as well as those that are not necessarily beneficial to masculine traits (e.g., ability in poetry, chess, business). We expected that high honor-oriented men’s friendship reluctance would be driven by perceiving the target as lacking coalitional value in traditionally masculine tasks, but not by perceiving the target as lacking value in nonmasculine tasks.

Method

Participants

We relied on the results obtained from the power and sample size calculation done in Study 2. Of 158 males recruited through Prolific Academic, 7 who failed to pass attention check items were excluded, leaving data from 151 participants for analysis (M_age = 37.76 years, SD_age = 13.15; 100% White British/European).

Design, procedure, and measures

The design, procedure, and measures were the same as in Study 2, except several differences in the scales which we reported below.

Perceived coalitional value

This was measured with 15 trait and skill items (10 adopted from Winegard et al., 2016, and extra 5 of our own). Twelve items tapped into value in traditionally masculine tasks (e.g., ability to lift weights, ability as soldier) and three items tapped into value in nonmasculine tasks (ability in business, chess, poetry). A maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblique rotation revealed a two-factor solution that accounted for 53.15% of the variance. Ten of the masculine coalitional value items loaded together under a single factor (loadings from .53 to .86) with cross-loadings below .30. Thus, these items were averaged to form a measure of masculine coalitional value. The three nonmasculine coalitional value items loaded under a second factor (loadings from .52 to .59) with high cross-loadings (above .40). These three items were thus analyzed separately.

Perceived reputation loss by association

Following previous research (Gul & Uskul, 2019), we used six items to measure the extent to which participants think their male friends would admire them, be impressed by them, and be respectful of them, as well as how dominant, prestigious, and high status they would feel among their male friends if they were seen interacting with the target (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). A maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblique rotation revealed a clear single-factor solution (loadings from .60 to .91). Items were reverse coded and averaged to form a measure of perceived reputation loss.

Desire to be friends

Six items from Study 2 were used to measure this construct.

Perceived similarity

This was measured with the one-item IOSS (Aron et al., 1992).

Results and Discussion

Table 13 presents bivariate correlations and scale reliabilities, and Table 14 presents means and standard deviations by target’s gender expression. Results were analyzed as in Study 2. Model summaries and conditional effects are presented in Table 15, and simple slopes are presented in Figure 6. All results controlling for perceived similarity and SDO are presented in SM (see Supplemental Tables S9a–b and Supplemental Figure S2). In short, results showed that HIM moderated the effects of feminine (masculine) targets on the outcome variables in expected directions, replicating the results of Studies 1 and 2.

Table 13.

Study 3 (U.K. Sample): Bivariate Correlations by Target’s Gender Expression.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Feminine gender expression
1. Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	–	−.47^**	.45^**	.42^**	−.36^**	.25^*	−.13	−.17	−.23^*
2. Perceived homosexuality^b		–	−.26^*	−.13	.32^**	−.08	.26^*	.32^**	.36^**
3. Perceived coalitional value^c			–	.45^**	−.37^**	.39^**	−.24^*	−.48^**	−.39^**
4. Desire to be friends^d				–	−.41^**	.48^**	−.10	−.19	−.01
5. Perceived reputation loss^d					–	−.13	.01	.26^*	.32^**
6. Perceived similarity^e						–	−.27^*	−.27^*	−.22
7. Social dominance orientation^f							–	.40^**	.33^**
8. Masculine honor ideals^g								–	.64
9. Masculine honor values^h									–
Masculine gender expression
1. Perceived femininity–masculinity^a	–	−.34^**	.49^**	.08	−.05	.19	−.15	−.01	.16
2. Perceived homosexuality^b		–	−.21	−.30^**	.11	−.34^**	.10	−.04	.00
3. Perceived coalitional value^c			–	.18	−.16	.14	−.29^*	.06	−.03
4. Desire to be friends^d				–	−.36^**	.61^**	−.27^*	.19	−.01
5. Perceived reputation loss^d					–	−.15	.17	.01	.03
6. Perceived similarity^e						–	−.20	.14	.04
7. Social dominance orientation^f							–	.34^**	.26^*
8. Masculine honor ideals^g								–	.52^**
9. Masculine honor values^h									–
Reliability (Cronbach’s α)	–	–	.92	.96	.92	–	.83	.94	.91

Open in a new tab

9-point scale (1 = extremely feminine, 9 = extremely masculine). ^b 7-point bipolar scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). ^c 7-point bipolar scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). ^d 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). ^e 7-point scale. ^f 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). ^g 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). ^h 7-point bipolar scale (1 = not at all bad, 7 = very bad).

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 14.

Study 3: Means and Standard Deviations for Masculine and Feminine Male Targets on Dependent Variables.

	Masculine target	Feminine target
	M (SD)	M (SD)
Perceived masculinity–femininity^a	7.59 (0.96)	3.23 (1.29)
Perceived homosexuality^b	3.01 (1.18)	5.04 (1.29)
Perceived coalitional value^c	4.84 (0.66)	3.01 (0.92)
Desire to be friends^d	4.04 (1.25)	3.48 (1.26)
Perceived reputation loss^d	4.67 (1.06)	4.72 (1.19)
Perceived similarity^e	3.46 (1.44)	2.11 (1.06)
Social dominance orientation^f	2.32 (1.47)	2.33 (1.13)
Masculine honor ideals^g	4.83 (1.56)	4.67 (1.61)
Masculine honor values^h	3.50 (1.38)	3.30 (1.43)

Open in a new tab

Table 15.

Study 3: Model Summary for the Association Between Target’s Gender Expression (GE), Masculine Honor Ideals (HIM), the GE × HIM Interaction, and Outcome Variables, and Conditional Effects of GE on the Outcome Variables at Low Levels (M − 1 SD) and High Levels (M + 1 SD) of HIM.

Predictors	Perceived coalitional value			Desire to be friends			Perceived homosexuality			Perceived reputation loss
Predictors	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
GE	.93^***	.06	[0.81, 1.05]	.28^**	.10	[0.08, 0.48]	−1.02^***	.10	[−1.22, −0.83]	−.03	.09	[−0.21, 0.15]
HIM	−.12^**	.04	[−0.20, −0.05]	.002	.06	[−0.12, 0.13]	.11^†	.06	[−0.01, 0.23]	.10	.06	[−0.02, 0.21]
GE × HIM	.15^***	.05	[0.08, 0.23]	.15^*	.06	[0.02, 0.28]	−.14^*	.06	[−0.27, −0.02]	−.09	.06	[−0.20, 0.02]
	R² = .64, F(3, 147) = 86.18,p < .001			R² = .08, F(3, 147) = 4.37,p = .006			R² = .44, F(3, 146) = 37.95,p < .001			R² = .04, F(3, 147) = 1.86,p = .139
Low HIM	.69^***	.09	[0.52, 0.86]	.04	.14	[−0.24, 0.32]	−.80^***	.14	[−1.07, −0.52]	.11	.13	[−0.14, 0.36]
High HIM	1.17^***	.09	[1.00, 1.33]	.52^***	.14	[0.23, 0.80]	−1.25^***	.14	[−1.52, −0.97]	−.17	.13	[−0.43, 0.08]

Open in a new tab

Note. Gender expression (feminine = −1, masculine = 1). Unstandardized coefficients are presented.

^†

p < .10. ^*p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

Figure 6. — Study 3 (U.K. men): Simple slopes of interaction effects on the outcome variables for men with low levels (M − 1 SD) and high levels (*M +* 1 SD) of masculine honor ideals (HIM).

Test of the homosexual stigmatization account

Unlike in Studies 1 and 2, we found a significant indirect effect of feminine (vs. masculine) gender expression via perceived homosexuality on desire to be friends for men with high HIM, b = .49, SE = .17, CIs = [0.13, 0.80], but not for men with low HIM, b = −.07, SE = .11, CIs = [−0.27, 0.19]. Given that perceived homosexuality explained high honor-oriented men’s lower desire to befriend a feminine target, we controlled this variable in our test of the coalitional value and reputation by association accounts.

Test of the coalitional value account

Figure 7 and Table 16 display the direct and indirect effects, respectively. The indirect effect of feminine (vs. masculine) target via perceived masculine coalitional value on desire to be friends was significant for men with high HIM, but not for men with low HIM. The indirect effect remained significant for men with high HIM after controlling for perceived homosexuality, similarity, and SDO.

Table 16.

Study 3 (U.K. Men): Tests of Conditional Indirect Effects of the Mediated Moderation Model Presented in Figure 7.

	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Without control variables
Low HIM	.13	.11	[–0.12, 0.32]
High HIM	.99	.22	[0.57, 1.42]
With control variables
Low HIM	.05	.09	[−0.19, 0.17]
High HIM	.49	.17	[0.17, 0.83]

Open in a new tab

Note. The control variables were perceived homosexuality, perceived similarity, social dominance orientation (SDO), and their interaction with gender expression. HIM = Masculine honor ideals.

Next, we examined whether men’s friendship reluctance is also driven by perceived lack of coalitional value in nonmasculine tasks. As expected, neither men with high HIM or low HIM perceived feminine (vs. masculine) targets as having lower ability in business or in chess (bs < −.16; ps > .24). In fact, feminine (vs. masculine) target was perceived as more able in poetry by both high and low HIM men (bs > −.53, ps < .001). Furthermore, the indirect effects of feminine (vs. masculine) target on desire to be friends via each of these items were nonsignificant for men with high or low HIM (ability in business: b = −.06, SE = .06, CIs = [−0.19, 0.06] for high HIM, b = −.01, SE = .02, CIs = [−0.06, 0.04] for low HIM; ability in chess: b = .01, SE = .03, CIs = [−0.06, 0.06] for high HIM, b = .00, SE = .02, CIs = [−0.04, 0.05] for low HIM; ability in poetry: b = −.11, SE = .15, CIs = [−0.45, 0.15] for high HIM, b = −.14, SE = .08, CIs = [−0.30, 0.01] for low HIM). Overall, these results suggest that expression of anti-effeminacy bias is driven by perceiving feminine men as lacking traits valuable to traditionally masculine coalitions, not by perceiving them as lacking traits valuable to other types of coalitions.

Test of the reputation by association account

Figure 8 and Table 17 present the direct and indirect effects, respectively. As expected, for men with high HIM, the serial indirect effect of feminine (vs. masculine) target on desire to be friends via perceived masculine coalitional value and perceived reputation loss was significant. The simple indirect effects via perceived masculine coalitional value and via perceived reputation loss were also significant. For men with low HIM, the serial and the simple indirect effects were all nonsignificant. These patterns of results remained the same when perceived homosexuality, similarity, and SDO were controlled in the model (except simple indirect effect via coalitional value became nonsignificant for men with high HIM). Thus, these results replicated Study 2, and presented additional evidence for the reputation management for coalitional reasons as a mechanism through which men express anti-effeminacy bias.

Table 17.

Tests of Conditional Indirect Effects of the Mediated Moderation Model Presented in Figure 8.

	Simple mediation via perceived coalitional value			Simple mediation via reputation loss in the eyes of male friends			Serial mediation via perceived coalitional value ⇒ reputation loss in the eyes of male friends
	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Without control variables
Low HIM	.12	.11	[−0.12, 0.31]	−.05	.05	[−0.15, 0.03]	.01	.03	[−0.05, 0.08]
High HIM	.72	.24	[0.23, 0.27]	−.20	.12	[−0.46, −0.02]	.28	.11	[0.09, 0.53]
With control variables
Low HIM	.04	.09	[−0.18, 0.16]	−.09	.07	[−0.25, 0.01]	.009	.03	[−0.04, 0.07]
High HIM	.30	.19	[−0.09, 0.65]	−.22	.13	[−0.53, −0.03]	.19	.11	[0.04, 0.45]

Open in a new tab

Note. The control variables were perceived similarity, perceived homosexuality, social dominance orientation (SDO), and their interaction with gender expression. HIM = Masculine honor ideals.

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.

Supplemental Material

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

Click here for additional data file.^{(169.6KB, docx)}

Supplemental material, Gul_Online_Appendix for An Alternative Account of Anti-Effeminacy Bias: Reputation Concerns and Lack of Coalitional Value Explain Honor-Oriented Men’s Reluctance to Befriend Feminine Men by Pelin Gul and Ayse K. Uskul in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SupMaterials_PSPB_02September2020 – Supplemental material for An Alternative Account of Anti-Effeminacy Bias: Reputation Concerns and Lack of Coalitional Value Explain Honor-Oriented Men’s Reluctance to Befriend Feminine Men

Click here for additional data file.^{(121.8KB, docx)}

Supplemental material, SupMaterials_PSPB_02September2020 for An Alternative Account of Anti-Effeminacy Bias: Reputation Concerns and Lack of Coalitional Value Explain Honor-Oriented Men’s Reluctance to Befriend Feminine Men by Pelin Gul and Ayse K. Uskul in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Tom R. Kupfer and Robbie Sutton for their generous feedback, as well as the associate editor and the anonymous reviewers of this article for their helpful comments and suggestions.

^1.

The friendship desire measure includes items that reflect friendship as a private matter (e.g., “how much would you like to be friends with the target”), and items that reflect it as a social network construct (e.g., how much would you like to socialize with the target?). Results from both the U.K. and TR samples with the private and social network clusters revealed the same patterns of results.

^2.

Despite the high Honor Ideology for Manhood (HIM) scores in the Turkish sample (an honor culture) to begin with, when breaking down participants into high versus low HIM, we found the predicted pattern of results regarding anti-effeminacy bias. This may be due to pluralistic ignorance, where one’s own private attitudes are believed to differ from the collective, even if one’s behavior does not (Vandello et al., 2008).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD: Pelin Gul Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1856-2744

Supplemental Material: Supplemental material is available online with this article.

References

Adams M. L. (2013). No taste for rough-and-tumble play: Sport discourses, the DSM, and the regulation of effeminacy. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 19, 515–543. 10.1215/10642684-2279906 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Aron A., Aron E. N., Smollan D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. 10.1037//0022-3514.63.4.596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Barnes C. D., Brown R. P., Osterman L. L. (2012). Don’t tread on me: Masculine honor ideology in the U.S. and militant responses terrorism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1018–1029. 10.1177/0146167212443383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bosson J. K., Prewitt-Freilino J. L., Taylor J. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552–565. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bosson J. K., Weaver J. R., Caswell T. A., Burnaford R. M. (2012). Gender threats and men’s antigay behaviors: The harmful effects of asserting heterosexuality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 471–486. 10.1177/1368430211432893 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Burk J. P., Sher K. J. (1990). Labeling the child of an alcoholic: Negative stereotyping by mental health professionals and peers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 156–163. 10.1037/e338582004-001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cottrell C. A., Neuberg S. L., Li N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A socio-functional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208–231. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Deaux K., Lewis L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. 10.1037//0022-3514.46.5.991 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Feinman S. (1981). Why is cross-sex-role behavior more approved for girls than for boys? A status characteristic approach. Sex Roles, 7, 289–300. 10.1007/bf00287543 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Filip-Crawford G., Neuberg S. L. (2016). Homosexuality and pro-gay ideology as pathogens? Implications of a disease-spread lay model for understanding anti-gay behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 332–364. 10.1177/1088868315601613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Fone B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. Henry Holt. [Google Scholar]
Gannon K. M., Ostrom T. M. (1996). How meaning is given to rating scales: The effects of response language on category activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 337–360. 10.1006/jesp.1996.0016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Gilmore D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
Glick P., Gangl C., Gibb S., Klumpner S., Weinberg E. (2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 55–59. 10.1007/s11199-007-9195-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Goffman E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Touchstone. [Google Scholar]
Goldstein S. B., Johnson V. A. (1997). Stigma by association: Perceptions of the dating partners of college students with physical disabilities. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 495–504. 10.1207/s15324834basp1904_6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Guerra V. M., Giner-Sorolla R., Vasiljevic M. (2013). The importance of honor concerns across eight countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 298–318. 10.1177/1368430212463451 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Gul P., Uskul A. K. (2019). Men’s perceptions and emotional responses to becoming a caregiver father: The role of individual differences in masculine honor ideals and reputation concerns. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1442. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hayes A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
Hebl M. R., Mannix L. M. (2003). The weight of obesity in evaluating others: A mere proximity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 28–38. 10.1177/0146167202238369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Herek G. M. (1993). Sexual orientation and military service: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 48, 538–549. 10.1037//0003-066x.48.5.538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Herek G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251–266. 10.1111/0022-4537.00164 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Horn S. S. (2007). Adolescents’ acceptance of same-sex peers based on sexual orientation and gender expression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 373–373. 10.1007/s10964-007-9176-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hunt C. J., Fasoli F., Carnaghi A., Cadinu M. (2016). Masculine self-presentation and distancing from femininity in gay men: An experimental examination of the role of masculinity threat. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17, 108–112. 10.1037/a0039545 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Keiller S. W. (2010). Masculine norms as correlates of heterosexual men’s attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 38–52. 10.1037/a0017540 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Kite M. E., Whitley B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. 10.1177/0146167296224002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Lingiardi V., Falanga S., D’augelli A. R. (2005). The evaluation of homophobia in an Italian sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 81–93. 10.1007/s10508-005-1002-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Martin C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151–166. 10.1007/bf00288188 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
McCreary D. R. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 517–531. 10.1007/bf01544277 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Montoya R. M., Horton R. S., Kirchner J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. 10.1177/0265407508096700 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Moss-Racusin C. A., Phelan J. E., Rudman L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 140–151. 10.1037/a0018093 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Neuberg S. L., Smith D. M., Hoffman J. C., Russell F. J. (1994). When we observe stigmatized and “normal” individuals interacting: Stigma by association. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 196–209. 10.1177/0146167294202007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Pratto F., Cidam A., Stewart A. L., Zeineddine F. B., Aranda M., Aiello A., … Henkel K. E. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 587–599. 10.1177/1948550612473663 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Pratto F., Sidanius J., Stallworth L. M., Malle B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. 10.1037//0022-3514.67.4.741 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Pryor J. B., Reeder G. D., Monroe A. E. (2012). The infection of bad company: Stigma by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 224–241. 10.1037/a0026270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Saucier D. A., McManus J. L. (2014). Men of honor: Examining individual differences in masculine honor beliefs. In Gelfer J. (Ed.), Masculinities in a global era (pp. 85–100). Springer. [Google Scholar]
Saucier D. A., O’Dea C. J., Stratmoen E. (2018). Hard targets: Masculine honor beliefs and motivations for muscularity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 547–559. 10.1037/men0000133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Saucier D. A., Stanford A. J., Miller S. S., Martens A. L., Miller A. K., Jones T. L., McManus J. L., Burns M. D. (2016). Masculine honor beliefs: Measurement and correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 7–15. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Shackelford T. K. (2005). An evolutionary psychological perspective on cultures of honor. Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 381–391. 10.1177/147470490500300126 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Sigelman C. K., Howell J. L., Cornell D. P., Cutright J. D., Dewey J. C. (1991). Courtesy stigma: The social implications of associating with a gay person. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 45–56. 10.1080/00224545.1991.9713823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sperber D., Baumard N. (2012). Moral reputation: An evolutionary and cognitive perspective. Mind & Language, 27, 495–518. 10.1111/mila.12000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Thompson E. H., Pleck J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. 10.1177/000276486029005003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Uskul A. K., Cross S. E. (2019). The social and cultural psychology of honour: What have we learned from researching honour in Turkey? European Review of Social Psychology, 30, 39–73. 10.1080/10463283.2018.1542903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Vandello J. A., Cohen D., Ransom S. (2008). U.S. southern and northern differences in perceptions of norms about aggression. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 162–177. 10.1177/0022022107313862 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Wilkinson W. W. (2004). Authoritarian hegemony, dimensions of masculinity, and male antigay attitudes. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 121–131. 10.1037/15249220.5.2.121 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Winegard B., Reynolds T., Baumeister R. F., Plant E. A. (2016). Coalitional value theory of anti-gay bias. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 10, 245–269. 10.1037/ebs0000077 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file.^{(169.6KB, docx)}

Click here for additional data file.^{(121.8KB, docx)}

[bibr1-0146167220963665] Adams M. L. (2013). No taste for rough-and-tumble play: Sport discourses, the DSM, and the regulation of effeminacy. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 19, 515–543. 10.1215/10642684-2279906 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr2-0146167220963665] Aron A., Aron E. N., Smollan D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. 10.1037//0022-3514.63.4.596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr3-0146167220963665] Barnes C. D., Brown R. P., Osterman L. L. (2012). Don’t tread on me: Masculine honor ideology in the U.S. and militant responses terrorism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1018–1029. 10.1177/0146167212443383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr4-0146167220963665] Bosson J. K., Prewitt-Freilino J. L., Taylor J. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552–565. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr5-0146167220963665] Bosson J. K., Weaver J. R., Caswell T. A., Burnaford R. M. (2012). Gender threats and men’s antigay behaviors: The harmful effects of asserting heterosexuality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 471–486. 10.1177/1368430211432893 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr6-0146167220963665] Burk J. P., Sher K. J. (1990). Labeling the child of an alcoholic: Negative stereotyping by mental health professionals and peers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 156–163. 10.1037/e338582004-001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr7-0146167220963665] Cottrell C. A., Neuberg S. L., Li N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A socio-functional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208–231. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr8-0146167220963665] Deaux K., Lewis L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. 10.1037//0022-3514.46.5.991 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr9-0146167220963665] Feinman S. (1981). Why is cross-sex-role behavior more approved for girls than for boys? A status characteristic approach. Sex Roles, 7, 289–300. 10.1007/bf00287543 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr10-0146167220963665] Filip-Crawford G., Neuberg S. L. (2016). Homosexuality and pro-gay ideology as pathogens? Implications of a disease-spread lay model for understanding anti-gay behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 332–364. 10.1177/1088868315601613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr11-0146167220963665] Fone B. (2000). Homophobia: A history. Henry Holt. [Google Scholar]

[bibr12-0146167220963665] Gannon K. M., Ostrom T. M. (1996). How meaning is given to rating scales: The effects of response language on category activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 337–360. 10.1006/jesp.1996.0016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr13-0146167220963665] Gilmore D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]

[bibr14-0146167220963665] Glick P., Gangl C., Gibb S., Klumpner S., Weinberg E. (2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 55–59. 10.1007/s11199-007-9195-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr15-0146167220963665] Goffman E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Touchstone. [Google Scholar]

[bibr16-0146167220963665] Goldstein S. B., Johnson V. A. (1997). Stigma by association: Perceptions of the dating partners of college students with physical disabilities. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 495–504. 10.1207/s15324834basp1904_6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr17-0146167220963665] Guerra V. M., Giner-Sorolla R., Vasiljevic M. (2013). The importance of honor concerns across eight countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 298–318. 10.1177/1368430212463451 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr18-0146167220963665] Gul P., Uskul A. K. (2019). Men’s perceptions and emotional responses to becoming a caregiver father: The role of individual differences in masculine honor ideals and reputation concerns. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1442. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr19-0146167220963665] Hayes A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]

[bibr20-0146167220963665] Hebl M. R., Mannix L. M. (2003). The weight of obesity in evaluating others: A mere proximity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 28–38. 10.1177/0146167202238369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr21-0146167220963665] Herek G. M. (1993). Sexual orientation and military service: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 48, 538–549. 10.1037//0003-066x.48.5.538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr22-0146167220963665] Herek G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251–266. 10.1111/0022-4537.00164 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr23-0146167220963665] Horn S. S. (2007). Adolescents’ acceptance of same-sex peers based on sexual orientation and gender expression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 373–373. 10.1007/s10964-007-9176-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr24-0146167220963665] Hunt C. J., Fasoli F., Carnaghi A., Cadinu M. (2016). Masculine self-presentation and distancing from femininity in gay men: An experimental examination of the role of masculinity threat. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17, 108–112. 10.1037/a0039545 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr25-0146167220963665] Keiller S. W. (2010). Masculine norms as correlates of heterosexual men’s attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 38–52. 10.1037/a0017540 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr26-0146167220963665] Kite M. E., Whitley B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. 10.1177/0146167296224002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr27-0146167220963665] Lingiardi V., Falanga S., D’augelli A. R. (2005). The evaluation of homophobia in an Italian sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 81–93. 10.1007/s10508-005-1002-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr28-0146167220963665] Martin C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151–166. 10.1007/bf00288188 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr29-0146167220963665] McCreary D. R. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 517–531. 10.1007/bf01544277 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr30-0146167220963665] Montoya R. M., Horton R. S., Kirchner J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. 10.1177/0265407508096700 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr31-0146167220963665] Moss-Racusin C. A., Phelan J. E., Rudman L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 140–151. 10.1037/a0018093 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr32-0146167220963665] Neuberg S. L., Smith D. M., Hoffman J. C., Russell F. J. (1994). When we observe stigmatized and “normal” individuals interacting: Stigma by association. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 196–209. 10.1177/0146167294202007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr33-0146167220963665] Pratto F., Cidam A., Stewart A. L., Zeineddine F. B., Aranda M., Aiello A., … Henkel K. E. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 587–599. 10.1177/1948550612473663 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr34-0146167220963665] Pratto F., Sidanius J., Stallworth L. M., Malle B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. 10.1037//0022-3514.67.4.741 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr35-0146167220963665] Pryor J. B., Reeder G. D., Monroe A. E. (2012). The infection of bad company: Stigma by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 224–241. 10.1037/a0026270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr36-0146167220963665] Saucier D. A., McManus J. L. (2014). Men of honor: Examining individual differences in masculine honor beliefs. In Gelfer J. (Ed.), Masculinities in a global era (pp. 85–100). Springer. [Google Scholar]

[bibr37-0146167220963665] Saucier D. A., O’Dea C. J., Stratmoen E. (2018). Hard targets: Masculine honor beliefs and motivations for muscularity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 547–559. 10.1037/men0000133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr38-0146167220963665] Saucier D. A., Stanford A. J., Miller S. S., Martens A. L., Miller A. K., Jones T. L., McManus J. L., Burns M. D. (2016). Masculine honor beliefs: Measurement and correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 7–15. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr39-0146167220963665] Shackelford T. K. (2005). An evolutionary psychological perspective on cultures of honor. Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 381–391. 10.1177/147470490500300126 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr40-0146167220963665] Sigelman C. K., Howell J. L., Cornell D. P., Cutright J. D., Dewey J. C. (1991). Courtesy stigma: The social implications of associating with a gay person. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 45–56. 10.1080/00224545.1991.9713823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bibr41-0146167220963665] Sperber D., Baumard N. (2012). Moral reputation: An evolutionary and cognitive perspective. Mind & Language, 27, 495–518. 10.1111/mila.12000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr42-0146167220963665] Thompson E. H., Pleck J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. 10.1177/000276486029005003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr43-0146167220963665] Uskul A. K., Cross S. E. (2019). The social and cultural psychology of honour: What have we learned from researching honour in Turkey? European Review of Social Psychology, 30, 39–73. 10.1080/10463283.2018.1542903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr44-0146167220963665] Vandello J. A., Cohen D., Ransom S. (2008). U.S. southern and northern differences in perceptions of norms about aggression. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 162–177. 10.1177/0022022107313862 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr45-0146167220963665] Wilkinson W. W. (2004). Authoritarian hegemony, dimensions of masculinity, and male antigay attitudes. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 121–131. 10.1037/15249220.5.2.121 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bibr46-0146167220963665] Winegard B., Reynolds T., Baumeister R. F., Plant E. A. (2016). Coalitional value theory of anti-gay bias. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 10, 245–269. 10.1037/ebs0000077 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

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

Abstract

The Patterns of Anti-Effeminacy Bias and Contemporary Explanations

Reputation by Association Concerns

Individual Differences in Masculine Honor Ideals

The Present Research

Study 1

Method

Participants

U. K. sample

Turkey (TR) sample

Design and procedure

Table 1.

Measures

Manipulation check for target’s gender expression

Perceived coalitional value

Likelihood of being friends

Perceived homosexuality

Masculine honor ideals

Results

Table 2.

Table 3.

Manipulation check for target’s gender expression

Moderation by masculine honor ideals

Table 4.

Table 5.

Figure 1.

Perceived coalitional value

Likelihood of being friends

Female perceivers and female targets

Test of the coalitional value account

Figure 2.

Table 6.

Test of the homosexual stigmatization account

Discussion

Study 2

Method

Participants

U. K. sample

Turkey (TR) sample

Design and procedure

Measures

Manipulation check for target’s gender expression

Perceived coalitional value

Perceived reputation loss by association

Desire to be friends

Perceived similarity

Perceived homosexuality

Masculine honor ideals

Social dominance orientation

Results and Discussion

Table 7.

Table 8.

Manipulation check for target’s gender expression

Moderation by masculine honor ideals

Table 9.

Table 10.

Figure 3.

Perceived coalitional value

Desire to be friends

Loss of prestige among male friends

Loss of manliness in the eyes of male strangers

Loss of attractiveness in the eyes of female strangers

Test of the coalitional value account

Figure 4.

Table 11.

Test of the reputation by association account

Figure 5.

Table 12.

Test of the homosexual stigmatization account

Discussion

Study 3

Method

Participants

Design, procedure, and measures

Perceived coalitional value

Perceived reputation loss by association