Sex Roles

pp 1–14

Restoring Threatened Masculinity: The Appeal of Sexist and Anti-Gay Humor

  • Emma C. O’Connor
  • Thomas E. Ford
  • Noely C. Banos
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

We propose that men scoring higher in precarious manhood beliefs (PMB) express amusement with sexist and anti-gay humor (but not other forms of humor) in response to masculinity threat in order to reaffirm their masculinity. Accordingly, Experiment 1 (166 heterosexual men in the United States recruited through Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk) supported the hypothesis that men higher in PMB express greater amusement with sexist and anti-gay jokes after experiencing a threat to their masculinity but not in the absence of masculinity threat. Also, the significant positive relationship between PMB and amusement following a masculinity threat was unique to the sexist and anti-gay jokes; it did not emerge for anti-Muslim and neutral jokes. Experiment 2 (221 heterosexual men in the United States recruited through Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk) extended the findings of Experiment 1, supporting the hypothesis that, following a masculinity threat, men higher in PMB express amusement with sexist and anti-gay humor because they believe it reaffirms their masculinity. Thus, our findings suggest that sexist and anti-gay humor serve a self-affirming function for men who possess higher PMB in situations that threaten one’s masculinity. By uncovering a novel psychological function of sexist and anti-gay humor in social settings, we hope the present research will lead to better understandings of the kinds of situations that foster its occurrence and ultimately to strategies for preventing it.

Keywords

Masculinity Sexual prejudice Humor Precarious manhood Gender identity Humor 

References

  1. Abrams, J. R., Bippus, A. M., & McGaughey, K. J. (2015). Gender disparaging jokes: An investigation of sexist-nonstereotypical jokes on funniness, typicality, and the moderating role of ingroup identification. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 311–326. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1131583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelone, D. J., Hirschman, R., Suniga, S., Armey, M., & Armelie, A. (2005). The influence of peer interactions on sexually oriented joke telling. Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 187–199. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1294-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attardo, S. (1993). Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case of jokes. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 537–558. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90111-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, K. (1994). To be PC or not to be? A social psychological inquiry into political correctness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 271–281.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. L. (1974). Measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bill, B., & Naus, P. (1992). The role of humor in the interpretation of sexist incidents. Sex Roles, 27, 645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosson, J., Prewitt-Freilino, J., & Taylor, J. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552–565. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourhis, R. Y., Gadfield, N. J., Giles, H., & Tajfel, H. (1977). Context and ethnic humour in intergroup relations. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing, humor (pp. 261–265). Elmsford: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buck, D., Plant, E. A., Ratcliff, J., Zielaskowski, K., & Boerner, P. (2013). Concern over the misidentification of sexual orientation: Social contagion and the avoidance of sexual minorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 941–960. doi:10.1037/a0034145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cascio, J., & Plant, E. A. (2016). Judged by the company you keep? Exposure to nonprejudiced norms reduces concerns about being misidentified as gay/lesbian. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1164–1176. doi:10.1177/0146167216652858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–789. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770 .
  13. Dahl, J. L., Vescio, T. K., & Weaver, K. S. (2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially cause public discomfort, anger and ideological dominance over women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 242–254. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson, M. A., & Ford, T. E. (2008). Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 21(3), 283–312. doi:10.1515/HUMOR.2008.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1094–1107. doi:10.1177/01461672002611006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford, T. E., Boxer, C., Armstrong, J., & Edel, J. (2008). More than “just a joke”: The prejudice- releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 159–170. doi:10.1177/0146167207310022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ford, T. E., Woodzicka, J. A., Triplett, S. R., Kochersberger, A. O., & Holden, C. J. (2014). Not all groups are equal: Differential vulnerability of social groups to the prejudice-releasing effects of disparagement humor. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17(2), 178–199. doi:10.1177/1368430213502558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9195-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Govorun, O., Fuegen, K., & Payne, B. K. (2006). Stereotypes focus defensive projection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 781–793. doi:10.1177/0146167205285556.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gray, J. A., & Ford, T. E. (2013). The role of social context in the interpretation of sexist humor. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 26(2), 277–293. doi:10.1515/humor-2013-0017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men’s and women’s reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 341–350. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gruber, J. E., & Bjorn, L. (1986). Women’s responses to sexual harassment: An analysis of sociocultural, organizational, and personal resource models. Social Science Quarterly, 67, 814–826.Google Scholar
  24. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper] . Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.
  25. Hemmasi, M., Graf, L. A., & Russ, G. S. (1994). Gender related jokes in the workplace: Sexual humor or sexual harassment? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1114–1128. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb02376.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodson, G., & MacInnis, C. C. (2016). Derogating humor as a delegitimization strategy in intergroup contexts. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2, 63–74. doi:10.1037/tps0000052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Husband, C. (1977). The mass media and the functions of ethnic humor in a racist society. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humor (pp. 267–272). Oxford: Pergamon. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-021376-7.50051-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaschik, S. (2016, February 29). When a joke isn’t funny: Online group of scholars of planning and geography divided over one professor’s sexist humor – And how others reacted to it. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/29/sexist-joke-leads-debate-and-118-resignations-academic-listserv-planning-and. Accessed 15 July 2016.
  29. Johnson, A. M. (1990). The “only joking” defense: Attribution bias or impression management? Psychological Reports, 67, 1051–1056. doi:10.2466/PR0.67.7.1051-1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2010). Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings. Health Sociological Review, 19, 451–464. doi:10.5172/hesr.2010.19.4.451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kehily, M. J., & Nayak, A. (1997). Lads and laughter: Humor and the production of heterosexual hierarchies. Gender and Education, 9, 69–87. doi:10.1080/09540259721466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kroeper, K., Sanchez, D., & Himmelstein, M. (2014). Heterosexual men’s confrontation of sexual prejudice: The role of precarious manhood. Sex Roles, 70, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0306-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levant, R. (2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. American Psychology, 66(8), 765–776. doi:10.1037/a0025034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maas, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853–870. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mailer, N. (1966). Cannibals and Christians. New York: The Dial Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mallett, R. K., Ford, T. E., & Woodzicka, J. A. (2016). What did he mean by that? Humor decreases attributions of sexism and confrontation of sexist jokes. Sex Roles, 75, 272–284. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0605-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Montemurro, B. (2003). Not a laughing matter sexual harassment as “material” on workplace-based situation comedies. Sex Roles, 48(9–10), 443–445. doi:10.1023/A:1023578528629.Google Scholar
  38. Montemurro, B., & Benfield, J. A. (2015). Hung out to dry: Use and consequences of disparagement humor on American idol. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 229–252. doi:10.1515/humor-2015-0022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Netchaeva, E., Kouchaki, M., & Sheppard, D. (2015). A man’s (precarious) place: Men’s experienced threat and self-assertive reactions to female superiors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1247–1259. doi:10.1177/0146167215593491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pryor, J. B. (1995). The phenomenology of sexual harassment: Why does sexual behavior bother people in the workplace? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 47, 160–168. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.47.3.160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siebler, F., Sabelus, S., & Bohner, G. (2008). A refined computer harassment paradigm: Validation, and test of hypotheses about target characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1), 22–35. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00404.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Thomae, M., & Pina, A. (2015). Sexist humour and social identity: The role of sexist humour in men’s ingroup cohesion, sexual harassment, rape proclivity and victim blame. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 187–204. doi:10.1515/humor-2015-0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas, C. A., & Esses, V. M. (2004). Individual differences in reactions to sexist humor. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 89–100. doi:10.1177/1368430204039975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–1339. doi:10.1037/a0012453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Weaver, K., & Vescio, T. (2015). The justification of social inequality in response to masculinity threats. Sex Roles, 72, 521–535. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0484-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wicker, F. W., Barron III, W. L., & Willis, A. C. (1980). Disparagement humor: Dispositions and resolutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 701–709. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zillmann, D. (1983). Disparagement humor. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research: Basic issues (Vol. 1, pp. 85–107). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1996). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 93–116). New York: Wiley & Sons (Original work published 1976).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emma C. O’Connor
    • 1
  • Thomas E. Ford
    • 1
  • Noely C. Banos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWestern Carolina UniversityCullowheeUSA

Personalised recommendations