Higher prevalence of gender harassment has previously been identified in male dominated workforces, but not in academia. Factors such as implicit bias, male dominance, perceived gender threat, and heightened masculinity may increase the likelihood of gender harassment occurring in an academic setting. Two studies investigated this. In Study 1, one hundred seventy-one (92 male, 79 female) participants from male dominated and gender equivalent majors completed an online survey in which their explicit attitudes regarding gender and authority (GAM; see Rudman & Kilianski, 2000), and implicit associations regarding gender and careers (IAT; see Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) were measured. Additionally, female participants completed a sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ; see Fitzgerald et al., 1988). Men from male dominated majors did not exhibit more explicit attitudes favoring men in authority than men from gender equivalent majors (p = .220, d = .26), but did exhibit more implicit bias stereotyping men as associated with careers and women with the family (p = .017, d = .51). Females from male dominated majors experienced more gender harassment than females from gender equivalent majors (p = .017, d = .55). In Study 2, one hundred fifty-four male participants self-reported their masculinity, completed a group task with a female confederate leader serving as a gender threat in half the conditions, and then had their subsequent affect, perceptions of leadership effectiveness, and behavioral aggression measured. Men from male dominated majors and men who had received a gender threat did not differ from men from gender equivalent majors and men who had not received a gender threat on affect, perceptions of leadership effectiveness, or behavioral aggression (ps > .201, ηp2s ≤ .007). However, additional analyses revealed that as masculinity increased among men from male dominated majors under gender threat, they became more behaviorally aggressive (b = 5.92, p = .003) and perceived their female's leader's leadership as being less effective (b = -0.83, p = .076). Based on these findings, it is recommended that future research on gender harassment focus on men from male dominated majors who are high on masculinity.

A study investigated men and women's attributions of criticism, rejection, and threats to gender status in a fictitious partner conflict scenario in which the victim was either a man or a woman. The results indicated that in the context of a partner conflict scenario that ends in violence, greater perceived threats to gender status are attributed to a female victim who criticizes a man's manhood more than a male victim who criticizes a woman's womanhood. The results also revealed that women attribute greater amounts of criticism/rejection and gender status threat in a victim's statements toward an abuser than men do, regardless of the gender of the victim. Individual differences in gender role stress, ambivalent sexism, and propensity for abusiveness failed to moderate these effects. These results present preliminary evidence grounded in precarious manhood theory that attributions of intention during domestic conflicts differ along gendered lines.

The disparity in frequency of orgasms between men and heterosexual women has been linked qualitatively to women purposefully not communicating their sexual needs in order to preserve their partner’s masculinity. In two studies I experimentally evaluated this relationship, sampling heterosexual undergraduate women. In study 1 (N = 246) I demonstrated that women who imagined not having an orgasm rated an imaginary partner as more insecure in his manhood, relative to women who imagined having an orgasm or going on a dinner date. These perceptions of insecurity mediated the relationship between not having an orgasm and reporting anxiety about hurting their partner’s ego. Additionally, this relationship was moderated by the degree to which women believe manhood must be earned and can be lost through sex. In study 2 (N = 282) I predicted women who imagine a partner who is insecure in his masculinity, relative to imagining a secure partner or a control condition, will be less willing to provide open and honest sexual communication, and this relationship would be mediated by anxiety about their partner’s ego, a relationship moderated by endorsement of precarious manhood beliefs. My analyses did not reveal support for these hypotheses. Implications, limitations and future directions are discussed.