The social class that an individual belongs to predicts a range of different outcomes across many domains including cognitive development, physical health, mental health and mortality (Hackman et al., 2015; Marmot & Wilkinson, 1999). This is because social class dictates the kinds of environment we inhabit. These environments will then serve to constrain our experiences and result in predictable, class-based, patterns of thought, feeling and behaviour (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt & Keltner, 2012). An example of this is self-esteem. There is an established body of literature suggesting that class is associated with self-esteem. In a meta-analysis of 446 samples, Twenge and Campbell (2002) reported that while social class and self-esteem were positively associated, the association was small. They found an average effect size of d=.15 and overall correlation of r=.08. This may not represent a massive effect however, gaining an improved understanding of class-based differences in self-esteem is important. Having low self-esteem predicts greater levels of depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse (Leary, 2012). This research aims to further to this understanding by considering the influence of masculinity on the self-esteem of men from different social classes. Like class, masculinity is socially constructed and intrinsically connected to a man’s self-concept thus influencing thoughts, feeling and behaviour (Courtenay, 2000; Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Moreover, masculinity is also an important predictor of a man’s self-esteem (Burkley, Wong & Bell, 2015). However, upper class (UC) and lower class (LC) males enact different forms of masculinity (Pyke, 1996; Wimmer & Levant, 2013) potentially indicating that masculinity may differ in importance between the social classes. This research aims to test this by threatening men’s masculinity and examining if there are class based differences in self-esteem following said threat.
The sociometer theory of self-esteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000) holds that self-esteem serves as a psychological index of how socially accepted and valued we feel by others. The key idea is that self-esteem is interpersonal in nature and as such is highly responsive to social feedback (Leary, 2012). Essentially, self-esteem is derived from how we think others will perceive our characteristics and behaviour. As such when we perform behaviours that appear to boost our self-esteem, it is because this behaviour was intended to improve our relational value to others (MacDonald, Saltzman & Leary, 2003). Given this, the theory predicts that when an individual is rejected by a person or group it should reduce self-esteem, while being accepted should lead to increased self-esteem. Support for this comes from a meta-analysis conducted by Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles and Baumeister (2009). They reviewed 72 studies that examined the effect of acceptance or rejection on self-esteem. They reported that rejection reduced self-esteem, with an overall effect size of 0.30, while acceptance increased self-esteem, with an overall effect size of 0.27. The theory also extends the work of Coopersmith (1967) by suggesting that there are a number of attributes or behaviours that contribute to our relational value and as such influence our self-esteem (Leary, 2012). Indeed, MacDonald and colleagues (2003) found that an attribute was important to a person’s self-esteem to the extent that they thought it was important in terms of social acceptance or rejection. However, there will be individual difference in the contribution of these attributes based on the groups we belong to and the importance the ascribe to certain attributes (Leary & Baumeister, 2000).
While group-based influence will be important in determining the salience of certain attributes, society at large does place pre-eminence on certain features. A typically important one is material resources (Kraus et al., 2012; MacDonald et al., 2003). Differences in material resources is likely a key factor behind class-based differences in self-esteem. In their study, Kraus and Park (2014) found that the relationship between objective social class, measured through income and education, and self-esteem was moderated by the participants perceptions of their subjective social rank. Requiring participants to think about their subjective social rank will have required them to engage in an intrapersonal evaluation of their level of material resources in comparison to others. For the UC participants this will have boost their self-esteem as they can conclude that they are high in an attribute that is important for social acceptance and thus improve their relational value (MacDonald et al., 2003). LC participants on the other hand will have concluded that they are a low in material resources relative to others in society. As such, being lower in this attribute reduces their relational value and increases the likelihood that they will be rejected thus lowering their self-esteem (MacDonald et al., 2003). The sociometer theory holds that when individuals are unable to gain acceptance through traditional routes, i.e. material resources, they then resort to maladaptive, deviant or anti-social behaviours to gain acceptance (Leary, 2012). Because LC men will be unable to improve their relational value using their material resources, they may rely on other attributes to increase their likelihood of social acceptance. One particular attribute that they may rely heavily on is their masculinity.
The literature on gender suggests that acting in a gender congruent manner is important for everyone (Moss-Racusin, Phelan & Rudman, 2010; Rudman, 1998), however this may be particularly true of LC men. LC men may be more likely to display forms of hypermasculinity as a means to boost their status and thus improve their relational value (Pyke, 1996). Hypermasculinity is a maladaptive form of masculinity that emphasises dominance across three key domains capturing a tendency to act aggressively, subordinate women and take risks (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984). In an ethnography of LC men from the Southern US states, Eastman (2012) observed that LC men adopted a form of hypermasculinity as a means of boosting their status in a society where they are otherwise undervalued. Their form of masculinity emphasised physical aggression, dominance over women and alcohol and drug used as means of gaining acceptance among one another. This fits with the assertion of sociometer theory that those who are unable to gain acceptance via traditional routes resort to deviant behaviours as a means to increase their relational value (Leary, 2012). However, given the nature of ethnographic research, it is hard to generalised Eastman’s results to other LC men as his observations are grounded in a specific context.
The current research aims to further understanding by employed quantitative psychological methods to study the intersection of masculinity and social class and the effect this has on self-esteem. To understand class-based differences in masculinity the research will examine the extent to which the men conform to dominant masculine norms using the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (Mahalik et al., 2003). Secondly, it will examine the importance that these men place on their masculinity using the Masculinity Contingency Scale (Burkey et al., 2015). Finally, it will experimentally assess the class-based importance of masculinity by considering the effect that a masculinity threat or affirmation has on self-esteem.
Based on the above research and the literature in general I have developed four hypotheses. Firstly, there will be a class-based difference in the types of masculine norms the men endorse. LC men will display greater endorsement of norms relating to power over women and violence. While UC men will more strongly endorse norms relating to the primacy of work, pursuit of status and Winning. Secondly, there will be a class-based difference in masculinity contingency, with LC men staking more of their self-worth on masculinity compared to UC men. Thirdly, a masculinity threat will cause a greater reduction in the self-esteem of LC men compared to UC men. Finally, affirmation of masculinity will result in a bigger increase in self-esteem for LC men relative to UC men.