The Science of Precarious Manhood: Why the 'Man Up' Script Never Ends

TEST_YOURSELF · How well do you know this science?

1. 01 According to Vandello and Bosson's 2013 review, what makes manhood 'precarious' compared to womanhood?

   Men have more testosterone, making their status shifts more volatileManhood is culturally treated as hard won, easily lost, and requiring repeated public proof — unlike womanhoodMen face more criticism at work, making their identity less stableManhood is tied to physical strength, which declines faster with age

   Vandello and Bosson's synthesis of cross-cultural anthropological and experimental psychological literature identifies the core characteristic: manhood functions as a status that must be actively achieved and repeatedly demonstrated in public, and can be lost through failure or social challenge — a pattern not found as consistently for womanhood. source ↗

2. 02 What did experimental studies on precarious manhood find when men's gender status was publicly challenged in the lab?

   Men became less competitive and more cooperativeMen sought more social support from peersMen showed increased public risk-taking and status-signaling behaviorsMen withdrew from social interaction to avoid further challenge

   Vandello and Bosson's experimental work consistently found that publicly threatening men's manhood status (e.g. telling them their grip strength 'wasn't strong') triggered heightened risk-taking, aggression, and status-signaling behaviors — all aimed at publicly restoring the challenged status. The prove-it reflex is the engine of precarious manhood. source ↗

3. 03 Which four specific norms does Berdahl and colleagues' 2018 paper identify as defining 'masculinity contest culture' at work?

   Be punctual, be decisive, be loyal, be productiveShow no weakness, strength and stamina, dog-eat-dog, put work firstCompete fiercely, hide emotions, earn more, lead othersAchieve results, take risks, dominate rivals, reward loyalty

   Berdahl and colleagues named four specific contest-culture norms: show no weakness (suppress vulnerability), strength and stamina (physical and mental endurance as proof of worth), dog-eat-dog (zero-sum competition), and put work first (total organizational commitment). Each norm independently predicted worse outcomes for individuals and organizations. source ↗

4. 04 What did the 2023 PMC study on masculinity contest culture find about emotional exhaustion?

   Emotional exhaustion was higher in men who volunteered for contest environmentsMasculinity contest culture norms predicted emotional exhaustion, compounded by emotional suppression requirementsEmotional exhaustion was unrelated to contest norms but linked to job complexityEmotional exhaustion was reduced in contest cultures because of clear performance feedback

   The 2023 PMC study found that masculinity contest culture norms predicted emotional exhaustion in men, and that emotional suppression — itself a core contest-culture norm — mediated the pathway, amplifying the exhaustion. This reveals a self-reinforcing loop: contest norms require you to suppress the emotional cost of meeting contest norms. source ↗

5. 05 In Berdahl et al.'s 2018 framework, who is harmed by masculinity contest culture in the workplace?

   Primarily women and gender minoritiesPrimarily men who don't fit traditional masculine normsMen, women, and organizations alike — contest culture predicts worse outcomes across the boardOnly new hires who haven't yet learned to navigate contest norms

   Berdahl and colleagues explicitly found that masculinity contest culture predicted worse individual outcomes (lower job satisfaction, higher burnout, worse health) and worse organizational outcomes for men and women alike. The title 'Harmful for Whom?' from the 2023 follow-up study was answered: harmful for nearly everyone in the system. source ↗