1) The study examined how threats to masculinity affected cortisol levels in male college students. 2) Participants gave a speech and received manipulated feedback about their masculinity that was either consistently high, low, or dropped over time. 3) Contrary to hypotheses, cortisol levels did not significantly change from before to after the speech, and there were no interactions between feedback condition or beliefs about masculinity on cortisol response.

1. Stress Response to Masculinity Threat
Kathryn Lebidine, Brandon L. Kramer, Mary S. Himmelstein, & Kristen W. Springer
Institute for Health, Health Care Policy ,and Aging Research, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854
Materials and Methods
Procedure:
Masculinity beliefs were measured during a prescreening battery prior to
participants’ involvement in the experiment. During this study, male
participants were given three minutes to prepare a five minute speech. During
the speech, computerized, automated feedback on masculinity was given in
one of three conditions: consistently high, consistently low, or rapidly dropping
masculinity.
Masculinity: We measured how much participants endorsed the idea
that masculinity must be earned and consistently displayed through behavior
using the precarious manhood (PM) scale proposed by Vandello and
colleagues (2008). Participants indicated their agreement with five statements
(e.g., “A man needs to prove his masculinity” on a scale ranging from 1
(disagree) to 5 (agree)).
Cortisol: Salivary cortisol was measured in nanomoles per liter via
passive drool at five points during the study: before the baseline (C1), after
the baseline (C2), after the speech (C3), and at two ten minute intervals
during recovery after the speech (C4 and C5). We explored the change in
cortisol level from the post-baseline sample, C2, to the first recovery sample,
C4 for this poster.
Background Conclusions
References
Results
Masculinity is a social construct that shapes the behavior of men through
society’s expectations of ideal manhood. Subscribing to masculine ideals can
lead to many social benefits, such as social dominance and power (Courtenay,
2000). However, when a man's level of masculinity is judged as insufficient or
not meeting societal expectations, a threat to masculinity could be perceived
(Courtenay, 2000; Taylor, 2013). Since current societal value for masculinity is
high, perceived threats may invoke stress responses, including a biological
stress response via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (Dickerson
& Kemeny, 2004; Taylor, 2013). The HPA axis is a neuroendocrine pathway
that helps the body physiologically prepare for stress (Smith & Vale, 2006).
Studies have shown that chronically elevated HPA axis activity can lead to long
term adverse health effects, such as hypertension, reduced immune function,
memory impairment, and diabetes, through increases in the “stress hormone”
cortisol (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004, Smith & Vale, 2006; Taylor, 2013). We
expect an interaction between type of masculinity feedback and cortisol
response, with a stronger effect for individuals who subscribe to the idea of
precarious masculinity.
Participants:
 In exchange for partial course credit in introductory psychology,
150 male undergraduates from Rutgers University completed a
two hour research study.
 Mage = 18.65, SD = 1.04
 Participants identified as White (36%), South Asian (19%),
Hispanic or Latino (13%), East Asian (12%), Black, African-
American, or Caribbean-American (7%), or Other (13%). A total of
5 participants declined to identify a race or ethnicity.
 A total of 7 (4.5%) participants were excluded for incomplete or
non-valid data.
Statistical Analysis:
Using a 2x3 design, this study examined both between group effects of
condition and within subjects effects of cortisol change. A mixed method
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) examined overall cortisol change (C2 to
C4), cortisol change as a function of condition group, cortisol change as
a function of masculinity beliefs, and cortisol change as a function of
both masculinity beliefs and condition.
Results:
The ANOVA revealed that the within subject main of effect of cortisol was
not significant between C2 and C4 (F(1,142)=1.83, p=.178). Furthermore,
when cortisol levels were investigated as a function of masculinity
condition (F(2,142)=1.11, p=.333) or as a function of precarious manhood
score (F(1,142)=0.33, p=.565), the change in mean cortisol levels were
not significantly different. The results were also not significantly different
when cortisol levels were investigated as a function of both condition and
precarious manhood (F(2,142)=0.81, p=.449).
Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-
being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 1385-1401.doi
10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1.
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A
theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
355-391. doi 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
Smith, S. M., & Vale, W. W. (2006). The role of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in
neuroendocrine responses to stress. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8, 383-395.
Taylor, C. J. (2013). Physiological response to loss of social influence and threats to
masculinity. Social Science and Medicine, 103, 51-59. doi
10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.036
Vandello, J.A., Bosson, J.K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R.M., and Weaver, J.R. (2008).
Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325-1339. doi
10.1037/a0012453
Figure 1. Line graph of the change in mean
cortisol levels from Cort2 to Cort4 as a
function of condition group.
Acknowledgements
Research was partly sponsored by a Busch Biomedical Grant to Kristen W.
Springer
 We expected men in the dropping or low masculinity condition to exhibit
a different pattern of cortisol release than men in the high masculinity
condition.
 We also expected men who strongly endorse masculinity to exhibit a
larger stress response when threatened than men who do not strongly
endorse masculinity.
 However, the results yielded no main effect of cortisol change and no
interactions in pattern of change by condition or masculinity.
 We may not have found support for our hypotheses because the Trier
Social Stress Test was too stressful.
 Overall, more research is needed to evaluate possible interactions
between masculinity and physiological stress responses.
 Future studies may want to look at participants in the top quartile of
precarious masculinity beliefs.
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
Baseline Recovery
Cortisolnmol/l
Drop Masc
Low Masc
High Masc
Mixed Method 2 (Cort2, Cort 4) x 3 (Masc Condition) x 2 (Masculinity:PM)
ANOVA
F df p
Within Subject Main Effect of Cortisol 1.83 1, 142 .178
Within Subject Inteaction Cortisol*Condition 1.11 2,142 .333
Within Subject Interaction of
Cortisol*Masculinity 0.33 1, 142 .565
Within Subject Interaciton of
Cortisol*Condition*Masculinity 0.81 2,142 .449
Note: Masculinity is measured by 5 item precarious manhood scale in
prescreen
Measures:
Manipulation: For the consistently
high condition, masculinity was scored as
80/100. For the consistently low condition,
masculinity was scored as 25/100. For the
dropping condition, masculinity was initially
scored high at 80/100, but then dropped
lower to 50/100.
Acknowledgments