Content uploaded by Kris T Gebhard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kris T Gebhard on Oct 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity
Threatened-Masculinity Shame-Related Responses
Among Straight Men: Measurement and Relationship to
Aggression
Kris T. Gebhard, Lauren B. Cattaneo, June P. Tangney, Stephanie Hargrove, and Rachel Shor
Online First Publication, September 27, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000177
CITATION
Gebhard, K. T., Cattaneo, L. B., Tangney, J. P., Hargrove, S., & Shor, R. (2018, September 27).
Threatened-Masculinity Shame-Related Responses Among Straight Men: Measurement and
Relationship to Aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000177
Threatened-Masculinity Shame-Related Responses Among Straight Men:
Measurement and Relationship to Aggression
Kris T. Gebhard, Lauren B. Cattaneo, June P. Tangney, Stephanie Hargrove, and Rachel Shor
George Mason University
The significant sex-based discrepancy in violent crime suggests that something about maleness or
masculinity contributes to this pattern. Research on masculinities clearly indicates that if men struggle to
meet masculine gender role expectations, they are likely to report distress (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987;
O’Neil, 2008). Empirical work demonstrates that failing to meet these expectations causes some men to
become aggressive (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), but literature has not fully elucidated the psychological
experience of that connection. To better understand the role threatened masculinity may play in
fomenting male aggression, we created a new measure of threatened-masculinity shame-related re-
sponses. We then explored how these experiences related to aggression. The Masculinity and Shame
Questionnaire is a scenario-based measure of shame-related responses to threatened masculinity: feel
shame, escape, prevent exposure, and externalize blame. In a validation study with heterosexual males
(n⫽460), we found strong evidence for validity of the Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire among
heterosexual men and a clear connection between threatened-masculinity shame-related responses and
self-reports of a tendency to be physically aggressive. Threatened-masculinity externalization of blame
mediated the relationship between threatened-masculinity shame-related responses and self-reported
physically aggressive behaviors. Further, regression analyses showed that threatened-masculinity shame-
related responses account for variance in self-reported physically aggressive behaviors above and beyond
the variance accounted for by general shame. Results suggest the threatened-masculinity shame dynamic
is critical to consider in violence prevention and intervention work.
Keywords: threatened masculinity, aggression, shame, gender role stress
Men commit most of the violence in the world. In the United
States, for instance, 98% of mass shooters since 1966 were men,
and men committed 89.5% of the homicides between 1980 and
2008 (Cooper & Smith, 2011). The gender discrepancy in violent
crime is not merely attributable to biology. A body of literature on
gender-based violence against women (including transgender
women) suggests that there is something more complex afoot
(Dutton & Golant, 1995; Russo & Pirlott, 2006). There is some-
thing about enacting the male gender role, and all of the stress and
difficulty that can involve, that leads some men to turn to aggres-
sion. Understanding more about those dynamics is essential for
efforts to prevent male violence, including violence to other men,
to women, and to specific populations such as transgender indi-
viduals and nonbinary individuals.
Empirical literature provides some clues about the link between
the enactment of the male gender role and violence. Of particular
relevance, receiving a signal that one might fail as a man—the
experience of threat to masculinity— has been shown to predict
subsequent aggression (Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, &
Arzu Wasti, 2009; Talley & Bettencourt, 2008). Although the
mechanism for this effect is not yet clear, there is reason to believe
that the experience of shame may be the lynchpin: Aggression may
be a culturally endorsed behavior allowing men to avoid the
profoundly painful experience of shame. An obstacle to exploring
that possibility has been the absence of a validated measure of
shame-related responses to threatened-masculinity, and the current
study fills that gap.
Before describing the study, we review the relevance of threat-
ened masculinity to men’s distress and aggression, and the cen-
trality of shame in that dynamic. We then describe the develop-
ment of the measure we created and evidence for its validity
among heterosexual men. Finally, we describe evidence for the
measure’s utility, including its connection to self-reported aggres-
sive behavior.
Literature Review
Although there is not yet a measure that gathers information
about men’s psychological experience when their masculinity is
under threat, there is evidence that many men do experience threats
to their masculinity. Katz (2006); Kimmel (1997, 2013), and
Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, and Weaver (2008) propose
that masculinity is tenuous, requiring constant public maintenance.
Further, a body of experimental literature indicates that many men
experience distress when their masculinity is challenged, including
Kris T. Gebhard, Lauren B. Cattaneo, June P. Tangney, Stephanie
Hargrove, and Rachel Shor, Department of Psychology, George Mason
University.
This research was supported with a grant from the Diversity Committee
of the Department of Psychology, George Mason University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lauren B.
Cattaneo, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400
University Drive, MSN 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: lcattane@gmu
.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2018 American Psychological Association
2018, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000 1524-9220/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000177
1
increased anxiety (Vandello et al., 2008), lowered self-esteem
(Ratliff & Oishi, 2013), lowered cognitive ability (Funk & Wer-
hun, 2011), lower confidence in their physical ability (Hunt, Gon-
salkorale, & Murray, 2013), increased negativity toward effemi-
nate gay men (Glick, Gangl, Gibb, Klumpner, & Weinberg, 2007),
increased victim blaming (Munsch & Willer, 2012), and increased
general aggression (Talley & Bettencourt, 2008; Vandello et al.,
2008). Thus, it is clear that threat to masculinity is distressing and
leads to a range of negative responses. However, scholarship has
not fully articulated the psychological experience of the threat that
causes these responses; specifically, scholarship has not explored
shame-related responses to threatened masculinity.
Theory suggests, and empirical work provides some beginning
support for the idea, that shame may be the lynchpin of the
threatened-masculinity dynamic (Gilligan, 1996; Kimmel, 1997;
Krugman, 1995; Laurendeau, 2014; O’Neil, 2013). Research has
shown that men experiencing higher levels of masculine gender
role stress (MGRS) or gender-role conflict are also likely to be
shame-prone (Efthim, Kenny, & Mahalik, 2001; Reilly, Rochlen,
& Awad, 2014; Thompkins & Rando, 2003). More indirectly, prior
literature has identified several reactions to threatened masculinity
that correlate with shame: Threatened manhood causes anxiety
(George, Phillips, Doty, Umhau, & Rawlings, 2006; Vandello &
Bosson, 2013), lowered self-esteem (Ratliff & Oishi, 2013), and
reduced empathy (Carlo et al., 2012; McPhedran, 2009). Anxiety,
low self-esteem, and impaired empathy have each been associated
with shame (Tangney, 1995), and there is extensive literature on
threatened masculinity (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), masculinity
ideologies (Thompson & Bennett, 2015), and the relationship
between MGRS and violence (Baugher, & Gazmararian, 2015).
But no research has directly explored the relationship between
threatened masculinity and shame.
In her foundational text differentiating shame and guilt, Lewis
(1971) explained that when someone feels guilty about something
they have done, they are focused on the behavior that they regret
and may feel remorseful and/or seek to make restitution for any
negative consequences affecting others. However, when someone
is ashamed about something they have done, they believe their
global self to be flawed; the focus of their attention is the self. This
state of negative self-evaluation can be overwhelming, triggering
individuals to want to avoid it and/or hide from witnesses. Lewis
argued that individuals may defensively avoid shame, “bypassing”
the shame feeling to find fault with others instead. Through “ex-
ternalization of blame,” or “attacking others” (Nathanson, 1992),
threatened individuals may gain a sense of agency and control
(Scheff & Retzinger, 1991; Tangney, 1995). General shame as-
sessments measure individuals’ negative self-evaluation, desire to
hide, and externalization of blame (Tangney et al., 2008) in re-
sponse to a range of everyday failures and transgression. The ways
that men experience shame specific to failures in manhood have
not yet been explicitly explored, but it is logical that they might be
similar.
There is reason to believe that externalization of blame, as a
possible response to shame, is especially relevant to aggression.
When individuals “bypass” their shame, their externalization of
blame is often angry and hostile—rather than consciously feeling
angry at their own flawed selves, individuals aggressively release
the anger outward, at others. The relationship between external-
ization of blame and aggression has been well-documented empir-
ically in the general literature (Elison, Garofalo, & Velotti, 2014;
Stuewig, Tangney, Heigel, Harty, & McCloskey, 2010; Tangney,
Wagner, Burggraf, Gramzow, & Fletcher, 1991), but not with
specific reference to threatened masculinity. In this context, ag-
gression may be a tempting way to demonstrate masculinity in a
way that both is consistent with cultural norms and that releases
the angst caused by shame. The demonstrated relationship between
hypermasculinity and aggression (Gold, Fultz, Burke, Prisco, &
Willett, 1992; Mosher & Sirkin, 1984; Parrott & Zeichner, 2003)
supports the idea that such behavior is consistent with gender role
norms. However, likely because of limitations in available mea-
sures, the literatures on threatened masculinity and masculinity
ideologies (see Baugher & Gazmararian, 2015; Thompson & Ben-
nett, 2015; and Vandello & Bosson, 2013 for comprehensive
reviews) do not include an empirical exploration of this phenom-
enon.
Assessing Threatened-Masculinity Shame-Related
Responses
The dynamics of shame are challenging to measure because by
their very nature, they are unlikely to be reported accurately in the
moment (Harder & Lewis, 1987; Lewis, 1971; Tangney & Dear-
ing, 2003). Thus, a well-validated measure of proneness to shame
across context, the Test of Self-Conscious Affect, Version 4
(Tangney et al., 2008), measures shame and shame-related re-
sponses indirectly through presenting hypothetical scenarios and
asking respondents to rate how likely they would be to respond in
particular ways. As the family of TOSCA measures and their
forerunners demonstrate good reliability and validity across stud-
ies (Tangney et al. 1991; Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow,
1996; Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992) and have
been successfully adapted to measure other constructs, such as
anger (Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow,
1996), we modeled the Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire
(MASQ) after it.
Measure subscales. The TOSCA evaluates proneness to gen-
eral shame and shame-related responses by assessing the catego-
ries of guilt and shame-related responses that scholarship on the
topic has generated (Lewis, 1971; Tangney, 1995): shame (negative
self), shame (hide), and externalization of blame. However, there is
evidence that the dynamics of shame may vary by domain (e.g.,
body-focused shame; Weingarden, Renshaw, Tangney, & Wilhelm,
2016). Therefore, we reviewed the masculinity literature described
earlier to ensure the TOSCA shame-related categories were appro-
priate for this context. Based on that literature, we confirmed the
relevance of the TOSCA categories and added a fourth. Specifi-
cally, a key feature of scenarios in which masculinity is threatened
is gender discrepancy: The sense that there is disconnect between
who one is and who one “should” be produces the shame experi-
ence. Men may consciously experience shame, feeling negatively
about self. Whether or not men consciously feel shame, they may
respond to shame in a variety of nonmutually exclusive ways.
They may seek to immediately escape the shame-inducing situa-
tion; in the TOSCA, this subscale is called Shame (Hide), but for
clarity we named it Escape. Men may find fault with someone else
(externalize blame). The additional dynamic that emerged from the
threatened-masculinity literature is fear and/or avoidance of expo-
sure. This literature suggests that some men’s strongest response to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2GEBHARD, CATTANEO, TANGNEY, HARGROVE, AND SHOR
threat may not be consciously feeling negatively about self or
wanting to immediately escape the threatening situation, but rather
desiring for others not to know about what happened (Vandello et
al., 2008). Gilbert (1997, 1998, pp. 20 –22) described this concept
as “external shame.” Fearing and seeking to avoid others’ judg-
ment indicates a global negative self-evaluation rooted in shame,
regardless of one’s conscious awareness of it in the moment
(Gilbert, 1997). We captured this response in a subscale titled
Prevent Exposure.
Scenarios in which masculinity is likely to be threatened.
We engaged in a rigorous process of item generation and revision
through literature review and consultation, to construct scenarios
covering all areas where evidence suggests masculinity is threat-
ened. In addition to masculinity threats demonstrated by experi-
mental literature (see Vandello & Bosson, 2013 for a review), we
built on a well-validated measure, the Masculine Gender Role
Stress Scale (MGRSS; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). The scale pres-
ents men with 40 hypothetical gender discrepant situations and
asks them to rate how stressful it would be to experience such an
event. We expect that this “stress” may encompass shame-related
responses to threatened masculinity for some men. Thus, the
MGRSS appeared to be an ideal scale to inspire scenarios for the
MASQ. We selected two subscales that showed particular support
from prior work: Physical Inadequacy and Performance Failure at
Work related to both general externalization of blame and general
shame proneness (Efthim et al., 2001).
We chose to focus the measure on threat to masculinity for
heterosexual men, as a key long-term goal for this work is the
exploration of causes of heterosexual male violence against
women (including trans women) and gay men. For example, in
their literature review of MGRS, Baugher and Gazmararian
(2015) note the connection between MGRS and aggression
toward women and gay men, and numerous studies have sho-
wn that homophobic aggression is one way threatened men
demonstrate manhood (O’Connor, Ford, & Banos, 2017; Talley
& Bettencourt, 2008). Thus, we designed the original MASQ to
assess straight men’s threatened-masculinity shame-related re-
sponses.
Validity and Utility of the MASQ
In the current study, we aimed to establish the validity of the
MASQ for use among heterosexual men through a three-step
process. We first consulted with community members and experts
on the content of the measure to ensure its broad relevance. We
then piloted the measure with a small group to confirm clarity of
the wording. Finally, we administered the measure to a sample of
college students and community members along with a battery
of measures selected to explore convergent and divergent validity.
On an exploratory basis, we also used this sample to investigate the
relationship between the measure and self-reported tendency to be
physically aggressive. Through these steps, we evaluated the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
(1) Threatened-masculinity shame and associated shame-
related responses are a set of constructs that are (a) inter-
related but distinguishable from each other, (b) related to
but distinguishable from general shame-proneness, and (c)
specific to men.
(2) The convergent validity of the MASQ will be supported by
the relationship between the subscales and the following
constructs:
a. Gender role stress: As we hypothesize that shame-
related responses of threatened-masculinity shame are a
key component of gender role stress, we expect a pos-
itive relationship among these constructs.
b. Masculinity contingency and male role norms: Both
men whose self-worth is more contingent on their mas-
culinity and men who are more invested in masculine
gender expectations should score higher on the MASQ.
(3) With respect to divergent validity, as shame is profoundly
distressing, it tends to be somewhat related to both negative
and positive states (Tangney, Miller et al., 1996). However,
if the MASQ measures a phenomenon that is distinct from
those states, the relationship should be weak. Specifically,
we expect that the relationships between the MASQ and the
measures of divergent validity will be significantly weaker
than the relationships between the MASQ and measures of
convergent validity. Divergent validity constructs include
the following: (a) guilt, which has been repeatedly shown
to be distinct from shame (Tangney, Wagner, et al., 1996);
(b) well-being; and (c) self-efficacy (Baldwin, Baldwin, &
Ewald, 2006). Both well-being and self-efficacy are broad
aspects of one’s psychology functioning. Although propen-
sity to feel ashamed may have some relationship with these
constructs, that relationship should be weak, as myriad
coping strategies and other aspects of personality and cir-
cumstance can contribute to these outcomes.
(4) With respect to aggression, on an exploratory basis, we
hypothesize that shame-related responses to threatened
masculinity will relate to self-reported physically aggres-
sive behaviors in the following ways:
a. Shame-related responses to threatened masculinity will
relate to self-report of a tendency to be physically ag-
gressive in a way that is distinct from general shame.
b. Threatened-masculinity externalization of blame will ac-
count for the variance in self-report of physically aggres-
sive tendencies accounted for by other threatened-
masculinity shame-related responses (Feel Shame, Escape,
and Prevent Exposure).
Method
Measure Development
Consultation with community members and scholars. In
addition to the literature review just described, to ensure the broad
relevance of measure content, we consulted with individuals and
groups, brainstorming scenarios and response options fitting with
their personal experiences. Consultants were diverse, representing
backgrounds across social class, race, gender, and sexual orienta-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
THREATENED-MASCULINITY SHAME-RELATED RESPONSES
tion spectrums.
1
After drafting all scenarios and response options,
we delivered the MASQ to the original consultants and additional
individuals who had no familiarity with the measure and integrated
their feedback. We then shared our draft items with two experts in
the field for review, one in the area of shame and the other in the
area of social identity.
2
The 41 scenarios that were generated through this process fall
into four domains that are experienced as threatening to mascu-
linity (see Appendix A for final measure, divided by domain). The
first two domains relate to gender: being perceived as feminine and
failing to be masculine enough. The second pair of domains relate
to sexuality: being perceived as homosexual and failing to be
heterosexual enough.
Pilot. As a final step, we administered the scale to a small
sample (n⫽29) of heterosexual undergraduate men. For each
scenario, we included the free response option: “Is there anything
else you would feel in that situation?” We also asked participants
to identify any confusing wording. We edited content in response
to written-in-response options and our review of the distribution of
items and subscales.
Measure Validation
Participants and procedure. Participants were recruited
from two sources: undergraduate students who completed the
survey to receive research credit in a psychology course at a
large mid-Atlantic university (male: n⫽86; female: n⫽181)
and male individuals recruited through Amazon Mechanical
Turk (MTurk; n⫽374), who were paid $2.00 for completing
the survey.
3
The survey took participants an average of 45 to 60
min, and although participants were allowed to exit the survey
at any time, to receive compensation, participants were required
to complete all questions, preventing missing data. University
participants were limited to those who identified their sexual
orientation as “heterosexual/straight” and their gender as male
or female.
4
MTurk participants were additionally limited to
those who identified their gender as male. Because we were
interested in masculinity in the United States, MTurk partici-
pants were also required to indicate their current residence.
Further, as is common practice among researchers using
MTurk, only individuals with a U.S. bank account were allowed
to access the survey on the MTurk website (Chandler & Sha-
piro, 2016; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). Despite
these safeguards, 55 participants endorsed that they were U.S.
residents, but the geolocation of their IP address recorded in the
survey website indicated they were located outside of the US,
and they were therefore excluded from the data set.
Participants were recruited from MTurk’s website and the psy-
chology department’s research-for-credit website with posts ad-
vertising an academic survey seeking to understand “how people
respond to events and experiences.” Interested participants signed
an online consent form and completed the survey electronically.
Aside from the initial screening questions, we ordered the survey
with demographic questions at the end. General measures of psy-
chological well-being were followed by 41 draft MASQ scenarios
and the 15 TOSCA scenarios randomly ordered, and then other
scales relating to masculinity.
Measures
Demographics. Before completing the rest of the survey, par-
ticipants reported their age, gender, and sexual orientation for
eligibility purposes. Social class was measured using the MacAr-
thur Subjective Social Status Ladder (Adler & Stewart, 2007).
Participants place themselves on a ladder where the top represents
those who are “best off—those who have the most money, the
most education, and the most respected jobs” and the bottom those
who are defined as the “worst off.”
Test of Self-Conscious Affect. To explore hypotheses related
to general shame and discriminant validity from general guilt, we
administered the TOSCA-4 (Tangney et al., 2008). The Test of
Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA) is a reliable, well-validated mea-
sure consisting of five subscales to measure shame-proneness,
guilt-proneness, and proneness to externalization of blame. An
example scenario is as follows:
“You toss a bottle of water to your friend and it accidentally hits them
in the face. How likely is it that: (a) You would feel like such a screw
up you’d disappear at the first opportunity? (Shame–Hide); (b) You’d
feel like a clumsy fool? (Shame–Negative Self); (c) You would feel
sorry and wish you’d been more careful? (Guilt–Remorse); (d) You
would apologize and make sure your friend feels better? (Guilt–
Amend); and (e) You would think maybe your friend needs to pay
more attention? (Externalization of Blame).
The internal consistencies of the TOSCA subscales were strong in
the current study, manifesting as follows: Shame–Hide (␣⫽.91),
Shame–Negative Self (␣⫽.89), Externalization of Blame (␣⫽
.90), Guilt–Remorse (␣⫽.87), and Guilt–Amend (␣⫽.87).
Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire. We developed four
subscales for the MASQ: Feel Shame, Escape, Prevent Exposure,
and Externalize Blame. The Feel Shame, Escape, and Externalize
Blame scales were modeled after the corresponding TOSCA con-
structs as identically as possible. Feel Shame items are designed to
capture a global negative view of the self, related to the presented
scenario (e.g., “You would feel like a loser who doesn’t deserve a
1
Education levels included high school, college, masters, and doctoral;
income levels ranged from no income or government subsidies only (n⫽
3), to less than $50,000 annually (n⫽20), to $50,000 or more annually
(n⫽6); and racial groups included Euro-Americans (n⫽18), African
Americans (n⫽7), Asian Americans (n⫽2), and Latino Americans (n⫽
2). To ensure we adequately captured aspects of threatened-masculinity
shame of which straight cisgender (individuals who do not identify as
transgender; hereafter “cis”) men may be unaware, consultants were also
gender and sexual orientation diverse, including straight cis men (n⫽6),
straight cis women (n⫽8), gay cis men (n⫽3), lesbian cis women (n⫽
1), gay queer cis men and women (n⫽3), straight transgender women
(n⫽2), and individuals who identify as queer, genderqueer, and/or
transgender (n⫽6).
2
Although the expert in the area of shame is the third author on the
article, she did not have a role in constructing the scenarios. Thus, her
review was without prior knowledge of the content.
3
MTurk is an online crowd-sourcing marketplace in which individuals
or businesses may post human intelligence tasks they need completed;
social science researchers have found the platform to be a convenient way
to recruit a diverse sample of participants for online studies, with limita-
tions discussed in the following text (Chandler & Shapiro, 2016). The
average rate of pay in 2010 was $1.38/hr (Horton & Chilton, 2010).
4
Data from the female sample were used only for analyses comparing
female and male responses; all other analyses were conducted using solely
the male sample.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4GEBHARD, CATTANEO, TANGNEY, HARGROVE, AND SHOR
date”). Escape items ask participants how likely they would want
to get away from the context where the event occurred, or avoid it
in the future (e.g., “You would want to just go home”). There are
some scenarios in which simply leaving the situation is something
anyone might want to do, regardless of their level of shame. For
these scenarios, an additional statement relating to feeling ashamed
is added to the beginning (e.g., “You would feel so bad about
yourself you’d begin to avoid these friends”). Because externaliz-
ing blame is a defensive shame-avoidance strategy, the Externalize
Blame items blame someone or something else related to the
scenario because of an intrinsic flaw (e.g., “You would think, ‘this
test’s definition of “masculine” and “feminine” is bogus’”). The
fourth subscale for the MASQ captures the shame-related response
that captures fear that others may learn about one’s failure in
masculinity. Every response option in the Prevent Exposure sub-
scale is either “You would try to keep other people from finding
out about this” or “You would worry about other people finding
out about this.”
5
Participants rated how likely they would be to respond to the
scenario in the way listed on a 5-point Likert scale, from “not
likely”to“very likely.” The measure included the instructions used
by the TOSCA, which includes an example scenario and reasons
for selecting the response options. Subscale scores were calculated
using means.
Measures Assessing Convergent Validity
Masculine Gender Role Stress. The MGRSS (Eisler & Skid-
more, 1987) is a reliable, well-validated (Eisler, Skidmore, &
Ward, 1988) 40-item scale that assesses how stressful participants
imagine it would be to fail to meet masculine gender role expec-
tations by asking them to respond to various situations on a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all” stressful to “extremely”
stressful. As is typical in the literature (Moore & Stuart, 2005), we
used the full-scale score (␣⫽.95 in this study).
Male Role Norms. Thompson and Pleck’s Male Role Norms
Scale (Thompson & Pleck, 1986; MRNS) is a reliable, well-
validated, and frequently used measure of traditional masculinity
ideology (Mahalik et al., 2003; Thompson, Pleck, & Ferrera, 1992;
Whorley & Addis, 2006). The 26-item scale has three dimensions
evaluating categories of norms: status, toughness, and antifemi-
ninity. For this study we used the total scale score, as is typical
(Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002). Participants responded to
statements such as “When a man is feeling a little pain he should
try not to let it show very much” on a 7-point very strongly
disagree to very strongly agree Likert scale. Internal consistency
within our sample was strong (␣⫽.93).
Masculinity Contingency Scale. The Masculinity Contin-
gency Scale (MCS) is 10-item scale with strong validity and
reliability that measures the extent to which a man’s self-worth is
derived from his sense of masculinity (Burkley, Wong, & Bell,
2016). The scale contains two subscales: Contingency Threat,
consisting of items such as “I can’t respect myself if I don’t behave
like a real man,” and Contingency Boost, consisting of items such
as “When I act manly, I feel good about myself.” We used the
full-scale score. Participants responded to statements on a 7-point
very strongly disagree to very strongly agree Likert scale. Internal
consistency with our sample was strong (␣⫽.94).
Measures Assessing Divergent Validity
TOSCA Guilt subscales. We administered the full TOSCA
(described earlier) to enable use of the Guilt (Remorse) and Guilt
(Amend) subscales to evaluate divergent validity. Internal consis-
tency of each subscale was strong in our sample ([alpha] ⫽.88 and
.88).
General Self-Efficacy Scale. The General Self-Efficacy Scale
(Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) is a 10-item scale measuring belief
in general competence across domains. Its high reliability and
validity have been demonstrated in numerous studies across 28
countries (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). Example
items include, “I am confident that I could deal efficiently with
unexpected events” and “I can always manage to solve difficult
problems if I try hard enough.” The scale’s internal consistency in
the present study was strong (␣⫽.90).
Brief Inventory of Thriving. The Brief Inventory of Thriving
(Su, Tay, & Diener, 2014) is a 10-item short-form of the Compre-
hensive Inventory of Thriving, which measures an individual’s
general psychological well-being. Example items include, “My life
has a clear sense of purpose” and “I am optimistic about my
future.” Internal consistency was strong in our sample (␣⫽.91).
Measures Assessing Utility of MASQ
Self-reported physically aggressive behaviors. We used the
well-validated nine-item Physical Aggression subscale of the
Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992), a
measure of tendency to engage in physically aggressive behaviors.
Participants selected how well the statements described them ac-
cording to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (extremely un-
characteristic of me)to5(extremely characteristic of me). Exam-
ple items include, “Given enough provocation, I may hit another
man,” “There are people who pushed me so far that we came to
blows,” and “If somebody hits me, I hit back.” Internal consistency
was strong in our sample (␣⫽.80).
Results
Participant Demographics
As detailed in Table 1, participants ranged from 18 to 74 years,
with a mean of 32.1 years. The sample was majority European
American (71.3%), with the next largest group Asian American
(13.5%). The female sample was demographically comparable
with the male undergraduate sample with regard to race, socioeco-
nomic status, and age. Although the sample was not diverse
enough to enable demographic-specific analyses, it is comparable
with or more diverse than many studies on masculinity, whose
samples were typically majority European American college stu-
dents (Burkley et al., 2016; Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Partici-
pants and their families were fairly educated but were otherwise
socioeconomically diverse, reporting a range of ladder positions
from one to 10, with a mean ladder rung of 5.2.
5
For validation purposes, we edited gendered language to be appropriate
for the heterosexual female sample wherever needed (e.g., male partici-
pants read, “Someone dares you to arm wrestle your girlfriend,” whereas
female participants read, “Someone dares you to arm wrestle your boy-
friend.”).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
THREATENED-MASCULINITY SHAME-RELATED RESPONSES
Measure Development
Before investigating the validity of the MASQ, in the interest of
producing a parsimonious measure, we used the data set together
with the feedback we gathered in earlier steps to reduce the
number of scenarios from the 41 included in the draft. First, we
evaluated frequencies to remove any scenarios that participants
found minimally threatening, as evidenced by fewer than 10% of
participants responding “probably likely” or “very likely” to any
response category. No scenarios met this criterion. Second, we
assessed the ecological validity of the scenarios, referring to feed-
back we compiled in the pilot of the draft measure and in consul-
tation with experts and community members in the steps described
earlier. That process allowed us to identify scenarios that had the
clearest connection to threatened masculinity rather than a con-
founding variable and that resonated across respondents. For ex-
ample, we cut the scenario “You are passed over for a promotion.”
We believed the similar scenario “Your manager criticizes your
job performance and fires you” was a clearer indictment of the
subject’s failure to perform masculinity adequately. Finally, we
ensured that the scenarios included a wide range of contexts and a
variety of audiences, to maximize their relevance across potential
samples. Specifically, we categorized each scenario according to
its domain of threat (gender—perceived as feminine; gender—
failing to be masculine enough; sexuality—perceived as homosex-
ual; and sexuality—failing to be heterosexual enough), the location
of threat (home, work, social situation, and general public), the
type of threat (e.g., physical inadequacy, intellectual and inferior-
ity, showing tender emotions), and the audience who witnesses the
situation (romantic partner, friends, strangers, and/or coworkers).
Through these steps, we selected the scenarios with the strongest
ecological validity and representation across the categories. We
identified 25 scenarios to drop and 17 scenarios to keep, producing
the final measure used in all analyses that followed (see Appendix
for scenarios and domains).
Measure Validation
Hypothesis 1: Construct validity of subscales. Ideally, we
would have evaluated the four subscales of the MASQ using a
confirmatory factor analysis. However, given that the measure is
scenario-based, variance is based not only on subscale but also on
scenario. Thus, an appropriate measurement model of the MASQ
would include latent variables for the four subscales and for each
scenario: This model would include 21 latent variables for 68
observed variables, each of which would load on multiple latent
variables. To properly test such a complicated factor structure,
which achieves convergence with the covariance matrices, a pro-
hibitively large sample size would be necessary. To our knowl-
edge, no such analysis has been attempted on the TOSCA measure
of shame and guilt—the most widely used measures of these
constructs. Not surprisingly, test–retest reliabilities for the TOSCA
and other scenario-based measures are considered more appropriate
analyses for validity and tend to be comparable with those reported for
more conventional nonscenario-based measures (Harder & Lewis,
1987; Tangney, Wagner, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1991). Thus, we
relied on indices of reliability and validity to evaluate our subscales.
We examined Pearson’s correlations to determine whether sub-
scales represent distinct constructs, as indicated by different rela-
tionships to each other and various outcomes. We compared cor-
relations using Lee and Preacher’s (2013) software, which uses the
Fisher rto ztransformation to convert correlation coefficients to z
scores and then uses Steiger’s (1980) equations to compute as-
ymptopic covariance of the estimates, entered in an asymptopic z
test.
Associations among MASQ subscales are listed in Table 2. The
correlations among MASQ–Feel Shame, MASQ–Escape, and
MASQ–Prevent Exposure subscales were strong. The associations
between MASQ–Externalize Blame and the other MASQ sub-
scales were moderate. MASQ–Feel Shame and MASQ–Escape
related to other scales similarly. However, the MASQ-Feel Shame
Table 1
Demographics
Demographic
University
(male)
MTurk
(male)
Total male
sample
Age—mean years (SD) 20.8 (3.3) 34.7 (11.9) 32.1 (12.1)
Race (%)
European American 47.7% 76.7% 71.3%
African American 11.6% 4.5% 5.9%
Asian American 20.9% 11.8% 13.5%
Hispanic 2.3% 7.0% 6.1%
Other 25.6% 2.0% 6.5%
Participant’s education—mean years (SD) 14.2 (2.3) 15.4 (2.1) 15.2 (2.0)
Mother’s education (%)
Finished high school or less 14.2% 39.8% 35%
Finished trade school, associates degree, or some college 23.3% 27.0% 25%
Finished college 40.7% 23.5% 25%
Finished graduate school 20.9% 9.6% 12%
Father’s education (%)
Finished high school or less 14.1% 43.3% 38%
Finished trade school, associates degree, or some college 18.6% 22.4% 22%
Finished college 31.4% 19.5% 22%
Finished graduate school 34.9% 14.7% 18.5%
Subjective social status—mean (SD) 6.2 (1.5) 5.1 (2.0) 5.2 (1.8)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6GEBHARD, CATTANEO, TANGNEY, HARGROVE, AND SHOR
subscale measures a conscious acknowledgment of experiencing
feeling ashamed at the moment, whereas MASQ–Escape measures
a behavioral response to shame. We elected to keep all four
subscales as originally designed, to maintain the clarity of distinc-
tion between conscious acknowledgment of feeling shame and
various behavioral responses to shame.
Evaluating relationships among MASQ subscales and the con-
vergent and divergent validity measures (described in the follow-
ing text; Table 3) supported the conclusion that feeling shame,
seeking immediately escape from the shame-inducing situation, pre-
venting future exposure, and externalizing blame are valid constructs
representing distinct responses to threatened-masculinity shame. After
identifying the final scenarios for our final measure, we used SPSS
(IBM Corporation, 2010) to evaluate the internal consistency for the
subscales and examined whether removing a scenario would improve
the subscale’s internal consistency. We identified no scenarios to
remove, and the four subscales also showed strong internal consis-
tency (␣⫽.90, .87, .93, and .87, respectively).
We used ttests to compare male and female responses with the
MASQ for each of the subscales.
6
Although TOSCA scores were
similar between men and women, men’s scores on MASQ scales
tended to be higher than women’s (Table 4). That difference was
significant on three of four subscales. Female MASQ subscale
scores showed internal consistency lower than male scores (␣⫽
.85, .80, .86, and .81, respectively). Further, there were no signif-
icant correlations between female MASQ subscale scores and the
TOSCA subscale scores, whereas for men, all of these associations
were significant (Table 2).
Hypotheses 2 and 3: Convergent and divergent validity.
We ran Pearson’s correlations between MASQ subscales and the
assessments administered for convergent and divergent validity;
Table 2 details the strong evidence of validity of the measure for
use among heterosexual men. Using Fisher’s r-to-ztransformation,
we calculated the mean correlations for convergent and divergent
validity scales. MASQ subscales related to convergent scales
strongly, with a mean rof .644 (p⬍.01), ranging from .36 (p⬍
.01) to .77 (p⬍.01), whereas the MASQ subscales related to
divergent scales with a mean rof ⫺.029, with absolute values
ranging from .01 to .24 (p⬍.01). Relationships between MASQ
scores and male role norms were significantly weaker than rela-
tionships between MASQ scores and MGRS or masculine contin-
gency, ranging from z⫽⫺3.55 to z⫽⫺4.53 (p⬍.001).
Hypothesis 4: Relationship between MASQ subscales and
physical aggression. To evaluate the extent to which threatened-
masculinity shame-related responses relate to a tendency to be
physically aggressive, we ran Pearson’s correlations between
MASQ subscales and the Buss–Perry Physical Aggression sub-
scale. There were significant correlations between all MASQ sub-
scales and the Buss–Perry Physical Aggression subscale (Table 4).
To parse out the relationships between general shame (Negative
Self and Hide) and aggression and threatened-masculinity shame
and aggression, we conducted hierarchical multiple regression. In
the first step, TOSCA–Shame (Negative Self) and TOSCA–Shame
(Hide) together explained 3.1% of the variance in self-reported
physically aggressive behavior, F(2, 456) ⫽7.21, p⬍.01. On the
second step, adding in MASQ–Feel Shame, MASQ–Escape, and
MASQ–Prevent Exposure explained an additional 7.8% of the
variance, ⌬F(2, 453) ⫽13.17, p⬍.001). When both the TOSCA
and the MASQ were included in the model, both had subscales that
remained significantly and uniquely related to self-reported phys-
ically aggressive behaviors (TOSCA–Shame Negative Self:
⫽⫺.150; MASQ–Feel Shame: ⫽.356). Together, the two
variables accounted for 10.8% of the variance in self-reported
physically aggressive behaviors.
As a post hoc analysis, we also explored whether the MASQ
subscales predicted self-reported physically aggressive behaviors
over and above the other masculinity-related scales (MGRSS,
MRNS, and MCS). Indeed, hierarchical regression showed that
even taking into account the relationship between aggression and
these other masculinity-related measures, MASQ subscales were
significant predictors, for MGRSS, ⌬F(4, 453) ⫽6.42, p⬍.001;
for MRNS, ⌬F(4, 453) ⫽14.76, p⬍.001; and for MCS, ⌬F(4,
453) ⫽9.51, p⬍.001).
To examine our mediation hypotheses, we followed recommen-
dations made by Preacher and Hayes (2004) for bootstrapping. We
conducted mediation analyses using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS
6
Because the females were all from the college sample, we compared
them with the college male sample.
Table 2
Correlations Among MASQ Subscales, TOSCA Subscales, and Aggression
Subscale M(SD)12345678
1. MASQ–Feel Shame
a
2.75 (.83) —
2. MASQ–Escape 2.63 (.83) .87
ⴱⴱ
—
3. MASQ–Prevent Exposure 2.91 (.94) .79
ⴱⴱ
.84
ⴱⴱ
—
4. MASQ–Ext. Blame 2.64 (.70) .59
ⴱⴱ
.68
ⴱⴱ
.64
ⴱⴱ
—
5. TOSCA–Shame (Neg. Self) 2.73 (.83) .76
ⴱⴱ
.68
ⴱⴱ
.55
ⴱⴱ
.35
ⴱⴱ
—
6. TOSCA–Shame (Hide) 2.17 (.78) .71
ⴱⴱ
.77
ⴱⴱ
.59
ⴱⴱ
.51
ⴱⴱ
.71
ⴱⴱ
—
7. TOSCA–Ext. Blame 1.93 (.74) .49
ⴱⴱ
.54
ⴱⴱ
.48
ⴱⴱ
.69
ⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱ
.59
ⴱⴱ
—
8. Physical Aggression
b
2.62 (.78) .29
ⴱⴱ
.24
ⴱⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱ
.33
ⴱⴱ
.11
ⴱⴱ
.17
ⴱⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱ
—
Note. Male sample data only. MASQ ⫽Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire; TOSCA ⫽Test of Self-Conscious Affect; TOSCA–Shame (Neg. Self) ⫽
TOSCA–Shame (Negative Self) subscale; TOSCA–Ext. Blame ⫽TOSCA Externalization of Blame subscale; MASQ–Escape ⫽MASQ–Escape
Immediately subscale; MASQ–Ext. Blame ⫽MASQ–Externalize Blame subscale; Physical Aggression ⫽Buss–Perry Physical Aggression subscale.
a
1⫽not likely,2⫽probably not likely,3⫽half/half,4⫽probably likely,5⫽very likely.
b
1⫽extremely uncharacteristic of me,2⫽uncharacteristic
of me,3⫽neither uncharacteristic nor characteristic of me,4⫽characteristic of me,5⫽extremely characteristic of me.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01, two-tailed.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
THREATENED-MASCULINITY SHAME-RELATED RESPONSES
SPSS macros, macro bootstrapping the sampling distribution with
1,000 resamples. The bootstrapped model of MASQ–Feel Shame
and MASQ–Externalize Blame predicting physical aggression was
significant, F(2, 457) ⫽41.1, p⬍.001. In this model, the direct
effect of MASQ–Feel Shame was nonsignificant (⫽.13, SE ⫽
.05, p⫽.011), and the indirect effect via MASQ–Externalize
Blame was significant (⫽.14, SE ⫽.03, 95% confidence
interval [.09, .21]). Thus, the significant association of MASQ–
Feel Shame with physical aggression was accounted for by
MASQ–Externalize Blame. Similarly, the bootstrapped model of
MASQ–Escape and MASQ–Externalize Blame predicting physi-
cal aggression was significant, F(2, 457) ⫽290.12, p⬍.001. In
this model, the direct effect of MASQ–Escape was nonsignificant
(⫽.04, SE ⫽.04, p⫽.460), and the indirect effect via
MASQ–Externalize Blame was significant (⫽.19, SE ⫽.04,
95% CI [.12, .27]). Also similarly, the bootstrapped model of
MASQ–Prevent Exposure and MASQ–Externalize Blame predict-
ing physical aggression was significant, F(2, 456) ⫽29.10, p⬍
.001. In this model, the direct effect of MASQ–Prevent Exposure
was nonsignificant (⫽.05, SE ⫽.05, p⫽.260), and the indirect
effect via MASQ–Externalize Blame was significant (⫽.15,
SE ⫽.03, 95% CI [.09, .23]). Thus, MASQ–Externalize Blame
mediates the relationship between MASQ–Feel Shame, the re-
sponses to shame MASQ–Escape and MASQ–Prevent Exposure,
and physical aggression, supporting Hypothesis 4.
Discussion
The results of this study indicate the MASQ has strong validity
as a measure of heterosexual men’s shame-related responses to
threatened masculinity, distinct from general shame. It was related
as hypothesized to measures of convergent validity, was signifi-
cantly less related or unrelated to measures of divergent validity,
and was distinctly relevant to men, not women. Finally, results
provide preliminary evidence of a link between threatened-
masculinity shame-related responses and an outcome of critical
importance to masculinity studies: physical aggression. In the
following text we detail these findings, the limitations of the data,
and implications for future research.
The final MASQ includes four subscales, representing shame-
related responses to threatened-masculinity: Feel Shame, Escape,
Prevent Exposure, and Externalize Blame. In addition to support-
ing the validity of the measure for use with heterosexual men,
results add to prior literature that has shown that the experience of
threatened masculinity is distressing (Vandello & Bosson, 2013),
Table 3
Correlations Between MASQ Subscales and Scales Assessing Convergent and Divergent Validity
Subscale
Scales Assessing Convergent Validity Scales Assessing Divergent Validity
MGRSS MCS MRNS
TOSCA–Shame
(Hide)
TOSCA–Shame
(Neg. Self)
TOSCA–Ext.
Blame
TOSCA–Guilt
(Amend)
TOSCA–Guilt
(Remorse) GSES BIT
MASQ–Shame .62
ⴱⴱ
.53
ⴱⴱ
.37
ⴱⴱ
.75
ⴱⴱ
.71
ⴱⴱ
.56
ⴱⴱ
⫺.09 .15
ⴱⴱ
⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
⫺.20
ⴱⴱ
MASQ–Escape .61
ⴱⴱ
.51
ⴱⴱ
.36
ⴱⴱ
.77
ⴱⴱ
.62
ⴱⴱ
.56
ⴱⴱ
⫺.06 .20
ⴱⴱ
⫺.17
ⴱⴱ
⫺.16
ⴱⴱ
MASQ–Prevent .64
ⴱⴱ
.55
ⴱⴱ
.43
ⴱⴱ
.60
ⴱⴱ
.53
ⴱⴱ
.48
ⴱⴱ
.01 .24
ⴱⴱ
⫺.06 ⫺.05
MASQ–Ext. Blame .52
ⴱⴱ
.52
ⴱⴱ
.41
ⴱⴱ
.47
ⴱⴱ
.34
ⴱⴱ
.69
ⴱⴱ
⫺.09 .08 ⫺.03 ⫺.03
Note. Male sample data only. MASQ ⫽Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire; MGRSS ⫽Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale; MCS ⫽Masculinity
Contingency Scale; MRNS ⫽Male Role Norms Scale; TOSCA ⫽Test of Self-Conscious Affect; TOSCA–Shame (Neg. Self) ⫽TOSCA–Shame (Negative
Self) subscale; TOSCA–Ext. Blame ⫽TOSCA–Externalization of Blame subscale; GSES ⫽General Self-Efficacy Scale; BIT ⫽Brief Inventory of
Thriving; MASQ–Shame ⫽MASQ–Feel Shame subscale; MASQ–Prevent ⫽MASQ–Prevent Exposure subscale; MASQ–Ext. Blame ⫽MASQ–
Externalize Blame subscale.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
Table 4
Results of t Test and Descriptive Statistics for MASQ and TOSCA Subscale Means by Sex
Subscale
Sex
95% CI for mean difference tdf
Male Female
MSDMSD
MASQ–Feel Shame 2.32 .71 1.96 .54 .36 [.21, .51] 4.18
ⴱ
132.29
MASQ–Escape 2.42 .75 2.17 .55 .25 [.07, .43] 2.76
ⴱ
130.04
MASQ–Prevent Exposure 2.63 .88 2.23 .65 .40 [.19, .61] 3.78
ⴱ
131.29
MASQ–Ext. Blame 2.47 .81 2.32 .57 .16 [⫺.04, .35] 1.61 126.54
TOSCA–Shame (Neg. Self) 2.73 .83 2.99 .89 ⫺.26 [⫺.48, ⫺.03] ⫺2.25 265
TOSCA–Shame (Hide) 2.17 .78 2.26 .74 ⫺.09 [⫺.28, .11] ⫺0.87 265
TOSCA–Ext. Blame 1.93 .74 1.82 .60 .12 [⫺.06, .30] 1.27 140.51
Note. MASQ ⫽Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire; TOSCA ⫽Test of Self-Conscious Affect; MASQ–Ext.
Blame ⫽MASQ–Externalize Blame subscale; TOSCA–Shame (Neg. Self) ⫽TOSCA–Shame (Negative Self)
subscale; TOSCA–Ext. Blame ⫽TOSCA–Externalization of Blame subscale; CI ⫽confidence interval.
Samples compared were the undergraduate samples only; female (n⫽181), male (n⫽84).
ⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8GEBHARD, CATTANEO, TANGNEY, HARGROVE, AND SHOR
by further articulating the shame-related elements of that experi-
ence.
Specifically, results showed that those who are prone to general
shame are also more prone to experience shame related to threat-
ened masculinity. Three of the subscales (Feel Shame, Escape, and
Externalize Blame) parallel the subscales of the TOSCA, the
measure of general shame. Mean scores on the TOSCA and the
MASQ show that men tend to feel negatively about themselves to
a similar degree in both sets of scenarios (2.73 and 2.75, respec-
tively). However, in response to threatened masculinity, men re-
ported higher likelihood of wanting to escape the shame-inducing
situation (2.17 vs. 2.63) and/or externalize the blame (1.93 vs.
2.64). In other words, in this study, men’s tendency to want to get
away or blame someone else was stronger when they were re-
sponding to a hypothetical threat to masculinity than when they
were responding to the prospect of general missteps. In addition to
these parallels, results showed that there are unique aspects to the
experience of threatened masculinity.
In particular, results related to the Prevent Exposure subscale
add to prior work. Those results showed that men’s desire to
prevent others from finding out about threats to their masculinity
is distinct from their wish escape the situation. The difference
between these constructs may reflect the need to navigate social
norms related to masculinity (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), even for
those who do not personally subscribe to those norms. Indeed,
Prevent Exposure was significantly less strongly correlated with
general shame-proneness than was Feel Shame. In other words,
men’s desire to prevent exposure was less related to their overall
tendency to view themselves as flawed and perhaps more related to
awareness that their performance of masculinity has consequences
socially. However, the significant relationships between Prevent
Exposure and other shame-related responses to threatened mascu-
linity indicates that Prevent Exposure indeed captures a response
rooted in threatened-masculinity shame. This finding is consistent
with Gilbert’s (1997) distinction between fear of humiliation,
which is focused on others, and fear of shame (or “external
shame”), which is focused on the flawed self. This level of aware-
ness is an important part of the dynamic around threatened mas-
culinity that might drive behavior.
Nuances in the connections among MASQ subscales and other
masculinity-focused scales also suggest that there is a difference
between the need to navigate masculinity norms and belief in those
norms. Assessments of gender role stress (the MGRSS), and/or
masculinity contingency of self-worth (the MCS), and the MASQ
all assess men’s responses to hypothetical situations, whereas the
MRNS assesses their views about masculinity expectations. The
MRNS was more weakly related to the MASQ than the other
scales. It is telling that there are likely men who endorse the
ideology of male role norms but who are not threatened-
masculinity shame-prone. Such a possibility raises the question of
what protective factors may be at play that allow these men to feel
confident in their masculinity and less vulnerable to feeling chal-
lenged in their manhood. The MASQ also covers areas of threat to
masculinity that are not discussed in the MRNS, such as sexuality.
Perhaps these areas of threat are shame provoking even for men
with limited investment in masculinity ideology represented by the
MRNS. Future research might explore these possibilities.
As hypothesized, we found that both shame in general and
shame-related responses to threatened masculinity were signifi-
cantly related to physical aggressive tendencies. However, in this
study, threatened-masculinity shame-related responses were stron-
ger predictors. This finding implies that it is crucial to consider
both kinds of shame when investigating physical aggression
among men. Furthermore, post hoc analyses revealed that although
men who endorsed MGRS, masculinity contingency, and/or in-
vestment in male role norms were also likely to endorse physically
aggressive tendencies, threatened-masculinity shame-related re-
sponses accounted for variance in physical aggression over and
above each of the other masculinity-related constructs.
Also as expected, the indirect effect of threatened-masculinity
shame on physical aggression is accounted for by threatened-
masculinity externalization of blame, whether the shame is ex-
pressed as a negative self-evaluation, desire to escape, or fear of
others finding out about the threat to masculinity. In other words,
men were more likely to report physically aggressive behavior if
they also reported a tendency to respond to threatened masculinity
by feeling ashamed or responding to shame via escape or prevent-
ing exposure, and externalizing blame. Thus, our results support a
hypothesis for future experimental research: Men’s aggressive
response to threatened masculinity is explained by their tendency
to externalize blame.
Limitations
A limitation of our study is that our sample was majority
(71.6%) European American. It is possible that some scenarios
need to be culturally adapted to make the MASQ accessible for
men of other races/ethnicities, and exploring that possibility will
require a larger and more diverse sample than we had in the current
study. Our sample was also fairly educated and lacked significant
representation of elder men; future research might explore the need
to adapt across social class and/or across age. Finally, Chandler
and Shapiro (2016) found that compared with typical college
samples or general online samples, MTurk samples are more
socially anxious, have more trouble with emotional regulation, and
are more likely to have symptoms consistent with autism spectrum
disorder. Thus, a future study with a community sample is needed
to ensure that the MASQ is broadly applicable. In addition, a
limitation of our study is the lack of a community sample of
females. A future study with a community sample should include
female participants for comparison.
Another notable limitation is the self-report, cross-sectional
nature of the study. Especially for measures of aggression, self-
report provides limited data on the actual aggressive behavior
exhibited by participants. Stuewig and colleagues (2010) note that
especially when considering relationships between shame, exter-
nalization of blame, and aggression, it is important to consider
perspective. A shame-prone and/or externalization of blame-prone
individual may feel more aggressive than they actually behave or
are perceived by others, or vice versa. The current study did not
include situation-specific aggression or track participant responses
over time. Thus, our findings regarding aggression should be
understood as preliminary, requiring confirmation.
Implications for Research
The MASQ can be used to advance research on masculinity
in important directions. As previously discussed, research
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
THREATENED-MASCULINITY SHAME-RELATED RESPONSES
might explore adapting the measure to ensure validity for
specific populations of men, accounting for diversity of expe-
riences by race, social class, and age. In addition, although the
MASQ was designed to measure threatened masculinity shame-
related responses for heterosexual men, it is likely that gay men
may vary in their investment in traditional masculine ideologies
and may thus experience shame-related responses to threatened
masculinity as well (McDermott et al., 2017; Vandello &
Bosson, 2013). Future studies might adapt the MASQ to assess
gay men.
Knowing more about shame-related responses to threatened
masculinity is a necessary first step for many intervention-relevant
questions posed by theory that remain unanswered. For example,
what predicts variance in the response to threatened masculinity?
Are there characteristics of individuals or situations which predict
that variance? Are there dynamic risk factors or protective factors
related to experiencing threatened-masculinity shame-related re-
sponses that we might develop programs to address? Future studies
using the MASQ could gather more demographic information
from participants, as well as more detailed information about their
life experiences and current involvement in activities, that may
threaten or bolster their masculinity. We also suggest that future
studies assess misogynistic attitudes toward women, to more fully
explore the relationship between misogyny and the experience of
threat to masculinity. Experimental studies are important for ex-
ploring the variety of factors at play when men experience threats
to masculinity and subsequently feel ashamed (and/or externalize
the blame).
In the aggregate, the MASQ reveals an individual’s threatened-
masculinity shame-related tendencies. The measure cannot parse
apart an individual’s psychological experience in the moment to
understand the exact role different responses to shame might play
in prompting behavior. Experimental research is needed to better
understand the extent to which men are consciously aware of their
threatened-masculinity shame. We speculate that in some situa-
tions, it is not culturally acceptable for men to feel ashamed for
failure in masculinity; in these situations, men may be more likely
to repress or “bypass” feelings of shame and respond instead by
working to prevent others knowing about their failure (Prevent
Exposure) or pointing out the failures of others (Externalize
Blame; Lewis, 1971). It is possible that men sometimes respond to
threat in multiple ways sequentially, first feeling shame and then
responding behaviorally (hiding, working to prevent exposure,
and/or externalizing the blame). Further research is needed to
explore these possibilities.
Relatedly, experimental studies and qualitative studies are
needed to explore a variety of research questions relating to the
role externalization of blame may play in causing aggressive
behavior. For example, it is possible that externalization of
blame may serve as a protective factor for the psychological
repercussions of threatened-masculinity shame (e.g., anxiety);
if so, are there particular channels of socially acceptable exter-
nalization of blame that could be more effectively challenged
and reframed?
Further research on threatened-masculinity shame-related re-
sponses can support the creation or enrichment of interventions
with men who use violence. Given the current study’s findings
that both general shame and threatened-masculinity shame-
related responses are important to consider when addressing
tendency to be physically aggressive, interventions should con-
sider addressing general shame, as well as threatened-
masculinity shame-related responses. For example, perhaps in-
terventions with men who are partner-violent may be enriched
to help men feel more comfortable acknowledging their shame,
rather than externalizing blame to their partner, and acting
violently toward them.
Similarly, interventions on homonegativity could be developed
to help men develop a stronger sense of masculinity not contingent
upon gender policing other men. Stotzer and Shih’s (2012) finding
that men with high sexual prejudice reacted to threat to masculinity
by rating themselves lower in masculinity suggests that future
research is needed to more fully understand the ways threatened-
masculinity shame-related responses may undergird homonegative
aggression. Prior work shows that men police gay men based on
gender to assert and demonstrate their own masculinity (Franklin,
2000; Franklin, 2004; Hamner, 1992; Kimmel, 1997; Kite &
Whitley, 1998; Kroeper, Sanchez, & Himmelstein, 2014; Pascoe,
2011). This violence may be propagated by fear that without
gender policing, men may not be seen as masculine by other
straight men and may experience shame as a result (Norton &
Herek, 2013; Sloan, Berke, & Zeichner, 2015). What protective
factors might men use against feeling threatened by gay men,
preventing a felt need for aggression? There is also an urgent need
to better understand causes of male violence against transgender
women and gender-nonconforming individuals (Waters, Jinda-
surat, & Wolfe, 2016). The current study results suggest that
threatened-masculinity shame-related responses may be an integral
part of the puzzle.
In addition to its usefulness for furthering research in the areas
discussed earlier, our results suggest the MASQ might be helpful for
use in general mental health work with men, such as individual
therapy, group therapy, peer support groups, and community-based
interventions. Assessing men with both the TOSCA and the MASQ
might help practitioners parse out the nature of men’s shame-
proneness and identify the most effective ways to help men acknowl-
edge and address their shame. More research on therapy interventions
for addressing shame is needed, as psychology has strong theory but
limited empirical research in this area (Tangney & Dearing, 2011).
Greenberg and Iwakabe (2011) theorized that emotion-focused
therapy can effectively address shame through helping clients in four
key areas: increasing experience of relational validation through in-
terpersonal relations including therapy, accessing and acknowledging
shame, regulating shame by tolerating negative affect rather than
trying to avoid it, and transforming shame by generating more resil-
ient emotional responses to challenging experiences. Gilbert’s (2010
and 2014) compassion-focused therapy shows promise as a treatment
that works to address shame by helping participants develop and
practice compassion—warm, caring validation—for themselves and
others, as well as to mindfully receive compassion from others
(Braehler, Gumley, Harper, Wallace, Norrie, & Gilbert, 2013). Initial
pilot studies suggest that several behavioral skills from dialectical
behavior therapy have strong potential for shame-prone clients (Rizvi,
Brown, Bohus, & Linehan, 2011). Exploring interventions to address
threatened-masculinity shame-related constructs specifically can in-
form treatment with men and help practitioners learn how to leverage
insight gained through MASQ assessments to increase effectiveness
of treatment.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 GEBHARD, CATTANEO, TANGNEY, HARGROVE, AND SHOR
References
Adler, N. E., & Stewart, J. (2007). The MacArthur Scale of subjective
social status. Retrieved from http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/
psychosocial/subjective.php
Baldwin, K. M., Baldwin, J. R., & Ewald, T. (2006). The relationship
among shame, guilt, and self-efficacy. American Journal of Psychother-
apy, 60, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2006.60.1.1
Baugher, A. R., & Gazmararian, J. A. (2015). Masculine gender role stress
and violence: A literature review and future directions. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 24, 107–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.04
.002
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Arzu
Wasti, S. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggres-
sion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623– 634. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331161
Braehler, C., Gumley, A., Harper, J., Wallace, S., Norrie, J., & Gilbert, P.
(2013). Exploring change processes in compassion focused therapy in
psychosis: Results of a feasibility randomized controlled trial. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 199 –214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
bjc.12009
Burkley, M., Wong, Y. J., & Bell, A. C. (2016). The Masculinity Contin-
gency Scale (MCS): Scale development and psychometric properties.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 17, 113–125. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0039211
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452– 459. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452
Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., McGinley, M. M., Samper, P., Tur, A., &
Sandman, D. (2012). The interplay of emotional instability, empathy,
and coping on prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Personality and
Individual Differences, 53, 675– 680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid
.2012.05.022
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016). Conducting clinical research using
crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychol-
ogist, 12, 53– 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-
093623
Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States,
1980 –2008. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved
from www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Dutton, D. G., & Golant, S. K. (1995). The batterer: A psychological
profile. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Efthim, P. W., Kenny, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2001). Gender role stress
in relation to shame, guilt, and externalization. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 79, 430 – 438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676
.2001.tb01990.x
Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress. Scale
development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situa-
tions. Behavior Modification, 11, 123–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
01454455870112001
Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-
role stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 52, 133–141.
Elison, J., Garofalo, C., & Velotti, P. (2014). Shame and aggression:
Theoretical considerations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 447–
453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.002
Franklin, K. (2000). Antigay behaviors among young adults: Prevalence,
patterns, and motivators in a noncriminal population. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 15, 339 –362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886
26000015004001
Franklin, K. (2004). Enacting masculinity: Antigay violence and group
rape as participatory theater. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1,
25– 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.25
Funk, L. C., & Werhun, C. D. (2011). “You’re Such a Girl!” The psycho-
logical drain of the gender-role harassment of men. Sex Roles, 65,
13–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9948-x
George, D. T., Phillips, M. J., Doty, L., Umhau, J. C., & Rawlings, R. R.
(2006). A model linking biology, behavior and psychiatric diagnoses in
perpetrators of domestic violence. Medical Hypotheses, 67, 345–353.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2006.01.049
Gilbert, P. (1997). The evolution of social attractiveness and its role in
shame, humiliation, guilt and therapy. British Journal of Medical Psy-
chology, 70, 113–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1997
.tb01893.x
Gilbert, P. (1998). What is shame? Some core issues and controversies. In
P. Gilbert & B. Andrews (Eds.). (1998). Shame: Interpersonal behavior,
psychopathology, and culture (pp. 3–38). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Gilbert, P. (2010). An introduction to compassion focused therapy in
cognitive behavior therapy. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy,
3, 97–112.
Gilbert, P. (2014). The origins and nature of compassion focused therapy.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 6 – 41.
Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: Our deadly epidemic and its causes. New
York, NY: GP Putnam.
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. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9195-3
Gold, S. R., Fultz, J., Burke, C. H., Prisco, A. G., & Willett, J. A. (1992).
Vicarious emotional responses of macho college males. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 7, 165–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088
626092007002003
Greenberg, L. S., & Iwakabe, S. (2011). Emotion-focused therapy and
shame. In R. L. Dearing & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Shame in the Therapy
Hour (pp. 69 –90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12326-003
Hamner, K. M. (1992). Gay-bashing: A social identity analysis of violence
against lesbians and gay men. Hate crimes: Confronting violence against
lesbians and gay men (pp. 179 –190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harder, D. W., & Lewis, S. J. (1987). The assessment of shame and guilt.
In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality
assessment, 6 (pp. 89 –114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
Horton, J. J., & Chilton, L. B. (2010, June). The labor economics of paid
crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on Elec-
tronic commerce (pp. 209 –218). New York, NY: ACM; Retrieved from
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0627.pdf
Hunt, C. J., Gonsalkorale, K., & Murray, S. B. (2013). Threatened mas-
culinity and muscularity: An experimental examination of multiple
aspects of muscularity in men. Body Image, 10, 290 –299. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.02.007
IBM Corporation. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics 19. Armonk, NY: IBM
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/
spss/
Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of masculine
ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of
relationship violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 97–106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97
Katz, J. (2006). Macho Paradox: Why some men hurt women and how all
men can help. Napervill, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc.
Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and
silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N.
Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223–242). New
York, NY: Routledge.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
THREATENED-MASCULINITY SHAME-RELATED RESPONSES
Kimmel, M. S. (2013). Angry white men: American masculinity at the end
of an era. New York, NY: Nation Books.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1998). Do heterosexual women and men
differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and meth-
odological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orienta-
tion: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals
(pp. 39 – 61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/
9781452243818.n3
Kroeper, K. M., Sanchez, D. T., & Himmelstein, M. S. (2014). Heterosex-
ual men’s confrontation of sexual prejudice: The role of precarious
manhood. Sex Roles, 70, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-
0306-z
Krugman, S. (1995). Male development and the transformation of shame.
In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp.
91–126). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Laurendeau, J. (2014). “Just tape it up for me, ok?”: Masculinities, injury
and embodied emotion. Emotion, Space and Society, 12, 11–17. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2013.03.010
Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Calculation for the test of the
difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in
common [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York, NY:
International Universities Press, Inc.
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-
efficacy scale: Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychol-
ogy: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 139, 439 – 457. http://dx.doi.org/10
.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P.,
Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to
Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4,
3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., Hammer, J. H., Hall, R. J., McKelvey,
D. K., & Jones, Z. (2017, November). Further examination of the factor
structure of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF):
Measurement considerations for women, men of color, and gay men.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 724 –738. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/cou0000225
McPhedran, S. (2009). A review of the evidence for associations between
empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggression and Violent Behav-
ior, 14, 1– 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.07.005
Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). A review of the literature on
masculinity and partner violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6,
46 – 61. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-00347-005
Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality
constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 150 –163. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(84)90026-6
Munsch, C. L., & Willer, R. (2012). The role of gender identity threat in
perceptions of date rape and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women,
18, 1125–1146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801212465151
Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride: Affect, sex, and the birth of the
self. New York, NY: Norton.
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward
transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of U.S.
adults. Sex Roles, 68, 738 –753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-
0110-6
O’Connor, E. C., Ford, T. E., & Banos, N. C. (2017). Restoring threatened
masculinity: The appeal of sexist and anti-gay humor. Sex Roles, 77,
567–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0761-z
O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender
role conflict using the gender role conflict scale new research paradigms
and clinical implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 358 – 445.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000008317057
O’Neil, J. M. (2013). Gender role conflict research 30 years later: An
evidence-based diagnostic schema to assess boys and men in counseling.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 91, 490 – 498. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00122.x
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments
on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–
419.
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of trait anger and negative
attitudes towards women on physical assault in dating relationships.
Journal of Family Violence, 18, 301–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1025169328498
Pascoe, C. J. (2011). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high
school. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Re-
search Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731. http://dx.doi
.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Ratliff, K. A., & Oishi, S. (2013). Gender differences in implicit self-
esteem following a romantic partner’s success or failure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 688 –702. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0033769
Reilly, E. D., Rochlen, A. B., & Awad, G. H. (2014). Men’s self-
compassion and self-esteem: The moderating roles of shame and mas-
culine norm adherence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15, 22–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031028
Rizvi, S. L., Brown, M. Z., Bohus, M., & Linehan, M. M. (2011). The role
of shame in the development and treatment of borderline personality
disorder. In R. L. Dearing & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Shame in the therapy
hour (pp. 237–260). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12326-010
Russo, N. F., & Pirlott, A. (2006). Gender-based violence: Concepts,
methods, and findings. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1087, 178 –205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1385.024
Scheff, T. J., & Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Emotions and violence: Shame
and rage in destructive conflicts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale.
Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control
beliefs, 1, 35–37.
Sloan, C. A., Berke, D. S., & Zeichner, A. (2015). Bias-motivated aggres-
sion against men: Gender expression and sexual orientation as risk
factors for victimization. Sex Roles, 72, 140 –149.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.87.2.245
Stotzer, R. L., & Shih, M. (2012). The relationship between masculinity
and sexual prejudice in factors associated with violence against gay men.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 13, 136 –142. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0023991
Stuewig, J., Tangney, J. P., Heigel, C., Harty, L., & McCloskey, L. (2010).
Shaming, blaming, and maiming: Functional links among the moral
emotions, externalization of blame, and aggression. Journal of Research
in Personality, 44, 91–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.005
Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of the
Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of
Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being, 6, 251–279.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027
Talley, A. E., & Bettencourt, B. (2008). Evaluations and aggression di-
rected at a gay male target: The role of threat and antigay prejudice1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 647– 683. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00321.x
Tangney, J. P. (1995). Recent advances in the empirical study of shame and
guilt. American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 1132–1145. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0002764295038008008
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2011). Working with Shame in the
therapy hour: Summary and integration. In R. L. Dearing & J. P.
Tangney (Eds.), Shame in the therapy hour (pp. 375– 404). Washington,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 GEBHARD, CATTANEO, TANGNEY, HARGROVE, AND SHOR
DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
12326-000
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2003). Shame and guilt. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are
shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256 –1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.70.6.1256
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., Krishnan, S., Youman, K., Appel, M., Roop, L.,
& Durbin, K. M. (2008). The test of self-conscious affect–version 4
(TOSCA-4). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Burggraf, S. A., Gramzow, R., & Fletcher,
C. (1991). Children’s shame-proneness, but not guilt-proneness, is re-
lated to emotional and behavioral maladjustment. In Poster presented at
the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington,
DC.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed
into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported
aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 669 – 675.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.669
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Barlow, D., Marschall, D. E., &
Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus
destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 797– 809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.70.4.797
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Marschall, D., & Gramzow, R. (1991). The
anger response inventory (ARI). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Thompkins, C. D., & Rando, R. A. (2003). Gender role conflict and shame
in college men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 79 – 81. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.79
Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of mascu-
linity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men and Masculin-
ity, 16, 115–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038609
Thompson, E. H., Jr., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role
norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/000276486029005003
Thompson, E. H., Jr., Pleck, J. H., & Ferrera, D. L. (1992). Men and
masculinities: Scales for masculinity ideology and masculinity-related
constructs. Sex Roles, 27, 573– 607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF0
2651094
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A
review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14, 101–113. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0029826
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver,
J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 1325–1339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
Waters, E., Jindasurat, C., & Wolfe, C. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, and HIV-Affected hate violence in 2015. Retrie-
ved from https://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ncavp_hvre
port_2015_final.pdf
Weingarden, H., Renshaw, K. D., Tangney, J. P., & Wilhelm, S. (2016).
Development and validation of the body-focused shame and guilt scale.
Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 8, 9 –20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2015.11.001
Whorley, M. R., & Addis, M. E. (2006). Ten years of psychological
research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant meth-
odological trends. Sex Roles, 55, 649 – 658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-006-9120-1
(Appendix follows)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
13
THREATENED-MASCULINITY SHAME-RELATED RESPONSES
Appendix
Masculinity and Shame Questionnaire
Directions:
Below are situations that people are likely to encounter in day-to-
day life, followed by several common reactions to those situations.
As you read each scenario, try to imagine yourself in that
situation. Then indicate how likely you would be to react in
each of the ways described. We ask you to rate all responses
because people may feel or react more than one way to the
same situation, or they may react different ways at different
times.
For example:
A. You wake up early one Saturday morning. It is cold and rainy outside.
a) You would telephone a friend to catch up on news.
1---2---3---4---5
not likely very likely
b) You would take the extra time to read the paper.
1---2---3---4---5
not likely very likely
c) You would feel disappointed that it’s raining. 1---2---3---4---5
not likely very likely
d) You would wonder why you woke up so early.
1---2---3---4---5
not likely very likely
In the above example, you would rate ALL of the answers by
circling a number.
For answer (a) you would circle a “1” if you wouldn’t want to
wake up a friend very early on a Saturday morning—so it would
be not at all likely that you would do that.
For answer (b) you would circle a “5” if you almost always read
the paper if you have time in the morning (very likely).
For answer (c) you would circle a “3” if it’s about half and half.
Sometimes you would be disappointed about the rain and some-
times you wouldn’t—it would depend on what you had planned.
And for answer (d) you would circle a “4” if it you would
probably wonder why you had awakened so early.
Please do not skip any items—rate all responses.
When administrating the measure, scenarios should be random-
ized, as well as it items within them. For the purpose of this
publication, scenarios are listed within their domain. Items cor-
respond to the following subscales:
a. Feel shame
b. Escape
c. Prevent Exposure
d. Externalize Blame
Gender—Perceived As Feminine
(1) You take a highly regarded personality test and the results indi-
cate that your personality is more feminine than masculine.
How likely is it that...
1a. You would feel like failure?
1b. You would want to sink into the floor and disapp-
ear?
1c. You would try to keep other people from finding out
about this?
1d. You would think “this test’s definitions of ‘feminine’
or ‘masculine’ is bogus?”
(2) You are hanging out with friends for the evening, talking
about which movie to watch. Someone suggests a movie
that you and another friend already watched together.
This friend says, “Alright, get out the tissues. [Your
name] here bawled his eyes out when we saw it.” He is
telling the truth.
How likely is it that...
2a. You would feel bad about yourself, like a loser?
2b. You would wish you could disappear?
2c. You would try to keep other people from finding out
about this?
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
14 GEBHARD, CATTANEO, TANGNEY, HARGROVE, AND SHOR
2d. You would think: “My friend doesn’t know when to
shut up?”
(3) You join a gym and meet with a trainer for the first gym.
The trainer is doing your intake evaluation and comments
that you “lift like a girl.”
How likely is it that...
3a. You would feel lousy about yourself, like a loser?
3b. You would feel so awful you would want to leave?
3c. You would try to keep other people from finding out
about this?
3d. You would think: “He must be a terrible lifter, feeling
so insecure”?
Gender—Failing to Be Masculine Enough
(4) You are walking home from the movies with your romantic
partner. As you walk down the street, you are mugged, and
the mugger takes your money.
How likely is it that...
4a. You would think you are a lousy romantic partner for
not being able to fend the mugger off?
4b. You would wish you could disappear?
4c. You would try to keep other people from finding out
about this?
4d. You would think that the street should have been
better lit?
(5) You are playing a team sport, and there are 10 seconds left
to score. You make a mistake that causes your team to lose.
How likely is it that...
5a. You would feel like a failure?
5b. You would want to leave immediately after the game
without talking to anyone?
5c. You would worry about other people finding out
about this?
5d. You would think about all the mistakes your team-
mates made throughout the game?
(6) You are doing an online crossword competition. The cross-
word subject is masculinity, and all the clues are about
things like cars, sports, mechanics, fitness, and other ste-
reotypical masculine subjects. You perform worse than the
rest of the online competitors, of whom a majority are
women.
How likely is it that...
6a. You would feel like a failure?
6b. You would change your username?
6c. You would try to keep other people from finding out
about this?
6d. You would think: “This crossword is dumb?”
(7) You are playing poker and your friend accuses you of
cheating when you are not.
How likely is it that...
7a. You would feel like a horrible person?
7b. You would want to stop playing poker?
7c. You would try to keep other people from finding out
about this?
7d. You would think, “This game is dumb”?
(8) You are at a party and someone dares you to arm wrestle
your girlfriend in front of everyone. She beats you. How
likely is it that...
8a. You would feel inadequate?
8b. You would keep away from everyone who saw her
beat you?
8c. You would try to keep other people from finding out
about this?
8d. You would think: “She cheated?”
(9) Your manager criticizes your job performance and fires
you. How likely is it that...
9a. You would feel you didn’t deserve to work there?
9b. You would avoid seeing your coworkers?
9c. You would try to keep other people from finding out
about this?
9d. You would think: “The manager doesn’t know good
work when he sees it?”
Sexuality—Perceived as Homosexual
(10) You are at a party and begin talking with a man. He asks
you for your number and asks if you would be interested
in a date. How likely is it that...
10a. You would feel disappointed in yourself?
10b. You would end the conversation as quickly as
possible?
10c. You would try to keep other people from finding
out about this?
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
15
THREATENED-MASCULINITY SHAME-RELATED RESPONSES
10d. You would think: “This guy must be so desperate
for a date he thinks everyone is gay?”
(11) You are talking with a woman you just met, who you find
attractive. She asks if you have plans for the weekend with
your boyfriend, implying that she thinks you’re gay.
How likely is it that...
11a. You would feel like a loser who doesn’t deserve a
date?
11b. You would end the conversation as quickly as
possible?
11c. You would try to keep other people from finding
out about this?
11d. You would think: “She must not be used to guys
paying attention to her?”
(12) You overhear a coworker say that he thinks you’re homo-
sexual.
How likely is it that...
12a. You would feel bad about yourself, like a loser?
12b. You would want to leave work?
12c. You would worry about other people finding out
about this?
12d. You would think your coworker is gossiping in
order to distract people from his own sexuality?
Sexuality—Failing to Be Heterosexual Enough
(13) In the bedroom, your lover says that she is not sexually
satisfied.
How likely is it that...
13a. You would feel like a failure?
13b. You would feel so inadequate you would want to
leave?
13c. You would try to keep other people from finding
out about this?
13d. You would think that she is the one with the
problem?
(14) You see someone who is bending over, but they are
looking away. You perceive them to be a woman, and you
find their backside attractive. When they stand up, you
realize the person is a man.
How likely is it that...
14a. You would feel bad about yourself, like a loser?
14b. You would want to get away from the situation as
fast as possible?
14c. You would try to keep other people from finding
out about this?
14d. You would think: “A man should not be wearing
those pants?”
(15) You are at a party and begin talking with a woman who
you find attractive. You ask her on a date, and she gives
you her number. Later in the conversation, you find out
that she is transgender, meaning that she was assigned
“male” at birth but is a woman.
How likely is it that...
15a. You would feel disappointed in yourself?
15b. You would leave the party?
15c. You would try to keep other people from finding
out about this?
15d. You would think: “She shouldn’t have tried to fool
me.”
(16) You would like to find a romantic partner. Every woman
you ask on a date turns you down.
How likely is it that...
16a. You would feel like someone who is too flawed to
ever attract a partner?
16b. You would feel so defeated you would stop asking
women to go out with you?
16c. You would try to keep other people from finding
out about this?
16d. You would think: “Women are just stuck up?”
(17) You are unable to become sexually aroused when you
want to be.
How likely is it that...
17a. You would feel like a failure?
17b. You would feel so inadequate you’d stop having
sex?
17c. You would try to keep other people from finding
out about this?
17d. You would blame your partner for not being sexy
enough?
Received June 13, 2017
Revision received May 31, 2018
Accepted June 1, 2018 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
16 GEBHARD, CATTANEO, TANGNEY, HARGROVE, AND SHOR
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychology of Men & Masculinities
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
